Were investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson’s work and home computers hacked? We’ll know a lot more when Attkisson releases her book “Stonewalled” next week and sits for TV interviews. The Washington Post did publish a summary of the book last Monday, and it seems that it is from this summary that Vox has come to the conclusion that “there’s not much reason to trust her conclusion that she was hacked.”
“…it seems more likely that she suffered from garden variety technical glitches that had nothing to do with government surveillance,” writes Vox’s Timothy B. Lee. “And strangely, the security expert Attkisson says confirmed her allegations has refused to talk to the Washington Post about it, citing a confidentiality agreement. This doesn’t inspire confidence.”
Breitbart’s John Sexton has read Vox’s argument, and he’s not convinced in the slightest.
Vox on why Sharyl Attkisson probably wasn’t hacked: http://t.co/b32Acuswht
— Dylan Byers (@DylanByers) October 31, 2014
@DylanByers Not sure how you got from that vague wishy-washy post at Vox to claim in your piece it "demonstrated" a lack of evidence.
— John Sexton (@verumserum) October 31, 2014
@DylanByers I understand the skepticism but how would routine technical glitches generate classified documents in your OS?
— John Sexton (@verumserum) October 31, 2014
I'm finding it hard to believe anyone is taking this Vox piece as evidence of anything: http://t.co/EBO7wbqkq7
— John Sexton (@verumserum) October 31, 2014
Am I the only person who noticed that the author skipped over all of the evidence that can't be easily dismissed?
— John Sexton (@verumserum) October 31, 2014
So Attkisson says 3 classified docs showed up in her OS and Vox doesn't mention that.
— John Sexton (@verumserum) October 31, 2014
Attkisson says 3 people examined her computer and said it had been hacked. Vox briefly mentions one of them.
— John Sexton (@verumserum) October 31, 2014
Attkisson says one analyst found an ISP trail on her computer which is not something anyone can browse to. Vox doesn't mention it.
— John Sexton (@verumserum) October 31, 2014
Attkisson says one analyst found evidence of proprietary hacking software used by the feds. Vox doesn't mention this.
— John Sexton (@verumserum) October 31, 2014
To sum up, Vox ignores most of the evidence and then tells readers there's no good evidence. Clever that.
— John Sexton (@verumserum) October 31, 2014
This reminds me of the last time Vox told us there was no evidence. They were wrong then too: http://t.co/4g8qZTijkL
— John Sexton (@verumserum) October 31, 2014
FTR, I'm not saying there's no room for healthy skepticism. I'm saying what Vox did is dishonest.
— John Sexton (@verumserum) October 31, 2014
Now that isn’t hard to believe.
@verumserum @AceofSpadesHQ Oh. Ok. Super smart hacker doesn't use Tor or some other anonymizing method? I'm not buying it.
— The H2 (@TheH2) October 31, 2014
@TheH2 @AceofSpadesHQ You can not buy it, but if you want to write about this story you can't not mention it.
— John Sexton (@verumserum) October 31, 2014
@verumserum @AceofSpadesHQ true
— The H2 (@TheH2) October 31, 2014
@verumserum @TheH2 @AceofSpadesHQ Technically it's not 'writing about it', it's voxsplaining. No need for facts when voxsplaining
— Andrews Dad (@Andrew_Dad) October 31, 2014
@Andrew_Dad @verumserum @AceofSpadesHQ good point
— The H2 (@TheH2) October 31, 2014
* * *
Related:
Katie Pavlich: Media trusts this administration over Sharyl Attkisson’s hacking claims?
Join the conversation as a VIP Member