Slashdot Mirror
Bloomberg's Spy Chip Story Reveals the Murky World of National Security Reporting (techcrunch.com)
TechCrunch's security editor, Zack Whittaker, analyzes Bloomberg's recent report that China infiltrated Apple, Amazon and others via a tiny microchip inserted into servers at the data centers associated with these companies. With Apple and Amazon refuting Bloomberg's claims, Whittaker talks about the "murky world of national security reporting" and the difficulties of reporting stories of this magnitude with anonymous sources. An anonymous reader shares an excerpt from his report: Today's bombshell Bloomberg story has the internet split: either the story is right, and reporters have uncovered one of the largest and jarring breaches of the U.S. tech industry by a foreign adversary or it's not, and a lot of people screwed up. Welcome to the murky world of national security reporting. I've covered cybersecurity and national security for about five years, most recently at CBS, where I reported exclusively on several stories -- including the U.S. government's covert efforts to force tech companies to hand over their source code in an effort to find vulnerabilities and conduct surveillance. And last year I revealed that the National Security Agency had its fifth data breach in as many years, and classified documents showed that a government data collection program was far wider than first thought and was collecting data on U.S. citizens. Even with this story, my gut is mixed.
Naturally, people are skeptical of this "spy chip" story. On one side you have Bloomberg's decades-long stellar reputation and reporting acumen, a thoroughly researched story citing more than a dozen sources -- some inside the government and out -- and presenting enough evidence to present a convincing case. On the other, the sources are anonymous -- likely because the information they shared wasn't theirs to share or it was classified, putting sources in risk of legal jeopardy. But that makes accountability difficult. No reporter wants to say "a source familiar with the matter" because it weakens the story. It's the reason reporters will tag names to spokespeople or officials so that it holds the powers accountable for their words. And, the denials from the companies themselves -- though transparently published in full by Bloomberg -- are not bulletproof in outright rejection of the story's claims. These statements go through legal counsel and are subject to government regulation. These statements become a counterbalance -- turning the story from an evidence-based report into a "he said, she said" situation. That puts the onus on the reader to judge Bloomberg's reporting. Reporters can publish the truth all they want, but ultimately it's down to the reader to believe it or not. Whittaker ends by saying "Bloomberg's delivery could have been better," and that they "missed an opportunity to be more open and transparent in how it came to the conclusions that it did."
"Journalism isn't proprietary," Whittaker writes. "It should be open to as many people as possible. If you're not transparent in how you report things, you lose readers' trust. That's where the story rests on shaky ground. Admittedly, as detailed and as well-sourced as the story is, you -- and I -- have to put a lot of trust and faith in Bloomberg and its reporters."
Naturally, people are skeptical of this "spy chip" story. On one side you have Bloomberg's decades-long stellar reputation and reporting acumen, a thoroughly researched story citing more than a dozen sources -- some inside the government and out -- and presenting enough evidence to present a convincing case. On the other, the sources are anonymous -- likely because the information they shared wasn't theirs to share or it was classified, putting sources in risk of legal jeopardy. But that makes accountability difficult. No reporter wants to say "a source familiar with the matter" because it weakens the story. It's the reason reporters will tag names to spokespeople or officials so that it holds the powers accountable for their words. And, the denials from the companies themselves -- though transparently published in full by Bloomberg -- are not bulletproof in outright rejection of the story's claims. These statements go through legal counsel and are subject to government regulation. These statements become a counterbalance -- turning the story from an evidence-based report into a "he said, she said" situation. That puts the onus on the reader to judge Bloomberg's reporting. Reporters can publish the truth all they want, but ultimately it's down to the reader to believe it or not. Whittaker ends by saying "Bloomberg's delivery could have been better," and that they "missed an opportunity to be more open and transparent in how it came to the conclusions that it did."
"Journalism isn't proprietary," Whittaker writes. "It should be open to as many people as possible. If you're not transparent in how you report things, you lose readers' trust. That's where the story rests on shaky ground. Admittedly, as detailed and as well-sourced as the story is, you -- and I -- have to put a lot of trust and faith in Bloomberg and its reporters."
This is easily proven or disproven, take a server in question, or perhaps a random sampling of the supposedly hacked equipment and see if it has the "chip" they claim is there.
Annn Rand was a stupid insipid cunt who had serious problems; if you're basing your ethos on her, you are a truly lost soul.
Maybe Religion will help; call a Priest, as least hell give you a reacharound, unlike Teh Donald.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
The problem with the discovery of the extra chip is the need to use the internet to send back the data.
Advanced AV and firewalls along with really skilled staff selected on merit are going to notice that "extra" data moving out from deep in their secure networks.
Thats why most advanced nations have resort to different methods to collect their data.
1. Short distance data transmission thats not on the internet.
2. Staff/visitors/friends/a person with split loyalty on the inside to collect data later in a way that's never detected as an outgoing internet connection.
3. The use of a PRISM like big brand understanding to move the data out.
What could have happened?
1. NSA and GCHQ found the chips early and often and then created vast amounts of junk information to see how the networks and chips sent the junk data out.
2. The clandestine services found the chip and have been using it for their own missions but did not stop it as it was a free spying tool.
3. Very different and unexpected nations found the chips and have been using it as a free spy tool.
4. Criminals, faith groups, cults, ex and former clandestine services staff and groups doing industrial espionage have found the chip and used it for their own data collection?
5. National police forces found the chips and wanted to try a way to get around crypto.
The real fail with this is having to use the internet and never get detected.
Smart people with real skills will notice extra data on their secure networks.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Rand's Atlas Shrugged was first and foremost a work of science fiction. Spoiler alert: the book's mystery-man hero is the inventor of a free energy reactor. To see the book as something else you really have to start with an agenda.
Not only that, it was a work of science fiction with an unusually clever premise: What if the Elon Musks, Larry Pages, Warren Buffets and Jeff Bezos' of the world all got pissed off and decided to go on strike, just like union blue collar workers do?
You don't have to buy in to Rand's political philosophies. I certainly don't. But she wrote an intriguing book.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.