5 ms·

Bloomberg says they did a year of reporting, and over 100 interviews, and have around 17 sources. It's hard to believe all those sources conspired to fabricate

Bloomberg says they did a year of reporting, and over 100 interviews, and have around 17 sources. It's hard to believe all those sources conspired to fabricate this story, along with the evidence, and conned the reporters. Bloomberg clearly found something, but if Apple and Amazon are right (I wouldn't assume that; aggressive denials are par for the course), what did they find?

solarkraft 8y ago
Then again, Bloomberg's details are really only vague hints. To me these are currently only allegations from one source. When a board is given out to security researchers to publish an independent analysis I'll believe it. The perfect way to be credible to me would be to give a talk at some security conference. There's no investigation of the supply chain, which would have been quite interesting. But the more I think about it, the more I think that all of this, if true, would be much too serious to even publish, really.
coldcode 8y ago
Considering the article points fingers at China, I wonder if their evidence was manufactured by someone. Without proof (like a board) or the names of actual witnesses or hard documents or something, its basically unverifiable, like claiming Area 51 has aliens. Without proof it's indistinguishable from fiction.
- jancsika 8y ago
  It would be like claiming Area 51 has aliens after over 100 interviews with 17 people familiar with the aliens, including two at Lockheed Martin and three at Boeing.
  - Canada 8y ago
    None of whom are identified on the record.
- charlysl 8y ago
  Far more plausible that alien stories though.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > Considering the article points fingers at China, I wonder if their evidence was manufactured by someone. What is the connection? > Without proof (like a board) or the names of actual witnesses or hard documents or something, its basically unverifiable, like claiming Area 51 has aliens. A Bloomberg article based on a year of reporting, 100 interviews, etc. is as likely as aliens? Hmmm ... I feel I can distinguish it pretty easily.
coaxial 8y ago
It reminds me of Genoa on newsroom. I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen the show, and highly recommend watching it if you haven't. You don't even have to be into the news or politics, I haven't watched the news or read a newspaper in over 5 years and I very much enjoyed the show.
prawn 8y ago
Who has what incentive here? The US has an incentive to damage China'a reputation, but not so much if it takes down Apple and Amazon with it. Apple and Amazon have an incentive to limit or hide information suggesting they're leaking data - is that enough smoke? Otherwise, if Bloomberg have been misled by a concocted story, who has the ability to generate enough false sources/etc to engineer it? Seems like the scale puts it beyond a solid PR effort from a competitor?
stordoff 8y ago
17 sources who may all be drawing from the same source, or at least (inadvertently) confirming each other (e.g. source 2 has heard vague information from source 4 and 6, and reports that to Bloomberg, source 5 has then heard vague information from source 2 and 4, and reports that to Bloomberg). Without more information, I'm not sure we can really say it's more than one source (Bloomberg).
- forapurpose 8y ago
  That's theoretical; it could be said about any group of sources on any story. Is there anything to back it up here? Do their descriptions of the sources support that theory, as a small (but still very insufficient) start?
  - 00N8 8y ago
    It's definitely speculation, but I notice the article did fail to clearly demonstrate that it's anything different...
exolymph 8y ago
> aggressive denials are par for the course Aggressive denials yes, but not at the level of specificity that Apple and Amazon have gone to.
hrktb 8y ago
Bold claims from newspaper is also par for the course, and Bloomberg benefits from the attention, especially if in the end they can just say “the problem was insignificant, but we were in good faith, we’re not engineers after all” If we want to disregard what Apple’s denial, we can also disregard Bloomberg’s claim until someone sues someone else and an investigation brings out actual facts.

solarkraft 8y ago

Then again, Bloomberg's details are really only vague hints. To me these are currently only allegations from one source. When a board is given out to security researchers to publish an independent analysis I'll believe it. The perfect way to be credible to me would be to give a talk at some security conference. There's no investigation of the supply chain, which would have been quite interesting. But the more I think about it, the more I think that all of this, if true, would be much too serious to even publish, really.

coldcode 8y ago

Considering the article points fingers at China, I wonder if their evidence was manufactured by someone. Without proof (like a board) or the names of actual witnesses or hard documents or something, its basically unverifiable, like claiming Area 51 has aliens. Without proof it's indistinguishable from fiction.

jancsika 8y ago
It would be like claiming Area 51 has aliens after over 100 interviews with 17 people familiar with the aliens, including two at Lockheed Martin and three at Boeing.
- Canada 8y ago
  None of whom are identified on the record.
charlysl 8y ago
Far more plausible that alien stories though.
forapurpose 8y ago
> Considering the article points fingers at China, I wonder if their evidence was manufactured by someone. What is the connection? > Without proof (like a board) or the names of actual witnesses or hard documents or something, its basically unverifiable, like claiming Area 51 has aliens. A Bloomberg article based on a year of reporting, 100 interviews, etc. is as likely as aliens? Hmmm ... I feel I can distinguish it pretty easily.

coaxial 8y ago

It reminds me of Genoa on newsroom. I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen the show, and highly recommend watching it if you haven't. You don't even have to be into the news or politics, I haven't watched the news or read a newspaper in over 5 years and I very much enjoyed the show.

prawn 8y ago

Who has what incentive here? The US has an incentive to damage China'a reputation, but not so much if it takes down Apple and Amazon with it. Apple and Amazon have an incentive to limit or hide information suggesting they're leaking data - is that enough smoke? Otherwise, if Bloomberg have been misled by a concocted story, who has the ability to generate enough false sources/etc to engineer it? Seems like the scale puts it beyond a solid PR effort from a competitor?

stordoff 8y ago

17 sources who may all be drawing from the same source, or at least (inadvertently) confirming each other (e.g. source 2 has heard vague information from source 4 and 6, and reports that to Bloomberg, source 5 has then heard vague information from source 2 and 4, and reports that to Bloomberg). Without more information, I'm not sure we can really say it's more than one source (Bloomberg).

forapurpose 8y ago
That's theoretical; it could be said about any group of sources on any story. Is there anything to back it up here? Do their descriptions of the sources support that theory, as a small (but still very insufficient) start?
- 00N8 8y ago
  It's definitely speculation, but I notice the article did fail to clearly demonstrate that it's anything different...

exolymph 8y ago

> aggressive denials are par for the course Aggressive denials yes, but not at the level of specificity that Apple and Amazon have gone to.

hrktb 8y ago

Bold claims from newspaper is also par for the course, and Bloomberg benefits from the attention, especially if in the end they can just say “the problem was insignificant, but we were in good faith, we’re not engineers after all” If we want to disregard what Apple’s denial, we can also disregard Bloomberg’s claim until someone sues someone else and an investigation brings out actual facts.