Quote from: RealMalatesta on December 09, 2015, 10:11:30 PM

Quote from: 5w00p on December 09, 2015, 09:22:08 PM

So, I am left wondering: How the hell did this "world's foremost computer security expert" get hacked?

People keep writing here that his computer got hacked, however, I can not read this in the wired-story. They mention that documents, e-mails and so on was leaked. This doesn't necessarily mean that any computer was hacked.

Normally, someone with an agenda leaks documents to the media. And normally, the journalist should know who leakes the material and otherwise discard it for they will not be sure what the answer to the question cui bono is.

Nathaniel Popper mentioned that the documents were offerd to him, too. So maybe he could shed some light on this.

Unfortunately, I must confess: When I first read the story in wired, it looked pretty convincing. But this is how journalism works: You have to write a story which is easily readable.

But we know that the material was offered to several media. Such a fact puts journalists under pressure to publish the story before anybody else will be able to do so.

Still the main question remains: Cui bono...

Fair enough, you do have a point. It seems I must admit to going to the "hacked" phrasing after reading it posted by others, without referring back to the source document, the Weird article.

However, I do also understand why others have used the word "hack" as the trove of emails and documents, in my opinion, would not likely be in the posession of a single third-party person.

ie, business documents, emails, tax/loan/whatever documents. I understand that a person may have friends and business associates, but how does one of the world's most sought-efter enigmas, who has maintained seemingly perfect opsec for YEARS, place all that SENSITIVE material into the hands of another person, especially given that this Dr. C.W guy has a law degree, so he doesn't even need "a lawyer" to sort through his business contracts.