Re:UK cyber security agency backs Apple, Amazon China hack d...
by pvg on Friday October 05, 2018 @03:09PM
(#18150882)
It's not an 'unsubstantive' comment. There is a very large section of users who are ardent believers in the 'Gell-Mann amnesia' effect. There are also seemingly many, many users, as the one I'm replying to and many who've posted similar, highly voted comments on this thread whose explanation for the discrepancies between the reporting on this story and the company responses amount to (in my view) to MiB but with different acronyms. I find that curious. Maybe you don't, maybe you think those users don't overlap much or at all, that's fair enough. But 'things people find curious about HN that you think maybe aren't' is not 'unsubstantive' so get of my case, oppressor!
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:UK cyber security agency backs Apple, Amazon China hack d...
by tptacek on Friday October 05, 2018 @04:13PM
(#18151332)
This is a rare instance where I agree that 'dang has jumped the gun. I don't see how your comment is insubstantial either, and I think HN's weird relationship with the news media is worthy of comment. No reasonable person reads the comment above to mean "literally everyone on HN has inconsistent beliefs about the press".
Re:UK cyber security agency backs Apple, Amazon China hack d...
by Alex3917 on Friday October 05, 2018 @04:34PM
(#18151503)
> HN's weird relationship with the news media is worthy of comment
If I had said something about trusting Bloomberg or the media then sure. But that’s a completely different topic that’s not even remotely related to whether Apple’s denials on potential NSL issues are reliable.
Re:UK cyber security agency backs Apple, Amazon China hack d...
by tptacek on Friday October 05, 2018 @05:04PM
(#18151746)
How are those two topics not intimately related? The question of how reliable Apple's employees are is only relevant to the extent that you believe Bloomberg's reporters were competent in sourcing the story.