4 ms·

Also in the mix is the possibility that Bloomberg's "17 sources" consist of a only a few that claim first-hand knowledge, supplemented by a larger circle of peo

by GCA10 8y ago

Also in the mix is the possibility that Bloomberg's "17 sources" consist of a only a few that claim first-hand knowledge, supplemented by a larger circle of people who were briefed about it. If so, the rest of the 17 are just echoing what the inner group told them, without having done substantial independent verification.

acqq 8y ago
Out of the 17 at least one says that the Bloomberg’s article “has no sense.” Apparently Bloomberg first just asked him “what kind of attack were possible” he explained to them that and then he reads the article that claims that exactly that kind of attack was actually performed. But he claims that for the stated goals that attack would be the least practical: https://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/18/10/08/security-researcher-cited-in-bloombergs-china-spy-chip-investigation-casts-doubt-on-storys-veracity https://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/18/10/08/security-r...
glenra 8y ago
My guess is that a lot of the 17 are just adding color or confirming individual parts that don't add up to the whole. For instance, they must have had at least one source who told them about the factory with chinese-speaking workers that orders chinese pastries instead of donuts and has separate meetings/announcements for people who don't speak English. Those details help sell the article - and help create an impression that innocuous immigrant workers who enjoy delicious bright yellow pastries are some kind of nefarious 5th column - but do absolutely nothing to establish the central claim. If they had 3 sources on the donuts-and-meetings thing and include those in the 17 that only leaves 14 for the important stuff, and so on. Dial in far enough and I bet there's only one or two dubious sources for the big picture, while everyone else is in their own little information silos not knowing anything but their own part.

by GCA10 8y ago

acqq 8y ago

Out of the 17 at least one says that the Bloomberg’s article “has no sense.” Apparently Bloomberg first just asked him “what kind of attack were possible” he explained to them that and then he reads the article that claims that exactly that kind of attack was actually performed. But he claims that for the stated goals that attack would be the least practical: https://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/18/10/08/security-researcher-cited-in-bloombergs-china-spy-chip-investigation-casts-doubt-on-storys-veracity https://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/18/10/08/security-r...

glenra 8y ago

My guess is that a lot of the 17 are just adding color or confirming individual parts that don't add up to the whole. For instance, they must have had at least one source who told them about the factory with chinese-speaking workers that orders chinese pastries instead of donuts and has separate meetings/announcements for people who don't speak English. Those details help sell the article - and help create an impression that innocuous immigrant workers who enjoy delicious bright yellow pastries are some kind of nefarious 5th column - but do absolutely nothing to establish the central claim. If they had 3 sources on the donuts-and-meetings thing and include those in the 17 that only leaves 14 for the important stuff, and so on. Dial in far enough and I bet there's only one or two dubious sources for the big picture, while everyone else is in their own little information silos not knowing anything but their own part.