3 ms·

Regarding the five eyes sources, are we really expecting that intelligence agencies will give sources/proof?

by na85 8y ago

ghostly_s 8y ago
I wouldn't, but I also wouldn't expect a reporter to publish this info without finding anything corroborating. This whole story is about physical sabotage devices, supposedely planted in large quantities, why couldn't they find any of these devices or a single person willing to state they saw one?
dpwm 8y ago
Yes.
StavrosK 8y ago
Are they expecting us to believe whatever they say without any examination?
freeflight 8y ago
If they want their claims to be taken seriously, then they really should. Without that, it's just hearsay, hearsay by agencies who have deceit as part of their job description and as such should be taken with a massive grain of salt. Imho they've also become shy about openly sharing sources because it allows them plausible deniability, they don't want an Iraq style curveball [0] all over again, where the attribution of the misinformation can be too easily traced back straight to them. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)
- threeseed 8y ago
  This argument is illogical. They don’t share sources because simply it would reveal the sources. It has nothing to do with plausible deniability because they don’t care whether you believe them or not. The governments do and that’s all that matters.
- scottlocklin 8y ago
  I dunno, maybe they've (who is "they" anyway?) become shy because when their claims are examined, they so often turn out to be nonsense? When was the last time anonymous "government sources" or even "five eyes official" told us something which is demonstrably true? Cuban missile crisis?
Bartweiss 8y ago
They do provide sources sometimes - even when their stories are false - which makes credulity without proof that much more surprising. They're not inviting anyone into Langley, and if this were a claim about e.g. cyberattacks on Ukraine we might not expect evidence. But for something evaluated domestically, especially with physical evidence like SuperMicro, it's relatively common for intelligence sources to point to people who can confirm key elements. That might be a non-government firm which examined the physical evidence, a non-intelligence researcher who can assess the context of a factual claim, or an affected business which can verify what they experienced. When a CIA source told Judy Miller that Iraq was buying aluminum tubes to centrifuge uranium, they claimed that Oak Ridge nuclear scientists had confirmed their assessment of what the tubes were for. They hadn't, but she apparently didn't bother to check. When "U.S. officials" told the Washington Post that Russian Grizzly Steppe malware had infected the US electric grid, they provided the name of the utility company which had been attacked - Burlington Electric. Again, this was untrue (the code was found on one laptop unconnected to 'the grid'), but the reporter involved didn't check. In the SuperMicro case, there doesn't seem to have even been a name given to check, just vague assertions that some company had performed an audit. That ought to have been a warning sign, but it looks like Bloomberg accepted source diversity in place of concrete or verifiable details - we're told of six national security officials, three Apple insiders, two AWS sources (and a partridge in a pear tree).

Regarding the five eyes sources, are we really expecting that intelligence agencies will give sources/proof?

by na85 8y ago

Regarding the five eyes sources, are we really expecting that intelligence agencies will give sources/proof?

I wouldn't, but I also wouldn't expect a reporter to publish this info without finding anything corroborating. This whole story is about physical sabotage devices, supposedely planted in large quantities, why couldn't they find any of these devices or a single person willing to state they saw one?

dpwm 8y ago

Yes.

StavrosK 8y ago

Are they expecting us to believe whatever they say without any examination?

freeflight 8y ago

If they want their claims to be taken seriously, then they really should. Without that, it's just hearsay, hearsay by agencies who have deceit as part of their job description and as such should be taken with a massive grain of salt. Imho they've also become shy about openly sharing sources because it allows them plausible deniability, they don't want an Iraq style curveball [0] all over again, where the attribution of the misinformation can be too easily traced back straight to them. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)

threeseed 8y ago
This argument is illogical. They don’t share sources because simply it would reveal the sources. It has nothing to do with plausible deniability because they don’t care whether you believe them or not. The governments do and that’s all that matters.
scottlocklin 8y ago
I dunno, maybe they've (who is "they" anyway?) become shy because when their claims are examined, they so often turn out to be nonsense? When was the last time anonymous "government sources" or even "five eyes official" told us something which is demonstrably true? Cuban missile crisis?

Bartweiss 8y ago

They do provide sources sometimes - even when their stories are false - which makes credulity without proof that much more surprising. They're not inviting anyone into Langley, and if this were a claim about e.g. cyberattacks on Ukraine we might not expect evidence. But for something evaluated domestically, especially with physical evidence like SuperMicro, it's relatively common for intelligence sources to point to people who can confirm key elements. That might be a non-government firm which examined the physical evidence, a non-intelligence researcher who can assess the context of a factual claim, or an affected business which can verify what they experienced. When a CIA source told Judy Miller that Iraq was buying aluminum tubes to centrifuge uranium, they claimed that Oak Ridge nuclear scientists had confirmed their assessment of what the tubes were for. They hadn't, but she apparently didn't bother to check. When "U.S. officials" told the Washington Post that Russian Grizzly Steppe malware had infected the US electric grid, they provided the name of the utility company which had been attacked - Burlington Electric. Again, this was untrue (the code was found on one laptop unconnected to 'the grid'), but the reporter involved didn't check. In the SuperMicro case, there doesn't seem to have even been a name given to check, just vague assertions that some company had performed an audit. That ought to have been a warning sign, but it looks like Bloomberg accepted source diversity in place of concrete or verifiable details - we're told of six national security officials, three Apple insiders, two AWS sources (and a partridge in a pear tree).