4 ms·

The argument is that there isn't two people, there is just one who was arrested. Kreb's original source for the march article was the fake whistleblower extort

by nojito 5y ago

The argument is that there isn't two people, there is just one who was arrested. Kreb's original source for the march article was the fake whistleblower extorting ubiquiti. He had just gotten raided by the FBI. Which is why the tweets are being mentioned.

DannyBee 5y ago
Krebs doesn't claim there were two people anywhere? Ubiquiti hangs this entire argument about this on using slightly different wording to refer to a person in two places in an article. But if you read the article, he reports the facts in a literal linear timeline fashion, attempting to use what appear to be time-correct monikers. IE He literally says (see the screenshot) In January x happened in March, a ubiquiti employee said something in November, a former developer for ubiquiti was arrested and charged. He never says the march and november people are different. He is reporting exactly what happened. They claim he knows they are the same person, and should refer to them as such but they literally don't even provide any evidence of this either (ie that it was Krebs source). It wouldn't help them (because what krebs says does not seem wrong or untrue), but they don't prove it either. IE even if krebs knew they are the same person, the above appears to be a totally accurate rendering of the story. Krebs is only required to be accurate. Did a Ubiquiti employee say X in march (or did Krebs have good reason to believe a ubiquiti employee said X in march)? Did a former ubiquiti developer get arrested in late november? Yes? (AFAIK, yes) Okay, case over. The fact that they don't like his reporting doesn't make it untrue, and if they want to show it's untrue, as I said, this filing does a bad job of it.
- mannykannot 5y ago
  I have not looked into this in any detail, but is it possible that Ubiquiti is fishing for the name of a second source?
  - dsr_ 5y ago
    If they really wanted that, they would craft a less emotionally loaded complaint and try for discovery ASAP. I think.
- nojito 5y ago
  He is accused of making the claims through Twitter which is why it’s being used as evidence.
- goodluckchuck 5y ago
  The problem for Krebs is that (if the criminal case against this guy is true) Krebs was a party to the crime. He was the medium for the extortion. He is the guy that published and spread the damaging story! And he’s still doing it! It’s as if a bank robber was dressed as an innocent old lady and tricked Krebs into carrying the bags of stolen money to the getaway car. Except here, the robber is in the back of a squad car and Krebs is still transporting bags of cash! It doesn’t matter whether the statements were true, they’re an act of extortion! Extortion is defamation per se.

by nojito 5y ago

DannyBee 5y ago

Krebs doesn't claim there were two people anywhere? Ubiquiti hangs this entire argument about this on using slightly different wording to refer to a person in two places in an article. But if you read the article, he reports the facts in a literal linear timeline fashion, attempting to use what appear to be time-correct monikers. IE He literally says (see the screenshot) In January x happened in March, a ubiquiti employee said something in November, a former developer for ubiquiti was arrested and charged. He never says the march and november people are different. He is reporting exactly what happened. They claim he knows they are the same person, and should refer to them as such but they literally don't even provide any evidence of this either (ie that it was Krebs source). It wouldn't help them (because what krebs says does not seem wrong or untrue), but they don't prove it either. IE even if krebs knew they are the same person, the above appears to be a totally accurate rendering of the story. Krebs is only required to be accurate. Did a Ubiquiti employee say X in march (or did Krebs have good reason to believe a ubiquiti employee said X in march)? Did a former ubiquiti developer get arrested in late november? Yes? (AFAIK, yes) Okay, case over. The fact that they don't like his reporting doesn't make it untrue, and if they want to show it's untrue, as I said, this filing does a bad job of it.

mannykannot 5y ago
I have not looked into this in any detail, but is it possible that Ubiquiti is fishing for the name of a second source?
- dsr_ 5y ago
  If they really wanted that, they would craft a less emotionally loaded complaint and try for discovery ASAP. I think.
nojito 5y ago
He is accused of making the claims through Twitter which is why it’s being used as evidence.
goodluckchuck 5y ago
The problem for Krebs is that (if the criminal case against this guy is true) Krebs was a party to the crime. He was the medium for the extortion. He is the guy that published and spread the damaging story! And he’s still doing it! It’s as if a bank robber was dressed as an innocent old lady and tricked Krebs into carrying the bags of stolen money to the getaway car. Except here, the robber is in the back of a squad car and Krebs is still transporting bags of cash! It doesn’t matter whether the statements were true, they’re an act of extortion! Extortion is defamation per se.