Quote:
Originally Posted by crich70
Well I do know that you can't go anywhere on the net without leaving some trace probably. I was just agreeing with you that accusing without actual evidence is hearsay at best. We can speculate all we want about who did what but without solid proof nothing can be proven. I've learned that much from watching shows like Law & Order among others. I would imagine that with enough software of the right type someone could even misdirect suspicion onto others who were innocent of whatever was being investigated too. Certainly I've heard about the early days of the net when hackers would hate having to pay for the phone bill and would re-direct calls through whatever they directed them through to avoid the charges. I can only imagine that if a person had enough time and inclination much more could be done today. Certainly the police and CIA among others have their hands full with cyber crime I'm thinking. Whether or not someone would go to the trouble of doing something like that on Wikipedia is a whole other story though I'd guess.
|
I should be clear that I didn't mean to contradict what you were saying. I simply wanted to elaborate on the point that life is much more complex than, "motive implies crime."
You are correct: things can get very complicated very fast when you're dealing with sophisticated criminals. Likewise, it takes skilled investigators to untangle that mess. Even then those investigators are not always successful. Finding the truth is often beyond the realm of bloggers and forum posters (such as myself). On the other hand, recognizing our limitations in uncovering that truth is something that we should all be able to recognize -- especially before participating in a lynch mob. (Again, that comment is not directed at you. Though some of the participants in this thread should consider it.)