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

531–540 of 656 posts

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#531

Post by rpdillon »

glenstein wrote: post #268
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…

One of the more sober assessments in this entire thread, and closely aligned with how I experienced it. It's not nothing to stress the fact that it was pretty far away from the UN and that it's not obvious why a case of SIM cards would enable surveillance (seems more like it would anonymize an individual bad actor). But a large part of this is completely unsubstantiated speculation that people are nodding along with,…

> But a large part of this is completely unsubstantiated speculation that people are nodding along with, which, in my opinion, is showing a breakdown in the ability to comprehend logical or evidence-based arguments.

This is how I feel about the NYT article. So much doesn't add up, and the more I read and investigate, the flakier it becomes.

Odd to have officials speaking anonymously about an investigation while the Secret Service is putting out press releases about it.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#532

Post by throwaway894345 »

marcosdumay wrote: post #435
throwaway894345 wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a free country, people can publish whatever nonsense they want.

In a healthy society the professional media shouldn't be composed of lying crackpots.

Is there any “healthy society” that prohibits lying in the media?

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#533

Post by rpdillon »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #490
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Sometimes departments want to float ideas that a spokesperson would not want to put his or her name behind." https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-anonymous-sources... IIUC, the blog post is not claiming there is no such thing as speaking with the press on the condition of anonymity, it is claiming that requesting anonymity for disclosing the existence (cf. the details) of an investigation into routine criminal…

That single paragraph is the weakest part of the article, IMHO. The other observations are quite well-taken, I think, including the observations about the experts cited in the article.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#534

Post by otterley »

michael1999 wrote: post #513
otterley wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Pentag…

Fair point!

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#535

Post by smachiz »

robertgraham wrote: post #529
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…

The "Washington Game" is described the Society of Professional Journalists. https://www.spj.org/spj-ethics-committee-position-papers-ano... Citing anonymous sources is not established ETHICAL practice, it's corruption of the system. The roll of the journalist is to get sources on the record, not let them evade accountability by hiding behind anonymity. Anonymity is something that should be RARELY granted, not routine…

The article you cited does not agree with your assertions. It specifically tells you how and when to evaluate the use of an anonymous source.

If you don't ever use anonymous sources, many fewer people will talk to you. Being on the record about something that will get you fired, will get you fired - and then no one talks to journalists.

What separates actual ethical journalists from the rest is doing everything the article you cited suggests - validating information with alternative sources, understanding motives, etc.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#536

Post by reaperducer »

zer00eyz wrote: post #525
reaperducer wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do quote anonymous sources all the time, and, more often than not, those anonymous sources are leaking to the media to push their narrative, ie propaganda. Citation needed. The New York Times has very strict rules about using anonymous sources. It's not some scary, shadow journalism effort. They publish their rules for anonymous sources right on their web site. Google is your friend. The “literal New York Times”…

> Having been a reader of the New York Times for almost 50 years, I can say the New York Times hasn't changed that much. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/07/new-york-times... https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-new-york-times-wmd-cov... > To pick a nit, you are correct: This was no investigative journalism. From the NYT article: "James A. Lewis, a cybersecurity researcher at the Center for European Policy…

The links you posted do not refute my statement. So I ask, how many times have you read the New York Times? As I stated above, I've read it almost daily for nearly 50 years. Do you subscribe? Do you read it regularly? Do you even read it at all? Or just parrot what you've seen on the internet?

The remainder of your comment is a non-sequitur, and has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#537

Post by Animats »

cakealert wrote: post #530
Animats wrote: post #523

Cell phone farm devices are a thing. Here's one you can buy on Alibaba.[1] This is a little more pro looking than the ones seen in New York. It's 20 phones in a 2U rackmount case. Costs $1880, including the phones. Cheap shipping, too. Lots of variations available. Vertical stack, different brands of Android phones, rackmount, server racks for thousands of phones, software for clicking on ads, training videos. "No co…

You do not use this thing for SMS spamming as a primary objective. Actual phone farms are for when you need actual phones, such as to run apps. Sophisticated actors likely roll their own virtualization (w/ masking) solutions.

Yes, that multi-phone rig may be overkill, but it's cheap.

I'm puzzled about how the phones get their RF signals in and out when that tightly packed in metal boxes, though.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#538

Post by palmotea »

tsimionescu wrote: post #370
palmotea wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think we are going to see an increasing trend of “true journalists” leaving the legacy news industry to places where they can build direct relationships with their audience, can own their own content distribution channels, and directly monetize those channels. I.E. Substack, YouTube, X, et. al. Those independent channels seem far more amenable to "opinion-havers" than "true journalists" (though perhaps the "true…

> That stuff is cheap. How do you expect someone moving to a place of fewer resources and less security to make a more expensive product? Investigative journalism is really not that expensive. A lot of it boils down to needing a phone and money for gas. Rather than costs, the much bigger obstacle to good journalism is censorship, much of it coming from company leadership, which doesn't want a bad relationship with ad…

> Investigative journalism is really not that expensive. A lot of it boils down to needing a phone and money for gas.

Come on. It investigative journalism takes a lot of time, and in the mean time, the journalist has bills to pay.

An opinion-haver or second-hand news analyst can build a Substack following by picking a theme and pumping out a blog post every couple days, but that's not practical for someone who might only be able put out a story every couple months on varying topics (based on whatever scoops they get).

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#539

Post by rpdillon »

reaperducer wrote: post #474
moscoe wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do quote anonymous sources all the time, and, more often than not, those anonymous sources are leaking to the media to push their narrative, ie propaganda. The NYT is very clearly the puppet of washington insiders. The “literal New York Times” doesn't exist anymore. This is not investigative journalism. This is just acting as the mouth piece for some anonymous government official.

They do quote anonymous sources all the time, and, more often than not, those anonymous sources are leaking to the media to push their narrative, ie propaganda. Citation needed. The New York Times has very strict rules about using anonymous sources. It's not some scary, shadow journalism effort. They publish their rules for anonymous sources right on their web site. Google is your friend. The “literal New York Times”…

You're glossing over the fact that the journalist is not technical at all (she covers policy stuff) and so she can't be adversarial at all in the technical realm. But she's also not adversarial in any way I can see. Off the top of my head, from memory:

    How can you get browsing history off of SIM cards?
    If this case is historically large, how many other SIM farm cases as USSS investigated?
    If this is so unusual and dangerous, why does McCool say there's no reason to believe there aren't a lot more around the country?
    Why is the USSS only telling us about this the day of Trump's speech at the UN, when the SIM farms were found back in August?
    What evidence do these experts have that this could have only been pulled off by a nation-state? Is it that it is technically sophisticated? Is it because it cost so much? Is it because the hardware can't be easily obtained?
    What degree does this expert hold, and in what subject?  They heavily rely on an "expert" that has a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 1984.  What did he study?
    Is it even technically possible to have a SIM farm 35 miles away from a target and cause the towers to crash?
    Why is the journalist for the NYT choosing to repeat statements about this being a threat to the UN when there is zero evidence this has anything to do with the UN at all?
    Why are officials from the agency publishing the press release being cited anonymously?
I could go on, but there are so many pieces that don't fit. This was the first article I've read, maybe ever, where I got a very strong vibe of "This is U.S. government propaganda!"

> A major problem with society is that some anonymous low-karma recent-joiner rando spews things on HN

Not so sure about that. Sometimes the message is delivered in a sloppy way. I'm working here to not deliver my message sloppily, to show why simply disregarding what you read from a rando might not be the best.

> Not because of any kind of objectivity, analysis, proof, or thought.

Exactly my concern.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#540

Post by adamtaylor_13 »

throwaway-11-1 wrote: post #387
adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences. People aren't "making comments," they're celebrating the murder of a man whose opinions they disagreed with. Many Americans are waking up to realize that a large number of people they considered friends and colleagues would revel in their death if they let their political opinions be heard. I would 100% fire someone for celebrating murder. Sorry, call me old-fashioned…

[flagged]

It's clear you've never even watched the very videos you claim to be citing.

1a. He's referencing DEI, citing how it debases people. He literally says, _in the video_, "I don't want to have these thoughts, but that's what DEI does." I know you won't go watch it, but you're just parroting a false statement that Charlie Kirk never made.

1b. He never said that. He said that Black families had better standards of living before the Civil Rights Act, referencing both household incomes, rates of fatherlessness, and crime rates. All objective facts that are true. It's hardly racist to point out how America is not getting better for black Americans.

2. I've not heard this one. Feel free to cite a source and I'll take a look.

3. I've also not heard this one. Once again, I'll go look if you'd like to provide sources.

Post reply on HN