Threat

Security threat..

Citation of sources would be handy.

swarfega said:

Citation of sources would be handy.

My post.....Headline Daily Telegraph today.

A message from the DA(Devils Advocate)

Russo phobia :
We Americans with the CIA are no better(probably even worse).

I'm so sick of how the western main stream news "media" keeps fluffing everything up and blowing it all out of proportion.
Even Anonymous has started busting CNN for this(do a YouTube search).

It could have been just a "private" hacker, in the Russian Federation, thinking he was helping his country, or just doing it, because... well, he can.
No different than any other black hat anywhere else in the world.

Sometimes,. I get the feeling some US GOV department might be doing it(probably have the passwords) using VPNs and onion routing, through Russia, just to justify their jobs.

Also, if the governmental and private sectors would update their hardware and operating systems, and start using a real security solution, there would be less problems.
They should also have important infrastructure not connected to the internet, but to a closed intranet.

"I saw it on the news" or "I read it on the news."
Two statements that equate to: "I have been mis-informed."
It's not just CNN. It's all of the media.

How many of you remember when news organizations reported the news? It has been a LONG time since.
Now if it's a bunch of opinion at best, and plain lies and distortions at worst.

Listen for (or read/scan for):
1. Citations. You don't see any? Or you only see "sources (un-named!) told XXX news that ..." Translation: Bull! If they can't say where they got the information, it's untrustworthy.
2. Adjectives. News is properly told in the form of nouns and verbs. Adjectives (and idioms and cliches) are opinion.

If you remove all items that violate these two criteria, you're left with what could be factual news.

That's mostly what we used to get without performing these "edits" ... a half century ago. But no more.