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

581–590 of 656 posts

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#581

Post by Terr_ »

hulitu wrote: post #522
neuronexmachina wrote: post #481

Reading between the lines, my guess is something like this happened: * some of the US government officials protected by the Secret Service were the targets of swatting * the USSS found the swatting calls were anonymized by a SIM Farm in/near NYC * their investigation of the SIM Farm found "300 co-located SIM servers and 100,000 SIM cards across multiple sites" * it could have hypothetically been used for swatting off…

> Reading between the lines, my guess is something like this happened: cough 35 miles cough .

I don't understand your reply. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with the parent-poster?

For what reason are you highlighting that the SIM cards were present within 35 miles of NYC?

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#582

Post by themaninthedark »

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…

So in a meta conversation about news, there was discussion yesterday about social media and speech. One of the main reoccurring threads of conversation was that news should be left to the experts and those vetted. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45352213 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45354893

If that was the model that society adopted, the fine article would be among the set of data being censored. Robert Graham seems to be competent in his field but he lacks the pedigree that the NYT wants to cite. Even worse, he disagrees with those who the NYT turn to as matter experts: https://substack.com/@cybersect/p-174413355

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#583

Post by driverdan »

psim1 wrote: post #547
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.

No, it's not only Mitnick. He wasn't even a teen when he was arrested.

If you want to read more a good place to start is The Hacker Crackdown by Bruce Sterling.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#584

Post by garyfirestorm »

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…

Honestly the mechanism is missing. Having hundreds of SIM card or a physical device is not a conclusive proof of anything. Show us the attack vector - exactly how will this cause problem.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#585

Post by [deleted] »

neuronexmachina wrote: post #481

Reading between the lines, my guess is something like this happened: * some of the US government officials protected by the Secret Service were the targets of swatting * the USSS found the swatting calls were anonymized by a SIM Farm in/near NYC * their investigation of the SIM Farm found "300 co-located SIM servers and 100,000 SIM cards across multiple sites" * it could have hypothetically been used for swatting off…

[deleted]

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#586

Post by jazzyjackson »

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…

Totally. If there's something to whistleblow then whistleblow, don't just gossip at a bar to a journalist.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#587

Post by [deleted] »

enslavedrobot wrote: post #524
themafia wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're USSS officials. Officials being the keyword. That a bunch of people who share meetings and prerogative in the organization are saying the same thing is not an indicator of information quality. In fact, I would take it as a negative signal, and would push _much_ harder to get actual detail or corroboration.

I agree. Like I say you have no idea who they talked to or verified the story with. Using the words in a story to justify an opinion, but at the same time saying the story is inaccurate is not logically consistent. No well trained journalist would ever write a story like this without verifying the information in redundant ways. If they didn't do that then they probably already know it's fake and could literally write…

[deleted]

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#588

Post by [deleted] »

reaperducer wrote: post #536
zer00eyz wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#589

Post by glenstein »

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…

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

This is a bizarre new take that seems to be making the rounds. Not that they are right or wrong but they've been a staple of national security communication and reporting for as long as once followed the news, which for me is dating back to the George W. Bush admin. Glenn Greenwald in his heyday had a field day ripping apart credulous NSA wiretapping reporting that relied on unnamed officials. In fact I think he popularized the idea that the pervasiveness of such quotes was so widespread that they constituted a systematic problem with national security reporting. Not that I think it's necessarily a good practice but I wouldn't say it's presence in a story constitutes a "tell" that anything about the story is unusual.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#590

Post by heavyset_go »

AdamN wrote: post #320
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…

Didn't read the book but I think it's more insidious than what you wrote. The journalists don't think they're writing these stories to amplify the police narrative (they think they're unbiased). They just don't have the judgement (or will?) to look beyond the initial narrative which is police-driven. In the end if a journalist can get their story out faster by leaning on a few 'trusted sources' and then move onto the…

It's more perverse than that. Journalists know if they don't toe the party line, their access to voluntary information from law enforcement will be cut off entirely. Hard to write an article when everyone refuses to talk to you.
Post reply on HN