[ad_1]
The story of Bloomberg, a bombshell of this day, divides the Internet: either the story is right, and the journalists have discovered one of the biggest and most discordant violations of the American technological industry by a foreign opponent … or this is not the case, and many people have messed up.
In summary, Chinese spies have infiltrated the supply chain and installed tiny pencil-sized chips on Supermicro-built motherboards used in data center servers in the US technology industry. Apple to Amazon. This chip can compromise the data on the server, allowing China to spy on some of the richest and most powerful countries in the world.
Apple, Amazon and Supermicro – and the Chinese government – vigorously denied the allegations. Apple also released its own standalone statement later today, as did Supermicro. You do not see it often, unless they think they have nothing to hide. You can – and should – read the statements for yourself.
Welcome to the troubled world of national security reporting.
I've covered cybersecurity and national security for about five years, including the most recent at CBS, where I reported exclusively on several articles, including the US government's secret efforts to force technology companies to pass on their source code to detect vulnerabilities and to take action. monitoring. And last year, I revealed that the National Security Agency had recorded its fifth data breach in as many years and classified documents showed that a government data collection program was much broader than originally thought and collected data on US citizens.
Even with this story, my guts are mixed.
Where journalists from all walks of life and from all walks of life are trying to find the truth, it is virtually impossible to collect information from the intelligence services. For spies and diplomats, it is illegal to share confidential information with anyone and to be punishable and punishable by imprisonment.
As a security journalist, you are either incredibly well researched or totally lucky. Most often, this is the last case.
Naturally, people are skeptical about this "spy chip" story. On one side, you have Bloomberg's haunting reputation and his keen eye for the report, a thoroughly documented story that cites more than a dozen sources – some within the government and outside. – and that has enough evidence to make a convincing case.
On the other hand, the sources are anonymous – probably because the information they shared does not have to be shared or classified, which exposes the sources to legal risks. But that makes accountability difficult. No journalist means "a source close to the subject" because it weakens the story. This is the reason why journalists will give names to spokespersons or officials so that the authorities are held accountable for their words. In addition, the denials of the companies themselves – though published entirely in a transparent way by Bloomberg – are not immune to the categorical rejection of the claims of history. These statements go through a lawyer and are subject to government regulation. These statements are a counterbalance, turning the story of an evidence-based report into a situation "he said," she said.
It is up to the reader to judge reports from Bloomberg. Journalists can publish the truth as they wish, but in the end, it is up to the reader to believe it or not.
In fairness to Bloomberg, Apple is complaining in the first place that Bloomberg's reporters have been vague in their questions. Given the magnitude of the story, you do not want to reveal all your cards, but you still want to look for answers and clarifications without the subject being notified by another news agency – a tip sometimes used by the government in the hope of lighter coverage.
Yet for Apple – and Amazon and the other companies involved in the report – they could also be in the dark. Assuming that there has been an active spying investigation into the alleged actions of a foreign government, you can bet that only a handful of people in these companies will even be unconsciously aware of the situation. US surveillance and counter-intelligence laws limit the number of people who may be notified of classified information or investigations. Only those who need to know are kept informed, as the main board of the company. Often, their bosses, the CEO or the President, are not required to avoid making false or misleading statements to shareholders.
It's worth returning to 2013, a few days after the first Edward Snowden documents were released.
As a result of the disclosure of PRISM, the NSA's data collection program involving several technology companies – including Apple, but not Amazon – came out arguing, vehemently denying any involvement or connection. Was it a report failure? In part yes. But societies also had a plausible denial by looking for what they rejected. Despite the government's claim that PRISM had "direct access" to technology companies' servers, they said it was not true. However, they do not refute indirect access – which companies would not be allowed to say in any way.
Critics of Bloomberg's history have properly argued for more information – such as more technical data on the chip, its design and features. Rightly, it is perfectly reasonable to want to know more. Jake Williams, a former NSA hacker who became the founder of Infosec Rendition, said the story was "credible," but that "even if it turns out to be wrong, the ability exists and you have to design your networks to detect it. "
I was reluctant to deal with the issue at first because of the complexity of the allegations and the explosiveness of these issues without also seeking confirmation. It's not easy to do in an hour when Bloomberg journalists have been working for a good year. Assuming that Bloomberg did everything right – a cover of his magazine, which would have been constantly checked before being printed – the journalists probably ran into a wall and had nothing left to do. tell before being printed.
But Bloomberg's delivery could have been better. Like the New York Times, even recently that it covered President Trump's tax affairs, Bloomberg missed an opportunity to be more open and transparent in the way it came to conclusions. Journalism is not exclusive. It should be open to as many people as possible. If you are not transparent in the way you report things, you lose the trust of readers.
This is where the story lies on unstable ground. Certainly, as detailed and source as the story is, you – and I – have to trust Bloomberg and its reporters.
And at the present time when "false news" is splashed rightly and wrongly, for the sake of journalism, my only hope is that they are not mistaken.
[ad_2]
Source link
