Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

cybersect.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 656 posts

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#441

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

ceejayoz wrote: post #416
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about who "invented" it. It's about who started the most recent round. We had a big discussion about cancel culture just a few years ago, where the left responded to complaints about it by saying: "cancel culture doesn't exist", "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences", "free speech isn't hate speech", "you're just saying that because you're a racist/sexist/etc." In other words: "Our ideolo…

> It's not about who "invented" it. It's about who started the most recent round. Starting when? Several of the examples are quite recent; there's no point in my life where people of both political persuasions weren't boycotting or criticizing things. > freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences This remains entirely true. The First Amendment protects us from government -applied consequences. Being fire…

>Several of the examples are quite recent

The only one I'd consider recent is US national anthem kneeling.

I'm in my mid-30s. I only have the vaguest memories of cancel culture around 9/11. I have very vivid memories of progressive cancel culture during the late Obama administration and onwards. It very much was not a one-off sort of thing. It was a systematic practice which was systematically justified. The 9/11 stuff died down as 9/11 receded into the past. Progressive cancel culture only started dying down when Elon Musk bought Twitter.

I agree that progressive cancel culture was mostly not implemented with the help of the government. I agree that Brendan Carr overstepped in a way that wasn't a simple case of "tit for tat", and I think he should be fired.

On the other hand, consider Karen Attiah. If you took what she said, but replace "white men" in her statement with "black women", and imagine a white man saying it, he absolutely would've been risking his job just a few years ago. People were fired for far less.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#442

Post by f33d5173 »

avazhi wrote: post #440

> New York Times story which cites anonymous officials, “speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation”. That’s not a thing, that’s not a valid reason to grant anonymity under normal journalistic principles Stopped reading right here. That is a completely valid reason to talk to the media and happens quite often only under that specific condition.

The rest of the article is interesting and doesn't depend on the validity of that statement.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#443

Post by rpdillon »

wat10000 wrote: post #294
1234letshaveatw wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the figure that has been cherry picked and everyone has run with to dismiss the announcement yes. While it probably was included to sensationalize, I fail to see how that is some kind of smoking gun that somehow falsifies all the rest of it. Everyone buying into this is showing their bias

It's the most obvious example, it's not the sole piece of evidence. Let's pick through the official statement. "In addition to carrying out anonymous telephonic threats, these devices could be used to conduct a wide range of telecommunications attacks. This includes disabling cell phone towers, enabling denial of services attacks and facilitating anonymous, encrypted communication between potential threat actors and…

This is exactly right. Another note: they tried to time the announcement with Trump's speech - the actual devices were found weeks ago. The NYT article mentions August in the same sentence it mentions the 35 miles.

The cherry on top is that at the end of the article, they sort of let it slip that this isn't something that they expect would be unusual:

> “This is an ongoing investigation, but there’s absolutely no reason to believe we won’t find more of these devices in other cities,” Mr. McCool said.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#444

Post by nostrademons »

levocardia wrote: post #379
gaoshan wrote: post #262

There is so much to address in this post but I want to look at just this part: "One of the reasons we know this story is bogus is because of the New York Times story which cites anonymous officials, “speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation”. That’s not a thing, that’s not a valid reason to grant anonymity under normal journalistic principles. It’s the “Washington Game” of “official…

Came here to post this. Haven't we learned many times in the last 5 years that, on average, "The Literal New York Times" is a better and more reliable source than "Some Guy on Substack"? Claiming that anonymous sources inside an agency/administration is "not a thing" clearly betrays the fact that this person knows nothing about actual journalism. Heck even a casual NYT reader will know that they cite anonymous source…

Uh, my recent experience is that "Some guy on Substack" is a significantly more reliable source than "The Literal New York Times".

Gel-Mann Amnesia affect applies here: every time I've seen mainstream media cover a subject that I have personal experience or expertise with, it's been shockingly inaccurate. This includes the NYTimes. It includes random guys on Substack too, but I've found that random guys on Substack when speaking about their area of expertise are actually pretty accurate. It's left to the reader to determine whether some random guy on Substack is actually speaking to an area of their expertise, but other comments here have attested that the author actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to SIM farms.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#445

Post by boomboomsubban »

gaoshan wrote: post #262

There is so much to address in this post but I want to look at just this part: "One of the reasons we know this story is bogus is because of the New York Times story which cites anonymous officials, “speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation”. That’s not a thing, that’s not a valid reason to grant anonymity under normal journalistic principles. It’s the “Washington Game” of “official…

To me, the article is saying that an "ongoing investigation" is not a valid reason to grant anonymity, not that there are no valid reasons to grant anonymity.

Who is being protected from whom by granting this source anonymity? With your three examples it's clear, but not as much in this case.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#446

Post by deelowe »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #434
gaoshan wrote: post #262

There is so much to address in this post but I want to look at just this part: "One of the reasons we know this story is bogus is because of the New York Times story which cites anonymous officials, “speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation”. That’s not a thing, that’s not a valid reason to grant anonymity under normal journalistic principles. It’s the “Washington Game” of “official…

It's possible the author is wrong, but one should consider the author's history and demonstrated technical proficiency, e.g., the programs he has written. Take a look at his code. He has been around much longer than "blogs" and "Substack" IMHO, he is also proficient at explaining complex topics involving computers. If others have differing opinions, feel free to share Anyone know where can we see parent commenter's c…

> the programs he has written.

This is authority bias. Being a great programmer does not make one an expert in political propaganda, the inner workings of government, or the media.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#447

Post by t1234s »

mmcwilliams wrote: post #112
t1234s wrote: post #105

I thought it looked suspicious how neat the cabling was done and cables taped down to the floor to prevent tripping hazards. This would most likely not be the case for a one-time event.

Why not? That's the standard on film shoots in locations that are absolutely "one-time events". People do that all the time.

Criminals don't file for workman's comp.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#448

Post by ceejayoz »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #441
ceejayoz wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not about who "invented" it. It's about who started the most recent round. Starting when? Several of the examples are quite recent; there's no point in my life where people of both political persuasions weren't boycotting or criticizing things. > freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences This remains entirely true. The First Amendment protects us from government -applied consequences. Being fire…

>Several of the examples are quite recent The only one I'd consider recent is US national anthem kneeling. I'm in my mid-30s. I only have the vaguest memories of cancel culture around 9/11. I have very vivid memories of progressive cancel culture during the late Obama administration and onwards. It very much was not a one-off sort of thing. It was a systematic practice which was systematically justified. The 9/11 stu…

> I only have the vaguest memories of cancel culture around 9/11.

Maybe you agreed with the canceling enough it wasn't noticeable; I cited two specific examples directly related to that day. It was… not a fun time to be anti-war.

Go back a few years and you'll find further prominent examples, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Puppy_Episode

> On the other hand, consider Karen Attiah.

I disagree with her firing, but there are no First Amendment concerns here. The Washington Post is free, under the First Amendment, to be shitty, even with regards to employment. They canceled her, as is their right, and as our ape evolutionary cousins do despite a lack of language, social media, or political parties. "I don't like you, so I won't associate with you" is deeply ingrained in us.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#449

Post by Mtinie »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #332
BlackFly wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author explains it in the next sentence. > It’s the “Washington Game” of “official leaks”, disseminating propaganda without being held accountable. In general, you can spot this kind of propaganda by realizing that the anonymous source is actually promoting the government's position and so isn't actually in danger. I.E. they aren't a whistleblower, they have no reason to fear repercussions.

Wouldn't there be repercussions for discussing an ongoing investigation with a journalist?

Not if people higher in the agency the employee works with are aware of the contact and have blessed it as a useful conduit to establish a narrative.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#450

Post by deelowe »

nostrademons wrote: post #444
levocardia wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Came here to post this. Haven't we learned many times in the last 5 years that, on average, "The Literal New York Times" is a better and more reliable source than "Some Guy on Substack"? Claiming that anonymous sources inside an agency/administration is "not a thing" clearly betrays the fact that this person knows nothing about actual journalism. Heck even a casual NYT reader will know that they cite anonymous source…

Uh, my recent experience is that "Some guy on Substack" is a significantly more reliable source than "The Literal New York Times". Gel-Mann Amnesia affect applies here: every time I've seen mainstream media cover a subject that I have personal experience or expertise with, it's been shockingly inaccurate. This includes the NYTimes. It includes random guys on Substack too, but I've found that random guys on Substack w…

And what exactly makes "Robert Graham" such an expert in this particular domain? I don't know who this person is or why I should trust their personal blog over the NYT. The article itself is rather hand-wavy in it's assessment of the report. The thesis is essentially "bot farms use lots of sims & this is an example of using lots of sims, therefore this is a bot farm and not espionage."
Post reply on HN