5 ms·

>Notably, one of the criticisms at the time was that Bloomberg didn't name credible sources with first-hand accounts of the events — understandably given the se

by ikeboy 6y ago

>Notably, one of the criticisms at the time was that Bloomberg didn't name credible sources with first-hand accounts of the events — understandably given the sensitivity. It's not just that - it's that no other reputable outlet was able to confirm the story, and many tried. This just doesn't happen with controversial but true stories with many sources - some of those sources will be willing to talk to other outlets.

jtbayly 6y ago
Bruce Schneier said last time that he didn’t believe it. This time he said he was wrong. When pressed by a skeptic in the comments, he said, “Independent from this article, I know that the DoD believes this threat is real and is giving away R&D funding for security solutions. So I have more than the Bloomberg reporting to go on.” https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2021/02/chinese-supply-chain-attack-on-computer-systems.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2021/02/chinese-suppl...
- Daho0n 6y ago
  That "the DoD believes this threat" is not the same as it actually happened. The threat is real, the article is very likely fluff.
  - jtbayly 6y ago
    Yes, but everybody already knows the threat is real, most especially Schneier. Something made him change his mind.
  - datavirtue 6y ago
    All you people are in denial. The first bloomberg story was credible but was protecting sources. They go further and get people on the record and double down....literally stretching their necks out, and you people keep propping up strawmen from the original article. Admit it. You were skeptical, determined that it couldn't be true, ran around shooting your mouth off about how it was fake news and now you can't help but continue smearing the egg all over your face.
    - himinlomax 6y ago
      > but was protecting sources As others have pointed out, the problem was not (just) with lack of sources, but with the fact that the few technical details they gave didn't make sense. As a result, the article read like it was written by someone who was completely ignorant and was just not credible on the face of it.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]

by ikeboy 6y ago

jtbayly 6y ago

Bruce Schneier said last time that he didn’t believe it. This time he said he was wrong. When pressed by a skeptic in the comments, he said, “Independent from this article, I know that the DoD believes this threat is real and is giving away R&D funding for security solutions. So I have more than the Bloomberg reporting to go on.” https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2021/02/chinese-supply-chain-attack-on-computer-systems.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2021/02/chinese-suppl...

Daho0n 6y ago
That "the DoD believes this threat" is not the same as it actually happened. The threat is real, the article is very likely fluff.
- jtbayly 6y ago
  Yes, but everybody already knows the threat is real, most especially Schneier. Something made him change his mind.
- datavirtue 6y ago
  All you people are in denial. The first bloomberg story was credible but was protecting sources. They go further and get people on the record and double down....literally stretching their necks out, and you people keep propping up strawmen from the original article. Admit it. You were skeptical, determined that it couldn't be true, ran around shooting your mouth off about how it was fake news and now you can't help but continue smearing the egg all over your face.
  - himinlomax 6y ago
    > but was protecting sources As others have pointed out, the problem was not (just) with lack of sources, but with the fact that the few technical details they gave didn't make sense. As a result, the article read like it was written by someone who was completely ignorant and was just not credible on the face of it.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]