5 ms·

As Jon Gruber says: "Bloomberg, of course, is the publication that published “The Big Hack” in October — a sensational story alleging that data centers of Apple

by 0898 7y ago

As Jon Gruber says: "Bloomberg, of course, is the publication that published “The Big Hack” in October — a sensational story alleging that data centers of Apple, Amazon, and dozens of other companies were compromised by China’s intelligence services." "The story presented no confirmable evidence at all, was vehemently denied by all companies involved, has not been confirmed by a single other publication (despite much effort to do so), and has been largely discredited by one of Bloomberg’s own sources." "By all appearances “The Big Hack” was complete bullshit. Yet Bloomberg has issued no correction or retraction, and seemingly hopes we’ll all just forget about it. I say we do not just forget about it. Bloomberg’s institutional credibility is severely damaged, and everything they publish should be treated with skepticism until they retract the story or provide evidence that it was true."

wqwh 7y ago
So like any other media publication? They are all in the business of lying, for profit or otherwise. I assume people at Bloomberg shorted Huawei stock before they published that.
- tikkabhuna 7y ago
  The Economist frequently publishes corrections. I've also seen them note when one of their stakeholders is also linked to the topic of an article.
  - wqwh 7y ago
    By the time they publish a correction it's late; they've already made money.
    - jsty 7y ago
      Given the price differential between subscribing and on-stand, I'd imagine most of their regular readership has paid before ink hits paper.
- terlisimo 7y ago
  "Any other media publication" did not publish an almost identical sensationalist story a few months back, which turned out to be unsubstantiated crap. Had any website other than bloomberg published this, I might have read past the headline.
- te_chris 7y ago
  Account created 1 day ago....
- neilv 7y ago
  Consider that some of these parties you're throwing mud at, based on assumptions, might not be deserving of mud. If news is making one cynical, maybe take a break, and look for parties deserving of flowers, keeping the mud in reserve.
- threeseed 7y ago
  In many countries you are subject to civil and criminal penalties for slandering or libelling someone. So no. They wouldn't be around if they were in the business of lying.
logifail 7y ago
> everything they publish should be treated with skepticism until they [..] provide evidence that it was true Call me a cynic, but I'd hope all of us would want to take that approach with every source.
- threeseed 7y ago
  If we all followed your advice the world will be a truly awful place to live. Given how critical journalism is to the fabric of society I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt wherever possible.
  - DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
    It's possible to value journalism without assuming it's accurate. For example, one can subscribe to a local newspaper, but also hold them accountable for stories that are weak on supporting evidence.
krn 7y ago
I have explained why Bloomberg's story would have been vehemently denied by all companies involved even if it was completely true: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18655803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18655803 Many people in tech, including John Gruber, seem to lack a basic understanding of who makes decisions concerning national security and international politics.
- networkimprov 7y ago
  Denials made under oath in court might be worth considering. Public denials are a penny per gross, i.e. meaningless.
- tim333 7y ago
  I think your argument is the security services or the US government would tell them to deny it but I don't see why. Google 'Chinese hacking' and there are hundreds of stories. It's not a big secret. I can't see why they'd censor it.
neximo64 7y ago
How do you know for sure that the story is false? As you've mentioned Bloomberg hasn't corrected or retracted the story. Governments and companies have in the past denied things that have been true. Do you seriously think Huawei vehemently denying that it has backdoors in its technology makes it true all of a sudden?
- longhorn_alum 7y ago
  > How do you know for sure that the story is false? That's not how journalism works, at least until fairly recently
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- crispyambulance 7y ago
  If Bloomberg is going to make serious claims like that they NEED TO BACK IT UP with some evidence. Not a damn thing came out of the Supermicro story. And now this story about Huawei where it's unclear if they're talking about bugs, vulnerabilities or deliberate back-doors--- three very very different things. It's not that I trust Huawei either, but if Bloomberg is going to make claims like that they better be fucking true and verifiable.
- freeflight 7y ago
  Because an actual review by Super Micro did not find any chips like that [0]. Unlike the Bloomberg article, they also released which company did the audit, while whoever was behind the Bloomberg article couldn't even supply a sample of these chips to any other security researches. Which was just very weird: On one hand you claim to have discovered this extraordinary thing trough physical evidence, yet when asked to produce said physical evidence, you can't. That alone was reason enough to trigger several red-flags. [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-supermicro-chips/super-micro-says-review-found-no-malicious-chips-in-motherboards-idUSKBN1OA12R https://www.reuters.com/article/us-supermicro-chips/super-mi...
fxfan 7y ago
If one mistake tarnished reputation forever then after Iraq war none of CNN, Fox, NYT, MSNBC, WaPo should be in business, specially since all of these were accomplices in and not victims of falsehoods.
- linuxftw 7y ago
  You are allowed to objectively criticize the Iraq war any more as it's been endorsed by both major political parties at this point. It's sad that the major news outlets are complete propaganda machines at this point. Nobody is taking the government to task for it's continued wars in the Middle East. The only angle I ever see is how some 'atrocity' has taken place and how we need to bomb them even more.
threeseed 7y ago
Bloomberg publishes what thousands of articles a year. Some percentage of them are guaranteed to be wrong. That doesn't meant that the burden of truth should instantly shift towards them being untrustworthy based on a single article. Journalism depends on the public trusting them and in the current environment in which that trust is being eroded to have comments like this that dismiss Bloomberg entirely is reckless and pretty disgraceful to be honest.
- crispyambulance 7y ago
  > That doesn't meant that the burden of truth should instantly shift towards them being untrustworthy based on a single article. How many very high-profile articles need to be complete bullshit before it's time to start questioning the integrity of Bloomberg? The Supermicro nothing-burger was supposedly the culmination of a year of effort by top-shelf journalists. They knew what they were doing, they had NOTHING to show for it and published anyway. I think that's irresponsible at best and more likely had ulterior motivations.
  - threeseed 7y ago
    a) We don't know if the article is bullshit. b) You have no evidence that that they didn't have sources, no evidence that they have ulterior motives and no evidence that they published the article without evidence. c) Like you said if it was a year of effort by top-shelf journalists surely there is more to the story than simply "nothing".
    - crispyambulance 7y ago
      > ...there is more to the story than simply "nothing". Well, where is it? Seriously, where? Bloomberg made the assertion, a serious one that moved markets, and now it's on them to prove it. Or at least someone needs to step forward with something that remotely corroborates the story. It's a hard-to-believe claim on a technical basis alone like something straight out of James Bond story. It was a year in the making and now approaching 5 months later and still nothing?
- 7y ago

by 0898 7y ago

wqwh 7y ago

So like any other media publication? They are all in the business of lying, for profit or otherwise. I assume people at Bloomberg shorted Huawei stock before they published that.

tikkabhuna 7y ago
The Economist frequently publishes corrections. I've also seen them note when one of their stakeholders is also linked to the topic of an article.
- wqwh 7y ago
  By the time they publish a correction it's late; they've already made money.
  - jsty 7y ago
    Given the price differential between subscribing and on-stand, I'd imagine most of their regular readership has paid before ink hits paper.
terlisimo 7y ago
"Any other media publication" did not publish an almost identical sensationalist story a few months back, which turned out to be unsubstantiated crap. Had any website other than bloomberg published this, I might have read past the headline.
te_chris 7y ago
Account created 1 day ago....
neilv 7y ago
Consider that some of these parties you're throwing mud at, based on assumptions, might not be deserving of mud. If news is making one cynical, maybe take a break, and look for parties deserving of flowers, keeping the mud in reserve.
threeseed 7y ago
In many countries you are subject to civil and criminal penalties for slandering or libelling someone. So no. They wouldn't be around if they were in the business of lying.

logifail 7y ago

> everything they publish should be treated with skepticism until they [..] provide evidence that it was true Call me a cynic, but I'd hope all of us would want to take that approach with every source.

threeseed 7y ago
If we all followed your advice the world will be a truly awful place to live. Given how critical journalism is to the fabric of society I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt wherever possible.
- DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
  It's possible to value journalism without assuming it's accurate. For example, one can subscribe to a local newspaper, but also hold them accountable for stories that are weak on supporting evidence.

krn 7y ago

I have explained why Bloomberg's story would have been vehemently denied by all companies involved even if it was completely true: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18655803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18655803 Many people in tech, including John Gruber, seem to lack a basic understanding of who makes decisions concerning national security and international politics.

networkimprov 7y ago
Denials made under oath in court might be worth considering. Public denials are a penny per gross, i.e. meaningless.
tim333 7y ago
I think your argument is the security services or the US government would tell them to deny it but I don't see why. Google 'Chinese hacking' and there are hundreds of stories. It's not a big secret. I can't see why they'd censor it.

neximo64 7y ago

How do you know for sure that the story is false? As you've mentioned Bloomberg hasn't corrected or retracted the story. Governments and companies have in the past denied things that have been true. Do you seriously think Huawei vehemently denying that it has backdoors in its technology makes it true all of a sudden?

longhorn_alum 7y ago
> How do you know for sure that the story is false? That's not how journalism works, at least until fairly recently
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
crispyambulance 7y ago
If Bloomberg is going to make serious claims like that they NEED TO BACK IT UP with some evidence. Not a damn thing came out of the Supermicro story. And now this story about Huawei where it's unclear if they're talking about bugs, vulnerabilities or deliberate back-doors--- three very very different things. It's not that I trust Huawei either, but if Bloomberg is going to make claims like that they better be fucking true and verifiable.
freeflight 7y ago
Because an actual review by Super Micro did not find any chips like that [0]. Unlike the Bloomberg article, they also released which company did the audit, while whoever was behind the Bloomberg article couldn't even supply a sample of these chips to any other security researches. Which was just very weird: On one hand you claim to have discovered this extraordinary thing trough physical evidence, yet when asked to produce said physical evidence, you can't. That alone was reason enough to trigger several red-flags. [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-supermicro-chips/super-micro-says-review-found-no-malicious-chips-in-motherboards-idUSKBN1OA12R https://www.reuters.com/article/us-supermicro-chips/super-mi...

fxfan 7y ago

If one mistake tarnished reputation forever then after Iraq war none of CNN, Fox, NYT, MSNBC, WaPo should be in business, specially since all of these were accomplices in and not victims of falsehoods.

linuxftw 7y ago
You are allowed to objectively criticize the Iraq war any more as it's been endorsed by both major political parties at this point. It's sad that the major news outlets are complete propaganda machines at this point. Nobody is taking the government to task for it's continued wars in the Middle East. The only angle I ever see is how some 'atrocity' has taken place and how we need to bomb them even more.

threeseed 7y ago

Bloomberg publishes what thousands of articles a year. Some percentage of them are guaranteed to be wrong. That doesn't meant that the burden of truth should instantly shift towards them being untrustworthy based on a single article. Journalism depends on the public trusting them and in the current environment in which that trust is being eroded to have comments like this that dismiss Bloomberg entirely is reckless and pretty disgraceful to be honest.

crispyambulance 7y ago
> That doesn't meant that the burden of truth should instantly shift towards them being untrustworthy based on a single article. How many very high-profile articles need to be complete bullshit before it's time to start questioning the integrity of Bloomberg? The Supermicro nothing-burger was supposedly the culmination of a year of effort by top-shelf journalists. They knew what they were doing, they had NOTHING to show for it and published anyway. I think that's irresponsible at best and more likely had ulterior motivations.
- threeseed 7y ago
  a) We don't know if the article is bullshit. b) You have no evidence that that they didn't have sources, no evidence that they have ulterior motives and no evidence that they published the article without evidence. c) Like you said if it was a year of effort by top-shelf journalists surely there is more to the story than simply "nothing".
  - crispyambulance 7y ago
    > ...there is more to the story than simply "nothing". Well, where is it? Seriously, where? Bloomberg made the assertion, a serious one that moved markets, and now it's on them to prove it. Or at least someone needs to step forward with something that remotely corroborates the story. It's a hard-to-believe claim on a technical basis alone like something straight out of James Bond story. It was a year in the making and now approaching 5 months later and still nothing?
7y ago