Well yes, but I doubt that Krebs is really posting this data dump for random Internet readers like us. Some other investigator might find some useful hints in it, though.

I respectively disagree. If someone is shown to be unreliable then of course you won't take what they say at face value, but there's still information there. A deliberate lie may still contain something useful and reveal something about the person.

In fact assuming someone to be truthful isn't a good prior, knowing that they may be "untrustworthy" doesn't tell me much, since I didn't start off thinking otherwise.

You can analyze a lie only if you know that the speaker is trying to convince you into performing an action. Binary statements about facts cannot be judged without knowing the truth. They could be used only for self-analysis of the analyzer and maybe if you want to exercise some tail chasing.

Watch The Princess Bride and you will find a wonderful scene about choosing the right cup there.

von Neumann proved that you can extract fair results from a biased coin without knowing the bias. No truth needed.

While it doesn’t really apply to this situation, it’s all to say that i disagree with you saying there’s only information in the truth.. There’s information in everything.

but then we're not "trusting" what they're saying, just analyzing a statement for unintentional or partial truths. the assumption is not one of credibility. everything this person is doing is dubious as hell. this means every statement or action must be analyzed with the assumption is bunk, and then you pick out possible truths.

the picture of the army gear, for example, consists of gear that could be purchased at any surplus store. I'm not in the US but I could easy acquire that, and I know enough about exif data to be able to alter an image to use GPS coordinates at a US Army barracks in SK.

meanwhile if they were showing a picture of them sitting with, say, a 240B MG, or something that actually proves they're in the US Army I might believe them.

while bartending back in the day I used to have a coworker who, after a few drinks one night, eventually confessed she was a camgirl for a while. she went by April, who was really Stefani -- nether of which were her real names, but were just layers to keep stalkers off of her back. she had friends on the other side of the country take pictures of their dorm to help further the story. I totally believe a serious cracker would take similar precautions; OPSEC on OPSEC

I agree and liked your comment. I just want to add that I was specifically disagreeing with this:

> What they say should not calculate in what we believe to be true

rather than thinking about definitions of trust.

a deliberate lie tells you something that is not true or only half true which is often as interesting as what is true. especially when you don’t know the truth.

I can't help myself: is this the famous logic by which tech people don't trust apple, microsoft, amazon, meta, or google products?

Or does it not apply to corporations? What's the distinction, if so? It certainly seems common to not to apply it to corporations.

Not sniping here, I actually think this is solid logic, maybe with some exceptions but generally applicable. I feel like it's so commonly and happily not applied when it comes to the above companies (and others) that I find it stunning to see it stated so clearly here.

This FAANG stuff is coming a bit from left field here. I have my thoughts on their involvement with the US government, but I cannot testify if those thoughts are the same for any other tech person on this platform. Lots of other stuff to say, but generally, I tend to apply the same mental tools to everyone. You should ask everyone else for their opinions individually though.

We already have direct evidence through Snowden leaks that US big tech corps are US intelligence assets.

Personally my prior is that companies are always trying to manipulate you, and people only sometimes. On the other hand it can be easier to get away with false statements when you don't have a large audience and deep pockets.

Well it certainly doesn't apply to politics, 70+ million people believed every lie their cult leader told them (and it was a lot of lies).