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

501–510 of 656 posts

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#501

Post by themafia »

Uehreka wrote: post #495
themafia wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The NYT has formal editorial standards around the identity of anonymous sources that require editors to assess the justification for applying it. They should also have editorial standards that judge the quality of the information and then decide whether to even print it or not. In this case, without a second source, it probably should /not/ have been printed.

That’s exactly what those guidelines say: https://www.nytimes.com/article/why-new-york-times-anonymous... > What we consider before using anonymous sources: > How do they know the information? > What’s their motivation for telling us? > Have they proved reliable in the past? > Can we corroborate the information they provide? > Because using anonymous sources puts great strain on our most valuable asset: our readers’…

>> Can we corroborate the information they provide?

I can only guess, but based on the reporting, it looks like they skipped this guideline.

>> Have they proved reliable in the past?

Which is half the battle. The real question is "have they lied to us in the past?"

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#502

Post by Lerc »

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…

I think there is a bit of disconnect between people knowing what is possible and what people fear might be doable.

It's entirely possible that there are good non technical reasons for believing who was behind this while being technically incorrect about what it was that they intended to do.

Some of the more fanciful notions might be unlikely. Some of the evidence is only relevent in context. The distance from the UN is not terribly compelling on its own, the significance of the area of potential impact containing the UN is only because of the timing.

A state action might be for what might seem to be quite mundane reasons. One possible scenario would be if a nation feared an action suddenly called for by other states and they just want to cause a disrupting delay to give them time to twist some arms. Disruptions to buy time like this are relatively common in politics, the unusual aspect would be taking a technical approach.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#503

Post by mnemotronic »

I'm a little vague on how this works.

So the "bad guys" have loads of SIM cards installed into machines that can make calls or send SMS text messages, right? Doesn't each SIM card require an account with a cell phone provider in order to access "the phone network"? If not then are they getting free cell service and how do I sign up with that (ahem) provider? If so then how were those sim cards paid for? Can we follow the money?

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#504

Post by bongodongobob »

philwelch wrote: post #484
thomastjeffery wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when that opinion is that they are glad Charlie Kirk was murdered for expressing his opinions. You are conflating the expression of an opinion with the opinion itself. Generally, the point people are getting fired for making is that the very circumstances of Charlie Kirk's murder are precisely the circumstances he advocated for. I don't find it hypocritical to draw attention to that irony. I do, however, find it hy…

> Generally, the point people are getting fired for making is that the very circumstances of Charlie Kirk's murder are precisely the circumstances he advocated for. He never advocated murdering people over political disagreements. He disagreed with banning guns, but even the people who advocate banning guns don’t usually openly advocate banning bolt action hunting rifles. The sentiment here is to cheer and laugh at a…

He said that school deaths are worth it to uphold our 2nd amendment rights. So the irony is extremely thick here.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#505

Post by michael1999 »

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…

Judith Miller taught me that either the NYT is totally corrupt, or easily misled. It is completely reasonable to place almost zero weight on stories they report on "national security" from nothing but anonymous sources from the intelligence community.

Real stories have real evidence.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#506

Post by manoDev »

Manuel_D wrote: post #345
manoDev wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Shouting down other people deprives them of their freedom of speech, and is rightfully prevented. Padilla was detained because he was attempting to do that: disrupt someone else from exercising speech. He could have made the exact same speech in his own space without consequences. If you disapprove of how Padilla was treated, that's fine, just be honest about why he was detained: not for the content of his speech, bu…

Alright, here's another example: try speaking up against Israel policies.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#507

Post by michael1999 »

abirch wrote: post #461
immibis wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe on average, but we've also learned there are too many times when "The Literal New York Times" either repeats propaganda for money, or literally just makes shit up.

When has the NYTimes made shit up?

Judith Miller reported total fabrications and helped lead the entire country into a disastrous invasion of Iraq.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#508

Post by otterley »

michael1999 wrote: post #505
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…

Judith Miller taught me that either the NYT is totally corrupt, or easily misled. It is completely reasonable to place almost zero weight on stories they report on "national security" from nothing but anonymous sources from the intelligence community. Real stories have real evidence.

No journalistic institution is perfect. And, there are indeed journalists who cut corners, tell misleading narratives, or are too credulous.

However, there have been important and sometimes shocking stories that have been told thanks to reporting based on trustworthy, anonymous sources. The Pentagon Papers is a textbook example.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#509

Post by DonHopkins »

Maybe they were going to use them to hack Google Maps and fake traffic jams!

An Artist Used 99 Phones to Fake a Google Maps Traffic Jam:

https://www.wired.com/story/99-phones-fake-google-maps-traff...

Google Maps Hacks by Simon Weckert

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5eL_al_m7Q

>99 smartphones are transported in a handcart to generate virtual traffic jam in Google Maps.Through this activity, it is possible to turn a green street red which has an impact in the physical world by navigating cars on another route to avoid being stuck in traffic. #googlemapshacks

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#510

Post by elzbardico »

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…

> 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"?

Humm... No?

Post reply on HN