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

621–630 of 656 posts

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#621

Post by philwelch »

unethical_ban wrote: post #617
philwelch wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Generally, the point people are getting fired for making is that the very circumstances of Charlie Kirk's murder are precisely the circumstances he advocated for. He never advocated murdering people over political disagreements. He disagreed with banning guns, but even the people who advocate banning guns don’t usually openly advocate banning bolt action hunting rifles. The sentiment here is to cheer and laugh at a…

You're right that he didn't cheer on political assassination. He merely intimated that trans people's lives are less valuable than others and that black people and women are incapable of intellectual equality with whites and males. A debate about whether that is an indirect encouragement to violence is a valid one. And to be very, very clear: ambivalence at his departure from earth is not equal to ambivalence of the…

> He merely intimated that trans people's lives are less valuable than others and that black people and women are incapable of intellectual equality with whites and males.

False.

> A debate about whether that is an indirect encouragement to violence is a valid one.

Lying about what other people say and mischaracterizing those statements as an incitement to violence is itself an incitement to violence. Stop lying and stop inciting violence!

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#622

Post by horseradish7k »

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?

vice did that. a lot.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#623

Post by immibis »

glenstein wrote: post #467
abirch wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When has the NYTimes made shit up?

I also would appreciate an answer to this. It's one thing to say anonymous sources like to offer quotes when they can push a preferred narrative. It's another to say they straight up make things up, and this lazy attitude of reflexively accusing NYT of fabrication like it's the apex of wisdom seems to come from a place of not understanding their processes or history. There's bias in the sense of selecting stories and…

There was one particular really important story a few years ago that massively affected global geopolitics, making a lot of people very angry, and they later admitted they just made it the fuck up.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#624

Post by unethical_ban »

philwelch wrote: post #621
unethical_ban wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right that he didn't cheer on political assassination. He merely intimated that trans people's lives are less valuable than others and that black people and women are incapable of intellectual equality with whites and males. A debate about whether that is an indirect encouragement to violence is a valid one. And to be very, very clear: ambivalence at his departure from earth is not equal to ambivalence of the…

> He merely intimated that trans people's lives are less valuable than others and that black people and women are incapable of intellectual equality with whites and males. False. > A debate about whether that is an indirect encouragement to violence is a valid one. Lying about what other people say and mischaracterizing those statements as an incitement to violence is itself an incitement to violence. Stop lying and…

"Transgenderism is a middle finger to God"

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#625

Post by glenstein »

immibis wrote: post #623
glenstein wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also would appreciate an answer to this. It's one thing to say anonymous sources like to offer quotes when they can push a preferred narrative. It's another to say they straight up make things up, and this lazy attitude of reflexively accusing NYT of fabrication like it's the apex of wisdom seems to come from a place of not understanding their processes or history. There's bias in the sense of selecting stories and…

There was one particular really important story a few years ago that massively affected global geopolitics, making a lot of people very angry, and they later admitted they just made it the fuck up.

I actually accept that as a legitimate example, and I do think that has important implications for the topic in question if we're thinking about something coming on its second anniversary in a few weeks. I don't think it's characteristic of NYT's reporting in other areas.

I know this is where you point to Murry Gellman amnesia but despite its fancy name I don't think I agree with its thesis, and in fact find it to be an incredibly damaging ethos in the misinformation environment we currently inhabit.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#626

Post by johann8384 »

Well, yeah, the pictures they included with the articles is a sim farm with devices available on a TOR site the same way you lease space on a server with EC2.

So, it maybe could have been used to initiate a TDoS attack if someone rented the capacity but that's not what it was there for. They caught a subcontractor and they want us to think they caught a kingpin.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#627

Post by tomhow »

nixosbestos wrote: post #43
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…

[flagged]

Please don't comment like this on HN. These guidelines in particular, ask us to avoid commenting like this:

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer...

Please don't post shallow dismissals...

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#628

Post by acdha »

lxgr wrote: post #241
acdha wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are by and large the same companies who created the caller ID forgery problem to save money when deploying VoIP around the turn of the century. Everyone technical knew that was a bad design but the executives were thinking exactly how you described it, collecting payments for all of that extra traffic until legislation became a risk.

Was there any specific bad design? As far as I understand it, it's more of the lack of a design (for authentication) that got us into all that trouble, similar to BGP, Email, and many other protocols that were originally designed with trusted counterparties in mind. It just so happened that the illusion of mutual trust broke down earlier in the Internet than it did in the international phone network. (Some even still…

The problem was that they didn’t want the extra hassle of verifying that senders owned the numbers they were announcing. In the earlier SS7 era that was manageable because all of the parties were major phone companies but VoIP opened up a wave of small fly-by-night players. Porting the system forward without recognizing that change in the security assumptions was recognized as a mistake in the early 2000s but the telephone companies saw preventing it as a cost which would also reduce their revenue from delivering all of that spam.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#629

Post by throwaway894345 »

marcosdumay wrote: post #593
throwaway894345 wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't even know what what a media organization "lying for deluding society into giving [the media organization] money and power" refers to or what kind of criminal codes might exist against it.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#630

Post by istjohn »

chrononaut wrote: post #456
istjohn wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The incredible vast majority of people in the world are acting in good faith. We have fundamentally different priors.

Which areas or circumstances are you observing otherwise?

I see routine bad faith in:

- politicians of both parties (eg, speaking disingenously on issues of relevance to their corporate sponsors)

- corporations

- judges, including in the Supreme Court, who abandon espoused judicial philosophies the moment they conflict with political expediency

- government administrators, much more so with Trump's appointments

- media organizations (The self-censorship of coverage around Gaza has been eye-opening.)

Post reply on HN