4 ms·
Why would this article lead to the conclusion that Bloomberg should apologize? The interviewee says that Bloomberg is inaccurate in that it appears to single o
by addicted 8y ago
Why would this article lead to the conclusion that Bloomberg should apologize?
The interviewee says that Bloomberg is inaccurate in that it appears to single out only SuperMicro servers. This article reinforces their claims by pointing out that not only is it an issue for SuperMicro, it’s true of the industry at large.
Bloomberg’s explanation for focusing on the SuperMicro bit is fairly clear. That’s where their sources confirmed. I’m pretty sure nowhere in the article does Bloomberg state that none of SuperMicro’s competitors have this issue. If anything, the SuperMicro incident which they have been able to find evidence for is held up as an example.
- jjcc 8y agoBloomberg already use the story in a wrong way which the original source didn't agree. But let's go deeper: 1. In first report, Bloomberg have strong specific claims: China already hacked the server used in some big companies. it's PLA who did the tampering. They have evidences/sources 2. In second report they provide weak evidence that not related to the strong claims: It's a general security issue all over the industry, A lot of hardware could be tampered, etc,etc. Although maybe exaggerated I believe it's true. So talking about general security risk is already shifting the focus. If there's a 2nd report, it should be address the conflicts of the denial from Apple and Amazon which cause the dispute, not talking about some thing that can easily reach consensus and close related to the real controversial topic. If they want to talk general security issue, they should make it clear and better in separate time. By putting those 2 different things together, it makes an impression to average readers that 2nd part can support the 1st part. Which seems to me it’s a dishonest practise.