+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Wikileaks as Fact (/showthread.php?tid=197140)
Wikileaks as Fact - BCam - 10-29-2016
An honest question.
Has anyone authenticated any of the e-mails that Wikileaks has released?
Has anyone who had their e-mails hacked stepped forward and publicly announced, "Yes, that is the e-mail I wrote"?
I'm not saying that e-mails weren't hacked, but how hard would it be for Wikileaks to add or subtract content from the stolen documents, rewrite them and format them to appear legitimate, then release them?
It's a question I have never heard directly addressed, except a statement like "NBC News cannot independantly verify the content" and then off they go to quote passages. I keep thinking of reporters Wooward, Bernstein and Editor Ben Bradlee at the Washington Post agonizing over not having enough corroborating sources to move forward with their Watergate investigation.
Re: Wikileaks as Fact - $tevie - 10-29-2016
I haven't researched it at all - but as far as I can tell, nobody on popular news sites has worried about the fact that these emails are like third generation as far as the chain of custody goes.
"Chain of custody" ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody
Re: Wikileaks as Fact - max - 10-29-2016
BCam wrote:
An honest question.
Has anyone authenticated any of the e-mails that Wikileaks has released?
Has anyone who had their e-mails hacked stepped forward and publicly announced, "Yes, that is the e-mail I wrote"?
I'm not saying that e-mails weren't hacked, but how hard would it be for Wikileaks to add or subtract content from the stolen documents, rewrite them and format them to appear legitimate, then release them?
Sure, sure, they were all hacked ....
http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/10/politifact-yes-we-can-fact-check-kaines.html
Re: Wikileaks as Fact - $tevie - 10-29-2016
So you are saying that the emails weren't hacked? How did Assange get them?
Re: Wikileaks as Fact - Dennis S - 10-29-2016
Everything about the emails is inconsequential relative to Trump's lack of qualifications, temperament, and mental problems. Not to mention his economic policies would be disastrous.
Re: Wikileaks as Fact - BCam - 10-29-2016
$tevie wrote:
So you are saying that the emails weren't hacked? How did Assange get them?
I'm NOT saying that e-mails weren't hacked.
What I'm asking if there is any possible way to prove their veracity as to original content.
Cut and Paste is a wonder tool.
Re: Wikileaks as Fact - max - 10-29-2016
BCam wrote:
[quote=$tevie]
So you are saying that the emails weren't hacked? How did Assange get them?
I'm NOT saying that e-mails weren't hacked.
What I'm asking if there is any possible way to prove their veracity as to original content.
Cut and Paste is a wonder tool.
Sure, sure, they were all tampered with ....
http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/10/politifact-yes-we-can-fact-check-kaines.html
Re: Wikileaks as Fact - $tevie - 10-29-2016
BCam wrote:
[quote=$tevie]
So you are saying that the emails weren't hacked? How did Assange get them?
I'm NOT saying that e-mails weren't hacked.
What I'm asking if there is any possible way to prove their veracity as to original content.
Cut and Paste is a wonder tool.
I'm sorry. I was addressing max, not you. I think your questions were valid.
Re: Wikileaks as Fact - $tevie - 10-29-2016
Too late, max, you already screwed that up earlier on the thread and showed you don't know what "hacking" means.