I posted above....it was a complex IT problem, fixed by individuals in multiple US cities, by US citizens. No hacking attempt, no Wall Street conspiracy...computers just break, and today they broke more than normal.
Btw, i'm purposely being vague since this isn't really public information. All i'm here to say is we don't run sweat shops, this wasn't a hacking attempt, there is no relation to the issues at United Airlines and WSJ...and last but certainly not least...
It's fun to guess at what's happening but folks should be shunning people who present their ideas as "self-evident" without presenting any actual evidence. Since when do we take people's word for it on the net anymore with a "source"?
I'm confused why it is in your interest to create a new account to post on here with a report that it's an internal issue, but then offer not even the barest technical detail when you apparently have evidence, all the while chiding others for having no evidence themselves.
Your vagueness isn't serving anyone. If you're worried about confidentiality, you would have been better off not posting at all.
The only things that gave me pause today in attributing this all to an Occam's Razor explanation are:
1) The government's careful wording about this not being an "intrusion" (which leaves open DDOS).
2) The lockstep tempering response is about what I'd expect from an industry which, almost as a matter of national if not global security, has to project a stabilizing confidence to averts irrational panics over even mundane hacking attempts.
I can believe that it is a simply an internal IT issue (apparently requiring people in multiple cities to work like crazy), but I also wouldn't be surprised to hear a completely different story emerge in the next few months as they slice the sausage of public release. It wouldn't be the first time that the initial narrative of a rogue element in the financial industry was shown to be inaccurate, and only revealed months later after an appropriate cooling off period.
> Your vagueness isn't serving anyone. If you're worried about confidentiality, you would have been better off not posting at all.
IMO 'thetruther's putative view from the inside is useful even without supporting evidence. Not every assertion needs peer review, and the community doesn't always have the right to demand it. (That doesn't mean I'd make a significant decision in reliance on his unsupported comments, of course.)
Btw, i'm purposely being vague since this isn't really public information. All i'm here to say is we don't run sweat shops, this wasn't a hacking attempt, there is no relation to the issues at United Airlines and WSJ...and last but certainly not least...
It's fun to guess at what's happening but folks should be shunning people who present their ideas as "self-evident" without presenting any actual evidence. Since when do we take people's word for it on the net anymore with a "source"?