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

541–550 of 656 posts

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#541

Post by JoblessWonder »

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…

> Anyone know where can we see parent commenter's code or something that demonstrates their knowledge of computers, computer networks or particular knowledge of "SIM farms"

The parent commenter literally never questions the post's technical conclusions or assumptions. Why are you acting like they did?

The commenter appears to be trying to make a point about how the post addresses sources, tone, and confidentiality.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#542

Post by robmccoll »

freejazz wrote: post #249
robmccoll wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. I get tired of people complaining about "cancel culture" and the reactions of private individuals and groups to the opinions and actions of other private individuals and groups. People have the right to say what they want and to do what they want up to the limits of causing harm to others. They can shout their inflammatory opinions from the roof tops. They can boycott and petition to try to convince…

>"you'll get disappeared by secret police for what you told your coworker in confidence" Not if you aren't brown. But if you are... well you can easily get caught up in an "immigration" "sting"

Fair. That does seem to be happening unfortunately.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#543

Post by adamtaylor_13 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #324
adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please cite a single example of someone being fired for quoting Charlie Kirk verbatim without any celebratory tone.

https://www.kbtx.com/2025/09/22/teacher-aide-files-federal-l... The post is reproduced in the article, in its apparent entirety. Zero celebration I can detect. Now what?

Very interesting. I stand corrected. I will note, however, that this is literally the only example I've seen of someone getting fired for a legitimately non-celebratory remark. We've got a legal system for stuff like that. For every single example you could give me, I can give you at least a thousand counterexamples. 99.9% of all the folks being fired are getting fired for being reprehensible.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#544

Post by adamtaylor_13 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #410
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…

> Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences. Freedom of speech requires freedom from government consequences. I have freedom of speech still if you say "I don't like your speech"; I don't have it if the cops say "I'm arresting you for your speech". > I would 100% fire someone for celebrating murder. And you can. You can also skip their birthday party. But "I'm glad so-and-so is dead" largely can't be a reason…

> "I'm glad so-and-so is dead" largely can't be a reason to, say, lose your drivers' license, social security benefits, or government employment, because the First Amendment applies to government specifically.

Unless I'm mistaken, that's not happening. If it is, it's wrong and should be corrected.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#545

Post by toast0 »

Animats wrote: post #537
cakealert wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think these phones in a rack boxes are likely more oriented towards automation of apps, and can use ethernet via tethering rather than mobile networks. Could probably leave the top of the box off if you need mobile networks to work a bit.

The sim boxes used for bulk messaging / calling from the photos posted yesterday had antennas poking out everywhere. If you wanted these phones to work inside metal cases, you'd probably want an antenna per phone sticking out as well (or a shared antenna, if you've got rf skills)

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#546

Post by SmirkingRevenge »

Rover222 wrote: post #452
SmirkingRevenge wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYT is definitely not far left and is still the cream of the crop when it comes to fact-based reporting According to this outfit the NYT "skews left": https://app.adfontesmedia.com/chart/interactive Their opinion section is mostly center left but has pretty wide ideological diversity

They do still do a lot of fact-based reporting, that why I'm still a subscriber. But their staff is 90% liberal, and it certainly comes through in a lot of their reporting, not just in opinion pieces. The left is as much as an echo chamber as the right, if you stick to media aligned on either side.

Yea, there can be an echo-chamber/bubble effect.

There are certain issues in particular that can derange them more than others (e.g. Gaza), but IMHO the NYT's cultural biases usually soften Trump & R's image more often than not these days, because of the way they sane-wash/both-sides to the extreme (to avoid accusations of bias).

The right-wing media is a category difference though - it's not an echo-chamber, it's a disinformation factory.

There are a couple of exceptions, but they are few and far between. WSJ has managed to maintain it's cred despite being owned by the Murdochs (its opeds are another matter). The Dispatch is another good one. A good way to filter out the bad ones is to look at their coverage of the 2020 post-election. If they helped reinforce Trump's stolen-election lies they are either crackpots or bad actors.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#547

Post by psim1 »

sbarre wrote: post #170

This whole thing reminds me of the 90s when the government would bust some 16 year old hacker kid in his suburban bedroom who was abusing a PBX, and then parade him around like they'd arrested Lex Luthor (the cartoon villain, not the actual hacker) and prevented a global crisis.

Your description can only refer to Kevin Mitnick. They threw the book at him to set an example. I remember being amazed at what a hacker he must have been. Later I read about his crimes and thought "that's all?" RIP Mr. Mitnick.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#548

Post by [deleted] »

Animats wrote: post #537
cakealert wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#549

Post by averageRoyalty »

1234letshaveatw wrote: post #227
tsimionescu wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NYT article fell apart the moment they quoted the silly "35 miles from UN headquarters" quote by the SS without pointing out it's an absurd attempt at sensationalizing. No need to read further than that before figuring out it's a propaganda piece.

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

I just read the article and it's clearly implying foreign powers attempting to sabotage a UN meeting.

The two "experts" clearly have no idea what they're talking about, and the agent quoted is implying heavily that this is some form of criminal, organised ring.

In reality, SIM farms are against the ToS for phone providers and can definitely be used for illegal activity such as telecommunications disruptions, but a butter knife can also be used for illegal activity.

I've run data centres and seen them set up in many places, operators I've seen are there for a profit and operating in a technically legal area but playing cat and mouse with the telcos. There is nothing implicitly illegal about them.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#550

Post by aerostable_slug »

rpdillon wrote: post #531
glenstein wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 S…

There's a possibility that some of the evidence in the investigation is classified and/or stems from classified sources and methods. If the scammers are mixed up in foreign counterintelligence type stuff (very common with Chinese and Russian cybercriminal actors) then things get murky and people might go off the record because the documents they're reading have classification markings on them.

Just a possibility, I too feel this is weird.

Post reply on HN