But Silliman made clear on Thursday that the “state-sponsored” nature of the breach would have no bearing on the analysis of materiality.
“From a legal perspective,” he said, “the question . . . ‘is it a state-sponsored attack?’ isn't really relevant in terms of what we're looking at. The question is whether this [had] a material or an adverse effect on the asset we are buying.”
One can see why he didn't want to call "bullshit" publicly, and the news media is required to be dumb, but does anyone with a clue really believe these oh-so-convenient "state actor" attributions? We're supposed to imagine that Russia: 1) wanted what Yahoo had, and 2) wanted to get caught at it. What's the motivation? Did Marissa cut in front of some favored oligarch at the ski lift in Davos or something?
It really doesn't matter what Verizon believes about who did the breach. Say you want to buy my car, but then it gets destroyed, and I say Superman did it. Whether you believe me or not, it doesn't matter, you still won't buy a destroyed car.
This is somewhat different from Yahoo users' perspective: in their case, as well, the point is not if the breach was state-sponsored, the point is: did it take mass destruction weapons and hundreds of spies coordinated for months, or did it take five minutes and a hairpin?
Just to be absolutely clear, I'm not seriously suggesting that you're a Russian shill. That's meant as sarcasm and immediately contradicted by my next statement. I'm seriously concerned about the amount of Russian-blaming going on. Although I'm making fun of the people who blame everything on Russia, the chance for war is serious business.
“From a legal perspective,” he said, “the question . . . ‘is it a state-sponsored attack?’ isn't really relevant in terms of what we're looking at. The question is whether this [had] a material or an adverse effect on the asset we are buying.”
One can see why he didn't want to call "bullshit" publicly, and the news media is required to be dumb, but does anyone with a clue really believe these oh-so-convenient "state actor" attributions? We're supposed to imagine that Russia: 1) wanted what Yahoo had, and 2) wanted to get caught at it. What's the motivation? Did Marissa cut in front of some favored oligarch at the ski lift in Davos or something?