4 ms·

The title does not match the article at all. He didn’t find anything. He found that Saudis don’t like Bezos and that they hack phones. It’s quite a stretch to g

The title does not match the article at all. He didn’t find anything. He found that Saudis don’t like Bezos and that they hack phones. It’s quite a stretch to go from that to saying they hacked the Bezos phone.

dustinmoorenet 8y ago
No, they didn't state in the article the evidence because it has been handed over to the authorities to deal with. It is now an active investigation.
meowface 8y ago
I don't think that's the case. The article makes a very specific claim: >Further, to respect officials pursuing this case, I won’t disclose details from our investigation. I am, however, comfortable confirming one key fact: >Our investigators and several experts concluded with high confidence that the Saudis had access to Bezos’ phone, and gained private information. As of today, it is unclear to what degree, if any, AMI was aware of the details. He claims there is direct evidence that they accessed Bezos' phone. It may not be true, but opting to not disclose evidence doesn't mean none exists. I also doubt Bezos and his lawyer would make such a major accusation like that without confidence that it's true.
- zaroth 8y ago
  I thought "claim with high confidence" is intelligence speak for we don't have a fucking clue but it's the narrative we're running with. </s> This is really no better than citing anonymous sources. There is a story if and when, and not a moment before, actual evidence (with some respectably chain of custody) is actually provided. EDIT: The word "evidence" only appears once in the editorial, talking about an AP article reporting that the Saudi's were sent an advanced digital copy of the pro-MBS magazine. Read it carefully, Gavin never equivocally states he has any evidence that the Saudi's had access to Jeff's texts. They interviewed people. They were told by other people that the Saudi's had this capability. SA apparently "unleashed their cyber-army on Bezos". And AMI has done [presumably highly lucrative] work for MBS. And AMI is bad because they caught-and-killed a story for Trump, and have done things for Trump in the past. That is all we get here, aside from the ominous ending of Saudi Arabia controlling our media. I'm just so tired of the conspiracy theories. Not knowing why AMI started talking to Michael Sanchez is not the same as knowing that the Saudi's told them to talk to Sanchez.
  - olliepop 8y ago
    Ironic, because you claim without any supporting references that you "thought" that the statement ("claim with high confidence") is intelligence speak for no evidence, and then use this assumption to conclude that it's no better than citing anonymous sources.
    - zaroth 8y ago
      The first sentence was sarcasm. But if you need a reference, how about Iraq WMDs. I'm not on the hook to prove anything. TFA provides literally zero evidence of their claim other than to assert it strongly. In my opinion, the most strongly asserted claims accompanied by "we can't tell you the evidence, but we turned it over to someone else who also can't tell you"... well, haven't we seen how that turns out enough already over the last 2 years? My point is simply that TFA asserts a lot and backs it up with nothing but hyperbole.
      - village-idiot 8y ago
        It’s time to put “but what about the WMDs” away as an argument.
        zaroth 8y ago
        Sorry I mentioned it! It has nothing to do with my premise, as we're not even talking about intelligence agency assessments here. My point was simply that this is a mealy-mouthed statement which does not assert anything about what, if any, evidence may have been obtained or analyzed; > "Our investigators and several experts concluded with high confidence that the Saudis had access to Bezos’ phone, and gained private information."
        village-idiot 8y ago
        This is pretty common in intelligence work because admitting what evidence you’ve found can compromise sources.
      - 8y ago
jjeaff 8y ago
I suggest you re-read the article. Extensive evidence that has been turned over to US authorities.
- zaroth 8y ago
  Please quote the part of the article which says anything about "extensive evidence" or "evidence" of any kind. TFA actually says; > As has been reported elsewhere, my results have been turned over to federal officials. ... Further, to respect officials pursuing this case, I won’t disclose details from our investigation. "Results". "Details". Never "evidence".
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    What would you call "results and details" of an investigation which led to a conclusion?
    - zaroth 8y ago
      It's so vague as to defy description. Gavin said he was confident in his conclusion. He then went on to describe numerous activities; interviewing current and former AMI executives, Middle East experts, cybersecurity experts, current and former advisers to Trump (?), whistleblowers, associates, and others targeted by the Saudis. That sounds to me, like an awful lot of smoke, and zero definitive evidence. What he didn't say he had? Forensic evidence from the phone. DKIM signed email trail, confession from a co-conspirator, etc. I have no doubt there is a compelling story here. I have no doubt that this could theoretically fit the Saudi MO. I certainly have absolutely zero doubt that the crown prince is an epicly murderous duplicitous asshole. I might even believe the Saudis have some ways to remotely infiltrate certain iPhones (but I would bet it requires compromising the carrier). None of that would lead me to conclude the Saudis tipped AMI without just a little bit of non-circumstantial evidence.

dustinmoorenet 8y ago

No, they didn't state in the article the evidence because it has been handed over to the authorities to deal with. It is now an active investigation.

meowface 8y ago

I don't think that's the case. The article makes a very specific claim: >Further, to respect officials pursuing this case, I won’t disclose details from our investigation. I am, however, comfortable confirming one key fact: >Our investigators and several experts concluded with high confidence that the Saudis had access to Bezos’ phone, and gained private information. As of today, it is unclear to what degree, if any, AMI was aware of the details. He claims there is direct evidence that they accessed Bezos' phone. It may not be true, but opting to not disclose evidence doesn't mean none exists. I also doubt Bezos and his lawyer would make such a major accusation like that without confidence that it's true.

zaroth 8y ago
I thought "claim with high confidence" is intelligence speak for we don't have a fucking clue but it's the narrative we're running with. </s> This is really no better than citing anonymous sources. There is a story if and when, and not a moment before, actual evidence (with some respectably chain of custody) is actually provided. EDIT: The word "evidence" only appears once in the editorial, talking about an AP article reporting that the Saudi's were sent an advanced digital copy of the pro-MBS magazine. Read it carefully, Gavin never equivocally states he has any evidence that the Saudi's had access to Jeff's texts. They interviewed people. They were told by other people that the Saudi's had this capability. SA apparently "unleashed their cyber-army on Bezos". And AMI has done [presumably highly lucrative] work for MBS. And AMI is bad because they caught-and-killed a story for Trump, and have done things for Trump in the past. That is all we get here, aside from the ominous ending of Saudi Arabia controlling our media. I'm just so tired of the conspiracy theories. Not knowing why AMI started talking to Michael Sanchez is not the same as knowing that the Saudi's told them to talk to Sanchez.
- olliepop 8y ago
  Ironic, because you claim without any supporting references that you "thought" that the statement ("claim with high confidence") is intelligence speak for no evidence, and then use this assumption to conclude that it's no better than citing anonymous sources.
  - zaroth 8y ago
    The first sentence was sarcasm. But if you need a reference, how about Iraq WMDs. I'm not on the hook to prove anything. TFA provides literally zero evidence of their claim other than to assert it strongly. In my opinion, the most strongly asserted claims accompanied by "we can't tell you the evidence, but we turned it over to someone else who also can't tell you"... well, haven't we seen how that turns out enough already over the last 2 years? My point is simply that TFA asserts a lot and backs it up with nothing but hyperbole.
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      It’s time to put “but what about the WMDs” away as an argument.
      - zaroth 8y ago
        Sorry I mentioned it! It has nothing to do with my premise, as we're not even talking about intelligence agency assessments here. My point was simply that this is a mealy-mouthed statement which does not assert anything about what, if any, evidence may have been obtained or analyzed; > "Our investigators and several experts concluded with high confidence that the Saudis had access to Bezos’ phone, and gained private information."
        village-idiot 8y ago
        This is pretty common in intelligence work because admitting what evidence you’ve found can compromise sources.
    - 8y ago

jjeaff 8y ago

I suggest you re-read the article. Extensive evidence that has been turned over to US authorities.

zaroth 8y ago
Please quote the part of the article which says anything about "extensive evidence" or "evidence" of any kind. TFA actually says; > As has been reported elsewhere, my results have been turned over to federal officials. ... Further, to respect officials pursuing this case, I won’t disclose details from our investigation. "Results". "Details". Never "evidence".
- EpicEng 8y ago
  What would you call "results and details" of an investigation which led to a conclusion?
  - zaroth 8y ago
    It's so vague as to defy description. Gavin said he was confident in his conclusion. He then went on to describe numerous activities; interviewing current and former AMI executives, Middle East experts, cybersecurity experts, current and former advisers to Trump (?), whistleblowers, associates, and others targeted by the Saudis. That sounds to me, like an awful lot of smoke, and zero definitive evidence. What he didn't say he had? Forensic evidence from the phone. DKIM signed email trail, confession from a co-conspirator, etc. I have no doubt there is a compelling story here. I have no doubt that this could theoretically fit the Saudi MO. I certainly have absolutely zero doubt that the crown prince is an epicly murderous duplicitous asshole. I might even believe the Saudis have some ways to remotely infiltrate certain iPhones (but I would bet it requires compromising the carrier). None of that would lead me to conclude the Saudis tipped AMI without just a little bit of non-circumstantial evidence.