I just noticed that you made a pretty mind-boggling claim there. Is it really your position that Equifax's data was "data that was open to all"?
> There was an unsubstantiated claim that something had happened in one nation, therefore we can assume it happened in some other nation!
No, we can make informed speculation in a discussion. That's quite different than "assuming it [actually] happened."
The main issue here is that you appear to read something, misunderstand or exaggerate it into hyperbole, then respond to your own hyperbole. That's not a good way to have a discussion with anyone.
If you knew anything about cybercrime attribution, you'd know that indictment was detailed far beyond anything we've ever seen from the DOJ. They took the extraordinary step of giving away hints on collection sources/methods just to make the evidence overwhelming and undeniable.
Which was my point, which instead of addressing you keep trying to obfuscate. Because you are a troll.
Indictments don't contain evidence. Sometimes they contain rumors of evidence.