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

591–600 of 656 posts

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#591

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

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…

"Yes, leaks can be part of a strategic move by politicians and it can be a source of exploitation by political operators but to equate all anonymous sourcing with propaganda is misleading."

AFAICT, the blog author never equated _all_ anonymous sourcing with propaganda. The blog post is not titled "The NYT is bogus"

Instead, the blog post discusses a specific story that relates to a specific "SIM farm"

It questions why _in this particular instance_, relating to a "SIM farm", the source needed to remain anonymous

But that is not the only reason the author thinks the SIM farm story is bogus/hype

Based on technical knowledge/experience, the author opines the "SIM farm" was set up for common criminal activity, not as a system purposefully designed to overload a cell tower

It is the later opinion, not the one about the NYT, that is interesting to me in terms of evaluating this "news" hence I am curious what similar experience the parent commenter may have, if any

After so many years of being exposed to it on HN and the developer blogs submitted to HN, I have become accustomed to dismissive tone and black-and-white, all-or-nothing, pick-a-side thinking from software developers, i.e., what the parent calls "absolutism", absence of "nuance", etc. Probably not a day goes by without some HN commenter trying to dismiss "mainstream media", making some nonsensical complaint about news reporting that they dislike

Silicon Valley is now intermediating the publication of these worthless opinions for profit: Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and so on

But, like I suggested, if one reads the blog author's source code and discussions of programming and cryptography, then one might be more willing to tolerate some personal opinions about the NYT. Ideally, programmers would only comment online about programming, and not, for example, about journalism, but that's not what happens in reality

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#592

Post by iszomer »

kuschkufan wrote: post #183
iszomer wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the point of espionage is complete plausible deniability. For all you know it could be part of a bigger (psy)op to see what "lights up" when people go about sharing analyzing, critiquing this _news_..

there is literally no point discussing further here. you've made up your mind already and will defend that no matter what.

Don't be so quick to judge -- I _think_ it could all be BS too. eg: getting hooked into ufo's and alien conspiracies as a kid until Mick West came along with real pragmatic analysis.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#593

Post by marcosdumay »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #532
marcosdumay wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Plenty of them had the government following the money that pays for all the gifting and arresting the fraudsters, yes. Lying for the love of the sport isn't a crime, for deluding a society into giving you money and power is.

And also have a diversified professional media, so that the money leaves a track.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#594

Post by southernplaces7 »

ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #352
southernplaces7 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the very clear, repeatedly court-upheld, very specific wording of the 1st amendment protects free speech for anyone at all residing inside the United States (Yes, even including illegal immigrants, not to mention residents and visitors, though by voicing a politically disliked opinion they might risk becoming fast-track targets for deportation through other "formal" justifications) and also offers no legal clas…

Cancel culture won. Conservatives are not being hypocritical for having been against it and now for it. If your opponent is using an effective weapon and you don't also pick up that weapon, you will lose.

well so much for a principled stand against or for something by this dogshit logic. I guess the only important thing is to cheer on whatever gets the votes, never mind how badly all things deteriorate as a result?

I'm no fan of democrat progressive culture, but if the crap you describe is what passes for a bottom line in the conservative camp, then it's garbage either way.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#595

Post by southernplaces7 »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #396
ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cancel culture won. Conservatives are not being hypocritical for having been against it and now for it. If your opponent is using an effective weapon and you don't also pick up that weapon, you will lose.

Yep. Imagine I punch you. You say: "Don't punch me". I punch you again. Then you punch me back. I say: "Aren't you being hypocritical? I thought you were against punching." The path forward at this point is for the left to admit they made a mistake, apologize, and work to negotiate a new set of ground rules.

As I said in another reply above,

where's the room for a firm set of beliefs and moral framework, or perhaps a principled stand against or for something by this dogshit logic of yours?

The only important thing is to get them votes and followers then? The conservatives can fuck off just as hard as the radical left if that's all that matters.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#596

Post by joe_the_user »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #64
alansammarone wrote: post #41

I felt slightly...hm...confused when reading this. When I see something in the news, to the degree that I trust the source, I see it only as a statement of fact, and unless I trust the commentator, I ignore the comment. I only expect descriptive accuracy from the news. This sometimes requires resources that individuals don't generally have. When I read a personal blog article articulating a personal opinion, presenti…

The novel information in this article (confirmed by some technical experts on other platforms) is that this kind of SMS scam relay is a well-known sort of enterprise. I wasn’t aware of this, although it doesn’t surprise me. Once you have that context, the rest of the NYT article kind of falls apart by itself.

Article's subheading is "it's just an ordinary crime". It seem comparable to a situation where you have a gang with a huge weapon cache that gets found and the press says "enough fire power to outgun the police" and someone says "dude, they weren't aiming for the police, just their rivals".

Sure, the press may put a "threat to the nation" spin on things that might be a bit sensational. But the "you're making something out of nothing" claims seem to do the opposite. Criminals with the ability to cause widespread chaos seem worrying even if their may motivation is maintaining their income stream.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#597

Post by joe_the_user »

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…

Police propaganda is serious problem. But this seems like the least appropriate thing to dismiss as "just police propaganda". What's bad about police propaganda is it perpetuates a certain politics by maintain atmosphere of fear as well as pushing certain stereotypes of ethnic groups. But when the police are exaggerating the terrorist potential of actual organized criminals, things seem much muddier. I think people should concerned about organized scammers - their victims are usually the poor, notably. It's true their terrorist potential is overstated but only because they are profit-oriented but it's not like their other activities should be ignored.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#598

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

southernplaces7 wrote: post #595
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Imagine I punch you. You say: "Don't punch me". I punch you again. Then you punch me back. I say: "Aren't you being hypocritical? I thought you were against punching." The path forward at this point is for the left to admit they made a mistake, apologize, and work to negotiate a new set of ground rules.

As I said in another reply above, where's the room for a firm set of beliefs and moral framework, or perhaps a principled stand against or for something by this dogshit logic of yours? The only important thing is to get them votes and followers then? The conservatives can fuck off just as hard as the radical left if that's all that matters.

>moral framework

Tit-for-tat is a moral framework.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#599

Post by throaway5445454 »

yatopifo wrote: post #300
throaway5445454 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this statement is that your Chinese friend comes from a place where every information source allowed by the government can be safely assumed to be propaganda, by definition. That's how their system works. Not so in the west.

I object your reference to the collective west. As a Canadian, i believe my country has very little in common with the US. In fact, the US is pretty similar to China when it comes to propaganda.

Im Canadian too and I fear our country becomes more American every year.
Post reply on HN