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

571–580 of 656 posts

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#571

Post by Rover222 »

SmirkingRevenge wrote: post #546
Rover222 wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I need the check out The Dispatch, thanks.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#573

Post by leptons »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #402
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…

Who else would you have the journalists talk to, in order to get the other side of the story? Criminals?

Eyewitnesses. Often the police and the news narrative are very different than eyewitness accounts. Even if everyone knows what happened, it's completely obvious, the news and police still obfuscate.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#574

Post by bongodongobob »

dylan604 wrote: post #470
immibis wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? Journalists in the past talked to criminals.

of course, a criminal would have no reason to lie.

Breaking laws doesn't make someone dishonest. You should really think about why you think that's the case. Perhaps someone has an active interest in you believing that.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#575

Post by impossiblefork »

rpdillon wrote: post #565
aerostable_slug wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

One of the challenges here is that there are a lot of explanations that might be completely reasonable that cover all of the weirdness, but it feels like there's too much of it.

I think, if one wants to inform people, one should not claim things that require accepting the reasoning without thought.

So even if the NYT article weren't propaganda and all the claims were correct, it would still be problematic, since writing it in this way, effectively claims that things that look like propaganda are legitimate journalism and totally normal.

So even if it were correct, someone who reads it and begins to accept articles of the same kind has been brought into a state of not being to reason critically about reality, and creating that cannot ever be ethical journalism.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#576

Post by rpdillon »

impossiblefork wrote: post #575
rpdillon wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the challenges here is that there are a lot of explanations that might be completely reasonable that cover all of the weirdness, but it feels like there's too much of it.

I think, if one wants to inform people, one should not claim things that require accepting the reasoning without thought. So even if the NYT article weren't propaganda and all the claims were correct, it would still be problematic, since writing it in this way, effectively claims that things that look like propaganda are legitimate journalism and totally normal. So even if it were correct, someone who reads it and be…

Well said.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#577

Post by asveikau »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #402
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…

Who else would you have the journalists talk to, in order to get the other side of the story? Criminals?

Did you know that the so called "criminals" are also human beings?

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#578

Post by throwaway-11-1 »

adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #540
throwaway-11-1 wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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…

1a. Ok so what exactly did he mean by “I want someone ‘cookie cutter’ not ‘Laqueesha James’.

1b. Is the implication allowing race based discrimination for hiring and voting considerations would improve black families’ material conditions?

2. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna191224

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_Access_Hollywood_... For real have you been in a coma?

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#579

Post by Terr_ »

IAmBroom wrote: post #454
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.

"We just arrested this drug pusher. One of our brave officers got a 0.001 milligram piece of fentynal on his sleeve, but fortunately after being rushed to the Emergency Room we were able to save his life. "The other 0.003 mg were lost while trying to get them in the evidence bag."

Yeah, there are some ridiculous theatrics going on.

> First responders who believe they are overdosing on fentanyl from simply touching it in fact exhibit the exact opposite of the symptoms we would expect. While fentanyl makes you euphoric and slows down your breathing, cops start breathing faster, sweat a lot, and become anxious. “I don’t want to discredit anyone or say they’re faking,” says Dr. Marino. “I do think people are having a true medical emergency when this happens. The symptoms seem most consistent with a panic attack or anxiety or a fear reaction.”

> Some will claim they had to administer naloxone (trade name Narcan), which can reverse an opioid overdose, in order to save their life. But if you are conscious enough to self-administer naloxone, you’re not overdosing on opioids. You would have lost consciousness and barely been breathing.

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/medical-critical-thinking/...

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#580

Post by senectus1 »

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.

DJT has shown us all that "Corrupt" and "Incompetent" are two sides of the same coin.
Post reply on HN