I think I found your error

Correct. Blame a security breach on an entity who people believe has advance hacking weapons, and you can claim no matter what steps you took, they would have got in. They think it will get them off the hook for their poor practices.

Trouble is, I can see why Russia WOULD do this, either to tamper with data on Russian athletes to remove harmful info, or to tamper with other athletes' info then have Russia point at the hack "by someone" and say the previous bad doping results for Russian athletes were a setup, and the database hack was only now discovered. Their athletes should be exonerated!

So you are saying police cannot look around to see if they see a suspect because they will almost certainly see a lot of non-suspects before they may see the suspect? They can't look at cars hunting for the robbery getaway vehicle because all those other innocent drivers on the public road would be having their privacy violated? So police must now walk and drive around blindfolded lest they "invade the privacy" of those out in public? If police are not allowed to look for suspects, or even watch for crimes being committed (the logical consequence of you position), how do you expect them to find any criminals?

Tell me where you live because I don't want to live anywhere near it - it sounds like a criminal's paradise because the criminals are writing the rules.

Police believe a known terror suspect is at a football/baseball/soccer/quidditch game and scan the crowd looking for him, and eventually find him. Of the 50,000 fans in the stadium, they examined 49,999 innocent people to find the one they were looking for. Are you saying since only 0.002% of the data points examined pertained to the terror suspect, the police should be prohibited from looking through crowds for suspects?

It's like running a wireshark capture to watch connections to a server. Even though you give it filter criteria, the capture machine has to collect everything on the wire then look through it for the packets the user wants. Same idea for the satellites - they have to collect and comb through a ton of data to find the nuggets they want.

Wow, the irony. When Meta-Monkey brings up how the DNC has a lot to gain from by saying it is the Russian government behind it and therefore their public statements may be biased or less than credible, you jump on him/her essentially saying potential motives don't matter since it isn't proof. Now when he/she brings up what Assange has implied is a recent interview, you dismiss it saying Assange has a motive to mislead so we can't trust what he says. Please pick a belief system and stick with it, not just choose the one that is most convenient at the time to help your argument. You do not look good with two faces.

Because the core of this thread is debating the difference between what has been claimed versus what has been proven. People claimed, and many believed, there was bias in the DNC to make sure Billary won and Sanders was locked out, but now there is proof documenting at least some bias that occurred. So yes, it matters.

Actually, yes. Right now they would need to break the law to do it, and I am sure there is some of that going on. If they owned and controlled the networks though, they can legally monitor them for the "protection of the rights or property of the provider", i.e. the provider exemption to the Wiretap Act [18 U.S.C.2511], which I am sure can be weasel worded into all sorts of ways to then legally monitor it.

And then what do you think the government is going to do with all those bit they now control?

Meta-Monkey didn't say it means it can't be true, so that is a strawman. I is both fair and reasonable to look at the potential motives of the players to determine how it may impact on the credibility of their statements. Ignoring potential motives would in fact be illogical.

Car driver gets in accident. Blames anything and everything for the accident besides himself. And in other news, water is wet.

You are assuming they will respect international law. Bad assumption.

Um, the Spanish-American war was 118 years ago. It wasn't even in the 1900's. I think the "or so" is a stretch.

I know the dates since my grandfather fought in the Spanish-American war. I guess I'm showing my age.

Honestly, I would have been a lot more surprised if they weren't discovered trying to hack their perceived opposition. Based on history, it is the first thing I expect them to do after they make their veiled public threats.

The parent post said (reordering the words for clarity) 'the FBI felt everything she said was the truth'

I said (also reordering) 'the FBI believes (feels) things she said aren't true'

How are those two statements NOT in contradiction? What Clinton thought was true wasn't part of either statement so not sure why you bring that up, unless you think 'truth' means what she thinks is true versus how the dictionary defines it (that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality).

I believe she DID know things she said weren't true but was confident they couldn't prove it so she would get away with it. Likewise, Comey didn't say she didn't break laws (which is how her supporters are phrasing his statements), rather he said they didn't find evidence sufficient to prove it in a court since it mostly requires showing intent, and unless she put in an email or told someone that she was intending to break the law, how can it be proven in this case? And when I say "told someone", I mean someone who would be willing to testify against her, versus the circle of allies she employed who likely wouldn't.

I disagree. I would bet there are things she said that the FBI believe aren't true but have no direct evidence to prove it so there is nothing they can do to her. That probably added to the obvious frustration that Comey showed in the speech.

So, Comcast's story is basically the dog ate it?