Hacker News Reader

Comment by 9dev | Hacker News Reader

I suggest reading the article you are commenting on, and you might find a ton of links to research in it. Reading is a great idea in general; I can recommend it.

View on HN

I see a ton of links to other unauthorized sources--most people I've never heard of--who claim to have inside CIA documentation.

The model, methodology, and even the data set used are published research, even if the CIA didn’t publish their internal forecasts based on it. You can still just come to the same conclusion they can, there are no state secrets involved here, no matter how you try to frame it.

If the CIA didn't publish this, then how can one say there are no state secrets? How can one say they obtained the same conclusion without knowing the CIA's conclusion?

Researchers developed a model on behalf of the CIA and published it. The CIA is using this model. Calculating an MD5 hash according to the original paper describing the algorithm is going to yield the same hash for you and me for the same input. The same applies to any other evaluation model.

Where did you pick up the notion that anything about this is somehow secret? Why don’t you just read up on this for yourself? It’s all readily available on the internet.

Because the only sources in the article are non-CIA but claim they are CIA. The article is of little value if I have to search around the internet looking up information. And the sources in the articles are sources I have never heard of before which makes me suspicious. The whole thing has an odor to it.

They know, they’re just playing the FUD game.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com