Your reply to that comment was about Russia, so everything from that on down was probably a waste of time. Then again, we're talking about DoJ indictments of foreign soldiers for allegedly accessing data that was open to all, so the whole thing has been a waste of time from the beginning. It's a good thing there isn't any real crime in USA for DoJ to investigate.
Can you even follow the thread? The TFA is an American indictment against some Chinese government hackers. There are some unanswered questions about it, which were partially answered by speculation informed by parallels to a similar indictment against Russian government hackers [1] and related reporting [2].
[1] See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/grand-jury-indicts-12-russian...: "In 2016, officials in Unit 26165 began spearphishing volunteers and employees of the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, including the campaign’s chairman. Through that process, officials in this unit were able to steal the usernames and passwords for numerous individuals and use those credentials to steal email content and hack into other computers. They also were able to hack into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC)..."
[2] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/dutch...: "The information gathered during the surveillance, Modderkolk’s sources suggested, was key to the US intelligence agencies’ attribution of the DNC breach to Russia."
Indictments don't contain evidence. Sometimes they contain rumors of evidence.
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.
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.