5 ms·

I'm not saying I don't believe they could be telling the truth, but why should we should take their word for it?

by kakarot 8y ago

CamperBob2 8y ago
Are you asking Apple, or Bloomberg?
- kakarot 8y ago
  I meant Apple, but the broader implication is that we can't trust either party with the information we have now.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
    I mean Apple's account seems a lot more believable to me. I know we all want Jason Bourne to be real, but he isn't.
    - panda888888 8y ago
      Why trust Apple over Bloomberg? What if the hack were so bad (e.g. a keylogger + who knows what else) that none of the tech giants would ever admit it?
      - stephenr 8y ago
        Then Apple would simply say nothing. Saying nothing is Apple's thing. No one would question them saying nothing.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
        It's not about trust (at least for me). It's about the credibility of the account. "Journalists got something wrong" is a lot easier for me to believe than "there is a massive conspiracy to cover something up and there just so happens to be no evidence of it besides our say so."
        panda888888 8y ago
        Hmm. The involvement of Elemental is enough evidence for me. A then 200-person startup with maybe 10 hardware engineers and lots of government clients would be a great target. It makes me thing the hack was real. Why else would Bloomberg have even bothered to report about Elemental?
        stephenr 8y ago
        It's not necessarily all or nothing. It could be that the actual story is something at some small company, which ballooned into a shit storm of assumptions and embellishment.
        asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
        So, are you saying that if a big journalism outlet wants to convince you that a world-shaking hack has occurred, all they have to do is name a plausible target? Interesting. My standards of evidence are higher.
        kakarot 8y ago
        I'm not saying I believe either party in this mess, but to be fair Occam's Razor is used very often to disregard legitimately viable conspiracy theories.

I'm not saying I don't believe they could be telling the truth, but why should we should take their word for it?

CamperBob2 8y ago

Are you asking Apple, or Bloomberg?

kakarot 8y ago
I meant Apple, but the broader implication is that we can't trust either party with the information we have now.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
  I mean Apple's account seems a lot more believable to me. I know we all want Jason Bourne to be real, but he isn't.
  - panda888888 8y ago
    Why trust Apple over Bloomberg? What if the hack were so bad (e.g. a keylogger + who knows what else) that none of the tech giants would ever admit it?
    - stephenr 8y ago
      Then Apple would simply say nothing. Saying nothing is Apple's thing. No one would question them saying nothing.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
      It's not about trust (at least for me). It's about the credibility of the account. "Journalists got something wrong" is a lot easier for me to believe than "there is a massive conspiracy to cover something up and there just so happens to be no evidence of it besides our say so."
      - panda888888 8y ago
        Hmm. The involvement of Elemental is enough evidence for me. A then 200-person startup with maybe 10 hardware engineers and lots of government clients would be a great target. It makes me thing the hack was real. Why else would Bloomberg have even bothered to report about Elemental?
        stephenr 8y ago
        It's not necessarily all or nothing. It could be that the actual story is something at some small company, which ballooned into a shit storm of assumptions and embellishment.
        asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
        So, are you saying that if a big journalism outlet wants to convince you that a world-shaking hack has occurred, all they have to do is name a plausible target? Interesting. My standards of evidence are higher.
      - kakarot 8y ago
        I'm not saying I believe either party in this mess, but to be fair Occam's Razor is used very often to disregard legitimately viable conspiracy theories.