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

511–520 of 656 posts

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#511

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

pphysch wrote: post #384
philwelch wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stalin likely killed more of his own people than Hitler did if you count artificial famines, which I do. This shouldn't be surprising because Stalin was in power for longer and had a greater degree of unchecked power over the Soviet Union than Hitler ever did. Of course, many of the people murdered by either regime weren't actually communists. > There is a dominant thread of anti-intellectualism that lumps virtually…

Lecturing about "good faith" in the same comment that equates (extreme) economic mismanagement with intentional mass murder. Spare us the sanctimony. Are you consistent and therefore interpret the Great Depression as a mass murder of Americans by the government?

> Lecturing about "good faith" in the same comment that equates (extreme) economic mismanagement with intentional mass murder. Spare us the sanctimony.

The 'assume good faith' guideline pertains to our fellow HN posters, not stalin.

As far as I know, it's totally ok to conclude stalin was not acting in good faith when he killed millions of undesirables.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#512

Post by lupusreal »

aedocw wrote: post #240

There is a lawyer (Alec Karakatsanis) who has been writing about police driven propaganda for years. His recent book "Copaganda" is fantastic. He carefully breaks down how major papers (NYT is chief among them) create stories that fit a narrative by using very one-sided sources. Like an article on crime written in bad faith where the only people quotes are police, police consultants, and ex-police. It's a really good…

[flagged]

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#513

Post by michael1999 »

otterley wrote: post #508
michael1999 wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You completely miss my complaint. Perhaps I was unclear. The Pentagon Papers is the exact opposite! Ellsberg actually shared the documents; there were literal "papers" involved in the Pentagon Papers. That's the "real evidence" I demand.

Off-the-record conversational, "I'd never lie to you" BS, from anonymous sources in the "intelligence community" is a lead to investigate, not a story. They weren't called the Pentagon Whispers.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#514

Post by pstation »

BillTthree wrote: post #244

Does anyone know what crime is being investigated? It looks like the malicious activity was sending spam text messages and forwarding international phone calls. Is there a federal regulation against sending spam messages? Is it somehow illegal to have many sim cards in the same place as having many radios? The telco's are also capable of bringing down the network, and they are legally allowed to turn their services o…

In other countries these setups are fairly illegal because it bypasses the international call tariffs that the typically state owned telco company would be entitled to. A local domestic call might cost $.01 per minute and an international call $.20. They call it "bypass fraud".

But in the US, I'm not so sure since things are already deregulated.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#515

Post by snickerbockers »

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…

>Plenty of such reporting has resulted in significant truths being revealed and powerful people being held accountable (Watergate, the Pentagon Papers, Abu Ghraib).

And what, pray tell, is the major scandal in this case? The source isn't alleging any impropriety or illegal activity. Anonymous sources are for stories which are being suppressed or lied about, not for investigations which have not yet publicly been announced due to pending litigation. If there's no obvious motive for why the source would want to be anonymous then all you're reporting on is rumor and gossip.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#516

Post by Manuel_D »

manoDev wrote: post #506
Manuel_D wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What about it?

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#517

Post by GeoAtreides »

breppp wrote: post #476
GeoAtreides wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The incredible vast majority of people in the world are acting in good faith. this a very westerner perspective on society. Ask an Eastern European (like myself) how the vast majority of people are really acting.

How well has that worked for East Europe?

Really well, thanks for asking

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#518

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#519

Post by libraryatnight »

kryogen1c wrote: post #492
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…

> this sort of tone, with the absolutism, the attempt to reduce the complexity and nuance of reporting to the point where it can be dismissed is pretty typical of what passes for commentary in today's blog/tweet/commentary culture but it really plays more into the hands of those that would sow confusion I think this is the mechanism of action that will lead to america's downfall. algorithmic content has connected dop…

In my extended family there's some government employees an auditor and someone in defense, and listening to them try to explain why the 'failed audit' fox news had their father ranting about as a reason everyone deserved to be fired by DOGE at the time and he was "loving every minute" was more nuanced and not good evidence for the conclusion he'd been fed was difficult.

Even in simple jobs I've worked there's always been something armchair experts don't consider that makes their quick fix "just do this" or "how hard can it be to do X" ignorant and irrelevant. But he was so enamored of Elon and "saving us money" he couldn't even fathom maybe his kids who are smart and have been in the industry for sometime might know or understand something he doesn't.

Later I asked him "What audit are you talking about?" And he said "Who cares, I know they failed and that's all I need to know." The brazen ignorance mixed with outright callousness masquerading as righteousness is not good.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#520

Post by cycomanic »

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…

You are attacking a straw man to make your arguments which makes me question your motivations.

Nowhere did the substack author say that cinting anonymous sources is not a thing, which your wording is implying. They say that citing anonymous sources to discuss an ongoing investigation is not a valid reason.

Let's look at the guidelines for ethical journalism and they quote the NYTimes guidelines: anonymous sources... “should be used only for information that we believe is newsworthy and credible, and that we are not able to report any other way.”

"... journalists should use anonymous sources only when essential and to give readers as much information as possible about the anonymous source’s credentials"

https://ethicsandjournalism.org/resources/best-practices/bes...

So the question is were these anonymous sources essential to the story? Have they given enough information about the sources credentials?

Post reply on HN