41–50 of 355 posts
So correct me if I'm wrong, but the most sinister part of the story in how some might assume SuperMicro is a Chinese or a MainlandChinese-founded company. It came right around the time ZTE, Huawei and others were facing renewed scrutiny. So you can imagine how easy it is to read the story and just think "oh, another Chinese company got busted".
Let's say Super Micro is right and there were no malicious hardware at all for sure. What are the consequences for Bloomberg for this incompetence? I mean, there needs to be something.. Just because you're a news organization, you can't simply escape with "Oh, my bad". This had real implications on stock prices of so many companies and wiped off shareholder value on many of them, including Super Micro. If Bloomberg's…
I believe the current line there, at least in the US, is whether they knowingly ran factually inaccurate information. Given their doubling down, unless we assume they somehow didn't ask their legal department, I would bet they have enough sources for the information that they think they're not at risk of being prosecuted for libel or slander.
The question I have is: is it possible that there was such an incredible threat to national security that even an auditor could be convinced by a federal agency to give a false report? If it really didn't happen, how could a reputable news agency get a report so wrong? What exactly is going on here?
What bothers me most about this article is that it's based around what "Super Micro says" -- why would I care about what Supermicro says? They are the ones being accused of having backdoors in their chips. I would've liked to hear this directly from the company doing the audit, without Super Micro's own "interpretation". The second thing that bothers me about this story is that it was Supermicro that paid for the aud…
So I guess yes you can bypass Super Micro if you're a customer.
Has Bloomberg even replied to the "Uhm, WTF you talking about Willis" responses from Apple/Amazon? I don't recall seeing one. I wonder what they will say now.. How can they just make up a story like this and it can slide?
The question I have is: is it possible that there was such an incredible threat to national security that even an auditor could be convinced by a federal agency to give a false report? If it really didn't happen, how could a reputable news agency get a report so wrong? What exactly is going on here?
In my experience, there are two types of firms you can almost always find "friendly" auditors: law firms and small specialized "boutique" firms (accounting, consulting, etc). Who conducted this review? A boutique law firm.
Let's say Super Micro is right and there were no malicious hardware at all for sure. What are the consequences for Bloomberg for this incompetence? I mean, there needs to be something.. Just because you're a news organization, you can't simply escape with "Oh, my bad". This had real implications on stock prices of so many companies and wiped off shareholder value on many of them, including Super Micro. If Bloomberg's…
Let's say Super Micro is right and there were no malicious hardware at all for sure. What are the consequences for Bloomberg for this incompetence? I mean, there needs to be something.. Just because you're a news organization, you can't simply escape with "Oh, my bad". This had real implications on stock prices of so many companies and wiped off shareholder value on many of them, including Super Micro. If Bloomberg's…
Something tells me they won't.
Let's say Super Micro is right and there were no malicious hardware at all for sure. What are the consequences for Bloomberg for this incompetence? I mean, there needs to be something.. Just because you're a news organization, you can't simply escape with "Oh, my bad". This had real implications on stock prices of so many companies and wiped off shareholder value on many of them, including Super Micro. If Bloomberg's…
When the state department tells you to write a story you write the story, or face the real prospect of the end of access which will be the end your journalism career. Not an ideal system for anyone, except the state department.
The question I have is: is it possible that there was such an incredible threat to national security that even an auditor could be convinced by a federal agency to give a false report? If it really didn't happen, how could a reputable news agency get a report so wrong? What exactly is going on here?
Money quote: "You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
"In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know."
The question I have is: is it possible that there was such an incredible threat to national security that even an auditor could be convinced by a federal agency to give a false report? If it really didn't happen, how could a reputable news agency get a report so wrong? What exactly is going on here?
I think the most likely explanation is that Bloomberg got played by the sources who perhaps wanted to trade on the price action the story would obviously cause. We don't really know anything about Bloomberg's sources we do know the nature of all the parties denying any of this is true.
I think this might just be another case of unintentional consequences from incentives.
[1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-reporters-compensa...