5 ms·

Wow, I have a great deal of respect for Schneier, but referencing GotNews (aka Charles C. Johnson) as a credible technical source? Yikes. [1] [1] my comment wh

by twrkit 12y ago

Wow, I have a great deal of respect for Schneier, but referencing GotNews (aka Charles C. Johnson) as a credible technical source? Yikes. [1] [1] my comment when this "source" was posted to HN (before it was flagged for removal): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8789341 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8789341

rgbrenner 12y ago
And Schneier's reply when someone said something about it: Yes, I know that Chuck Johnson (http://gawker.com/what-is-chuck-johnson-and-why-the-web-s-worst-journal-1666834902 http://gawker.com/what-is-chuck-johnson-and-why-the-web-s-wo...) is unreliable and worse. But in this case, I thought the data sound enough to republish. After reading that article.. why would he believe anything from this guy?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - sroerick 12y ago
    Sorry, I deleted my post because it came out more sarcastic than I meant it. For transparency's sake, my post was (from memory): > The data is publically available on torrents. > >You could easily prove Schneier wrong.
  - sroerick 12y ago
    No, he also posted the timecodes from the torrent, which imply the data was transferred at USB 2.0 speeds. This data can indeed be verified with the torrent. I agree with your criticism of naming former executives. But Schneier also expresses his skepticism towards this viewpoint, and merely states that the data transfer speeds do seem to support the "inside job" argument. He continues to say that he still doesn't buy the "inside job" theory.
sroerick 12y ago
I deleted my last post which came out snarkier than I meant it. The point I meant to get at was that the timecode analysis which was featured is not just claimed by Charles Johnson, but rather is in the torrents released by GOP. I don't have any problem with Schneier referencing this article.

5 ms·

Wow, I have a great deal of respect for Schneier, but referencing GotNews (aka Charles C. Johnson) as a credible technical source? Yikes. [1] [1] my comment wh

by twrkit 12y ago

rgbrenner 12y ago
And Schneier's reply when someone said something about it: Yes, I know that Chuck Johnson (http://gawker.com/what-is-chuck-johnson-and-why-the-web-s-worst-journal-1666834902 http://gawker.com/what-is-chuck-johnson-and-why-the-web-s-wo...) is unreliable and worse. But in this case, I thought the data sound enough to republish. After reading that article.. why would he believe anything from this guy?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - sroerick 12y ago
    Sorry, I deleted my post because it came out more sarcastic than I meant it. For transparency's sake, my post was (from memory): > The data is publically available on torrents. > >You could easily prove Schneier wrong.
  - sroerick 12y ago
    No, he also posted the timecodes from the torrent, which imply the data was transferred at USB 2.0 speeds. This data can indeed be verified with the torrent. I agree with your criticism of naming former executives. But Schneier also expresses his skepticism towards this viewpoint, and merely states that the data transfer speeds do seem to support the "inside job" argument. He continues to say that he still doesn't buy the "inside job" theory.
sroerick 12y ago
I deleted my last post which came out snarkier than I meant it. The point I meant to get at was that the timecode analysis which was featured is not just claimed by Charles Johnson, but rather is in the torrents released by GOP. I don't have any problem with Schneier referencing this article.