Ever since the first details emerged of school children / young people hacking into government systems, attribution changed.
For example if you are hacked is it
a) children or young people
b) an adult
c) a government entity
d) a private contractor
e) a technology entity such as a bot coded by human/s and/or human developed code
f) a technology entity such as a bot coded partly by human/s and/or human developed code
g) a technology entity such as a bot coded by itself or another technology entity using human and / or artificially developed code.
h) a,b,c,d,e, f, g above who is more than just a or b or c or d or e or f or g
If a piece of information emerges that is technological published, most of us will never have the IT forensic knowledge so will rely on opinions of others who understand IT in more detail. Their intentions are interesting but will be guided by others. They may also be subject to legislation by more than one country so whatever explanations are provided, most of us will not know whether their explanation is a) correct b) partially correct c) false because they may be required to not disclose or they don’t want to, depending which of a,b,c, d, e, f, g, h they are or are not at any time (and i-z etc too).
There may be ways of finding out more information but that is not available to most of us or we don’t want to spend our lives in front of technology devices and screens. We can take steps to improve our understanding but we as in most of us will inevitably be behind where the cutting edge of IT resides.
So wars could happen and we won’t know whether we were really right or wrong in our thoughts and actions. What we choose to do in the absence of not being able to attribute is also interesting. However with connected technologies what we choose to do may or may not influence or impact others.
The world will move on, the media entities will perform. But not pretending that you can attribute could be useful.