

Propaganda Campaign: Officials Warn That The KGB Could Infiltrate Lulzsec - nextparadigms
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110725/17345215248/propaganda-campaign-against-vigilante-hacking-groups-govt-officials-warn-that-kgb-could-infiltrate-lulzsec.shtml

======
GHFigs
I can understand disagreeing with the premise. I don't understand citing lack
of evidence and then making the claim that it is is "extremely unlikely" based
also on no evidence. That's a very whimsical notion of probability. It seems
far simpler to me to tolerate the uncertainty of the circumstances than make
baseless assumptions either way. The original author managed this just fine. I
don't see why TechDirt feels the need to, or why they felt it appropriate to
mis-attribute the statement to "officials" in their headline.

By comparison: a month ago people here[1] and elsewhere were claiming Lulzsec
might be a false flag operation by the CIA. Why would one consider that a
reasonable possibility, and expect others to do so, but then consider an
analogous statement a "propaganda campaign"?

[1] For example, nextparadigms, you expressed that possibility yourself:"
_Could LulzSec actually be working for the Government to help create that
"civilized" Internet Sarkozy was talking about._ " --
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2659640>

