I'm not saying it's a fake story, but the US is in the middle of a trade war. It could be a huge piece of propaganda. The sheer audacity of that though would be staggering.
If it was fake who decided that SuperMicro (down almost 50%) should be sacrificed for a trade war? Seems unlikely.
If the story is not true, occam's razor would suggest the journalists just got it wrong, maybe by turning a molehill (couple of hacked servers or server firmware) into a mountain (industrial scale espionage) .
What makes you think it would be the U.S. pulling the strings? In trade wars you want the enemy to sink their funds. What could be better to do that than to force every U.S. tech giant to audit their hardware?
Correct. I've expecting this to happen for years now, actually thought it odd that so much outsourcing was allowed at all.
People should look what was deemed critical infrastructure and manufacturing during war time (e.g. WW I & WW II). It isn't particularly difficult to understand why certain companies were/are continually bailed out.
In the parent's scenario, the initiator would be China. How would you make China pay the bill for the audits? By achieving the goals of the trade war, which was supposed to happen even without the audits? If China really pulled the long con like that, they'd win this round. But highly doubt they'd do that long con, there's too much to lose in terms of attack surface, like exposing your zero day to the world without using it first.
China has far more to lose here. Companies losing money to cycles spent auditing hardware is trivial compared to companies permanently losing business due to loss of trust as a part or the supply/manufacturing pipeline.
I'm not sure you're following this thread. Let's look at the whole conversation again.
Jedi72: Posits possibility that the story could be fake and planted by the US as a propaganda tool for their trade war.
steve19: Posits reasons for why it's not likely to be a propaganda lie planted by the US.
inetknght: Posits that it could be China that planted the fake story for the sake of making US industry waste funds (again, this is all still a hypothetical conversation based on Jedi72's original contemplation of the possibility of the story being fake).
topmonk: Posits that if China planted the story, China could lose reputation and should be given the bill for the audits. It's possible that topmonk misunderstood inetknght and was in fact referring to the US. But I'm assuming that topmonk understood inetknght to be referring to China and so posited that China should be left with the bill if the story turned out to be fake.
Me: First, questions how the US would make China pay the bill. Second, notes reasons why it doesn't make sense for China to start spreading misinformation like this (again, going on Jedi72's contemplation of the possibility of the story being fake). Ironically, your reply actually bolsters my original contention against topmonk's comment. It makes no sense for China to want to plant a fake story like this.
> Ironically, your reply actually bolsters my original contention against topmonk's comment. It makes no sense for China to want to plant a fake story like this.
I think you aren't understanding my comment, and you confused ra1n85 with your response to me.
It's strange that you think I believe that it would make sense that China would plant a fake story. As you wrote yourself, "topmonk: Posits that if China planted the story, China could lose reputation and should be given the bill for the audits."
I actually said "An argument could be made..." I meant that if there was a trade negotiation going on, the USA could bring this up as a way of trying to force China to give up something else.
But, back on topic. I agree with you, as you said, "It makes no sense for China to want to plant a fake story like this." Can you tell me where I suggested otherwise? I reread the whole thread and I can't see why you'd think I thought that China might have planted a fake story, or it would be a good idea for China to do so.
I understand you now. Sorry, it wasn't clear to me before. Looks like we're actually completely on the same page. I got completely twisted in the logic.
Ignoring ra1n85 (it seems the 3 of us are probably on the same page), my original question for you was how would you make China pay the bill. You say that the US could use this as leverage to force China to give up something else. I'm not confident that's great leverage by itself, but I just thought of something that may answer my own question.
IF China had the gall to plant a fake story, I would imagine it would be a sign of weakness. There's no reason to plant a fake story if their bargaining position is strong, so a fake story plant would be only the craziest of Hail Mary options, a poison pill that acknowledges, "hey, we're gonna lose, how can we cause the most damage we can before we go down completely?"
So if the US was able to confirm a fake story plant by China, they'd have more confidence in going full court press and getting everything they want because their bargaining position would just be that strong (discounting actual war).
I suppose discussing all the hypotheticals for what happens if China plants a fake story is getting out of hand and not worth all the typing....
If it had been used first, then the story would be true, not false. Jedi72's original thought experiment is no longer a thought experiment, and there'd be no point in asking what are the implications if the story was fake, nor who would have planted the fake story.
The fact that it came out at the “right” time, doesn’t mean it’s false. Previous propaganda ops (uranium from Niger, 45 minutes etc) were much flakier while the stakes were much higher.
I think it’s just a case of national-security actors sending out a message while leaving FAANG with enough plausible deniability to avoid tanking the whole market. As long as it’s semi-official, the only victim will be Supermicro, and everyone else will have received a message that they should pay more attention to their supply chain.
I don’t buy it. I know it’s fashionable to be cynical about the media at the moment, but Bloomberg is not a rag and it’s owned by someone who is no fan of Trump or trade wars. It doesn’t add up.
It would be something Russia would do, plant a fake story to massively discredit Bloomberg. It would go with their strategy of launching so many fake stories that nobody knows anymore what to belive.
The problem with this theory is that Bloomberg says all the sources were from the American govt.
