3 ms·
You have made a large amount of assumptions that it was a random supplier and it was a random extortion Not saying it was not, but the idea that only Russia wo
by syshum 5y ago
You have made a large amount of assumptions that it was a random supplier and it was a random extortion
Not saying it was not, but the idea that only Russia would attack Toyota directly, and only random attacker hi suppliers is not true
- tiahura 5y agoI’m not making any assumptions- that’s the whole point. We don’t know if it was random or not. The original headline suggested Toyota was the direct target. If that was so, it would be some evidence that it was retaliation. But, Toyota wasn’t directly targeted, so the headline is misleading.
- criticaltinker 5y agoYou two are talking past each other, at this point it’s just semantics. > Toyota wasn’t directly targeted GP is trying to say this is the assumption you’re making. Supply chain attacks can be a clever way to disguise a direct target as an indirect one. I agree with you though, the headline could be more clear.
- Melatonic 5y agoYeah I think this situation is more nuanced and we will probably find out more later. Supply chains are certainly very valid ways to attach an entity even if the supplier is not technically part of that entity. If someone were to attack a major private utility in the US, for example electricity, they would not be directly attacking the US Government but I do not think most would find a title similar to this being clickbait.