UDID Leak : Identifying the Traitor

Re:UDID Leak : Identifying the Traitor by smutticus on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @06:45AM (#4473963)

Why do people keep assuming that the FBI is actually involved in this? The only evidence of that is from the pastebin page. They could just as easily be lying.

We know nothing. Other than that there are 1,000,001 leaked UDIDs. Everything else is just speculation and needs to be regarded as such until such time as proven otherwise.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UDID Leak : Identifying the Traitor by guelo on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @08:11AM (#4474186)

Anonymous' credibility is good. I haven't heard of an instance where they were caught lying in a high profile incident like this.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UDID Leak : Identifying the Traitor by codehotter on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @09:26AM (#4474423)

I have followed these lines of thought before. They contain a fatal mistake.

Anonymous is not a group that can have a reputation. At best, it's a subculture. Anyone can call themselves anonymous. Whoever didn't lie in all the previous incidents may not be behind this one - this could be a totally different person or group of persons with totally different ideals.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UDID Leak : Identifying the Traitor by Retric on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @10:13AM (#4474591)

Cultures can have a reputation. They can also fight back when someone uses their name for something they disagree with.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UDID Leak : Identifying the Traitor by lmm on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @09:32AM (#4474443)

That's an amusing statement. The whole point of anonymity is for your statements to be judged on their merits rather than your reputation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UDID Leak : Identifying the Traitor by capitalisthakr on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @07:39AM (#4474112)

Nice try, Mr. Secret Agent.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UDID Leak : Identifying the Traitor by perlpimp on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @07:58AM (#4474162)

its like spot-a-fed at the defcon. here we go.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UDID Leak : Identifying the Traitor by belorn on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @08:56AM (#4474308)

If we have any indication that the information is false, first then should this really become an issue. Until then, FBI is the most likely source.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UDID Leak : Identifying the Traitor by columbo on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @09:53AM (#4474504)

Why blindly trust an unknown entity that may have ulterior motives?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UDID Leak : Identifying the Traitor by Cushman on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @10:28AM (#4474668)

Are you talking about AntiSec, or the FBI?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UDID Leak : Identifying the Traitor by belorn on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @06:04PM (#4476786)

Of course they may have ulterior motives. Any action performed by a human might have ulterior motives. Anything anyone say might be a intentional lie to mislead.

But to assume everyone is lying until proved correct will not work. Reading news would be impossible, as would most other actives involving other people. The only working method then is to assume people are telling the truth until indication (not proof) is presented of the opposite. Blind trust would be only if we disregarded indication of falsehood when said indications exist.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UDID Leak : Identifying the Traitor by columbo on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @08:55PM (#4477335)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

A file filled with identifiers is not extraordinary evidence to link this to the claim of being a FBI laptop. It is only what it is (a file of identifiers) and says nothing about where it came from.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UDID Leak : Identifying the Traitor by Dylan16807 on Wednesday September 05, 2012 @02:27AM (#4478251)

FBI having a data dump of an iOS app's users isn't an extraordinary claim.

[ Parent | on HN ]