[kbenson]

I don't think how "easy" or low-tech the infection method is really points one way or another towards whether it was a government agency, whether it be the NSA or some other, or not. Using such a fact, whether it be from the story or not, does not strongly indicate to me, and I do not think it should strongly indicate to others, that this was or was not the NSA. I can see that as "rhetoric of casually discounting".

I'm not particularly a fan of the comment in question, it was a bit confrontational for my taste, but I also think evidence in support of a position should be relevant, and I view this evidence as only loosely relevant, if that, to the stated position. Whether it's from the source article or not is besides the (or at least my) point in this case.

If someone were to make a persuasive argument that the initial method of infection actually mattered to the NSA (which I haven't seen yet), I might change my position.