dangerousmeta!, the original new mexican miscellany, offering eclectic linkage since 1999.

Were the DNC emails ‘tampered with’?

This is the original article for this rumor, being widely misinterpreted. Scroll down to paragraph beginning “The metadata in the leaked documents ...” and read from there (if you want to cut to the chase on this subject).

Money quote: “Although so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with, manipulation would fit an established pattern of operational behaviour in other contexts, such as troll farms or planting fake media stories.”

The media is presenting this all over the ideological map. Beware what/who you believe on this one.

07/26/16 • 10:59 AM • InternetLawPoliticsSecurity • (4) Comments


While I have not worked with Word or Excel document metadata, I have done things with PowerPoint. I expect it is similar. That leaves me at a loss as to how they would be able to tell if the content were changed or not. The evidence of the metadata is most simply explained by some editing of the content of the documents.

I don’t see how to reconcile the paragraph preceding your “money quote” with that quote. It says “the Russian operators apparently edited some documents, and in some cases created new documents ...”

The Wikileaks document dump files can only be trusted if there is independent confirmation, because of these questions.

Posted by Eric in Santa Fe on 07/27/16 at 08:51 AM

Your last sentence is the money quote here, now.

But until that confirmation is provided, politicians and news organizations shouldn’t be theorizing.

And Bernie followers should take a chill pill until they find out if they’re being played as pawns. But in today’s political environment, some will just cry ‘conspiracy’ and refuse to change their minds. It is the age of the childish temper-tantrum.

Yet the DNC apologized. So some must be verified and true. They’re not frivolous folks (one would hope); they would fight if these were egregiously changed. Debbie WS was already embattled, that was probably planned as an appeasement gesture long before the emails.

Posted by Garret P Vreeland on 07/27/16 at 09:46 AM

I just went in and looked at the linked article again. Some of the wording seems to have changed since yesterday.

Gotta love in the internet. Once upon a time, we swore never to change anything after pressing ‘publish’ ... or using strikethrough, etc. to correct mistakes visibly.

Posted by Garret P Vreeland on 07/27/16 at 10:12 AM

There is more than one ‘professional weblogger’ site that recommend going in and altering items in your archives to make your past align with your current opinions.

Mine have never been altered, except to bring them to graphical/aesthetic alignment with my current looks (and that is woefully behind).

But for anyone else, screenshot or be fooled.

Posted by Garret P Vreeland on 07/27/16 at 10:14 AM


Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

<< Previous entry: c|net: Microsoft Word wants to help you with your homework.

Next entry: Economist Daily chart: The economics of Donald Trump’s wall. >>