One guy named as a source in the original article does not accept the story as written.
One guy named as a source in the original article does not accept the story as written.
When asked what, exactly, he found strange about Bloomberg's claims, Fitzpatrick said, "It was surprising to me that in a scenario where I would describe these things and then he would go and confirm these and 100% of what I described was confirmed by sources."
You could take that to mean "Bloomberg took a scary hypothetical and pretended it was real," but if they did have other sources telling them "There are these backdoor chips in servers" this is exactly what you'd expect Bloomberg to do: go to a security expert and ask "Hey, does this really work?"
It doesn't particularly read like evidence one way or another to me.
Technically possible doesn't mean it happened. You could be punched by your wife, does that mean she did punch you? Sorry for the inappropriate analogy, but you get the idea.
To this point Bloomberg has presented 0 evidence of any of this. You have to understand how the burden of proof works, you can't throw a rock in the pond and expect others to jump in and retrieve it. Bloomberg made the claim, Bloomberg has to support it. Until they do I will take everything they write/claim with a tablespoon of salt. From my perspective it may very well be an attempt to hit Supermicro and nothing more.
The fact that Apple or Amazon are expected to show evidence that a yet unsubstantiated claim from Bloomberg is not real shows how low people set the bar for what reliable information means.
"You have to understand how the burden of proof works, [...]"
I don't HAVE to do anything you say, thank god.
But in all honesty not understanding how something works makes your opinion on the topic about as valuble as a turd in the rain.
Understanding how things work before attempting to pass judgement is “just” a matter of common sense and decency. But since no superior ordered them and you don’t have to have them, here we are.