The Secret Service is being overly alarmist, but to a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
“We need to do forensics on 100,000 cell phones, essentially all the phone calls, all the text messages, anything to do with communications, see where those numbers end up,” "You can’t text message, you can’t use your cell phone. And if you coupled that with some sort of other event associated with UNGA, you know, use your imagination there, it could be catastrophic to the city."
So until we do our jobs, imagine the worst case scenario. Thanks guys.
Could be rent US a number service, data roaming, VOIP or SMS termination, account registration (google, tiktok, whatsapp).
There are data roaming services that use 5G GSM modems to transfer the SIMs tower connection to pocket wifi devices for tourists who need data.
I suspect the Secret Service is keeping some cards (ahem) close to their chest. It's not difficult to believe that there is other evidence they chose not to publish that distinguishes a garden-variety spamming operation and one that is more nefarious.
> They just got the use case wrong. It's for fraud, not terrorism.
How do you know?
(BTW, I'm not suggesting that you are wrong. I have no idea. But in my experience with Federal law enforcement operations related to technology, they're not typically so incompetent as to confuse a fraud ring for a more serious operation. I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt.)
Sim boxes and etc aren't useful for terrorism, or at least you not anywhere near this many.
You only need this many for bulk messaging/calling. Legitimate bulk messaging/calling would be going through sip providers and SMS aggregators and/or interconnection with carriers at the kind of volumes you'd have this many sim boxes for. So it's got to be fraud/abuse of some sort. Probably selling bulk sms/calling to users that can't or don't want to use legitimate providers.
Again, I don’t know what the Secret Service isn’t saying, but I do know that failures of imagination have led to unpleasant surprises in the past. I’ll be very curious to learn more. Hopefully the details will come out.
What are you talking about? If you mean something like this (https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/02/27/california-seizes-record-6...) then that's totally believable. It's the amount seized over the course of a year. Fentanyl is cheap to produce and as long as enough gets through the distribution process to be profitable, you can lose literally 30 tons of it as a cost of business.
I'm all for having a productive discussion, but casual exaggerations and half-truths aren't helpful. If you just don't trust LE, that's fine (and quite understandable), but that's a more honest thing to say than that you know something contradictory with absolute certainty.
This is sealioning. Demanding people on internet forums provide proof of really-not-very-controversial statements, hiding behind appeal to authority arguments and then feigning outrage when called out on it isn't really the right way to do this. There are many comments in this topic and others[1] explaining the idea you're pretending not to understand.
I’m not pretending not to understand anything. I absolutely get that it is a possibility that the Secret Service got it wrong. And it’s no surprise that there will be many opinions that challenge their narrative. But those other commentators have the same problem in that they may lack crucial context that might make the government’s narrative true. And the fact that several people agree is irrelevant; more than one person thinks Tylenol causes autism.
And it’s not sealioning; I'm not making a bad-faith argument to wear you down. I’m saying something really simple: unless you know something with absolute certainty, especially about a situation that doesn’t involve you, expect to be challenged when you claim you do. We have qualifying vocabulary for this very purpose. It’s why reporters use the word “alleged” when referring to criminal defendants who haven’t been convicted. It’s a pretty straightforward principle, and there are plenty of responsible people out there who formulate their doubts with the requisite nuanced writing. If I can do it, anyone can.
And no, it’s not unreasonable to demand that someone support their unqualified claims of certainty. It will be the Secret Service’s responsibility to eventually substantiate their claims, too.
I don't know who this is, but given the number of comments, seems to have mattered. Only point of this comment is assure others who don't know his work that you are not alone.
I have only seen Charlie Kirk on this interview with California Governor Gavin Newsom. Apparently he was someone who was promoting tolerance to more diverse political points of view. And he made many valid points that made the Governor squirm and agree. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XJ6rQDRKGA
> Apparently he was someone who was promoting tolerance to more diverse political points of view.
Definitely:
> "I think the Democrats do not believe in the nuclear family, and they've already destroyed it in the macro, and now they're trying to destroy it in the micro."
And this is what I found in 10 seconds. Really fostering that political diversity. He's just another twitter/youtube pundit in the Fox News classic style, and there's endless hours of him talking just like this.
I think there’s a kernel of truth in what he said, surrounded by some exaggeration. The rural parts of the country, where people get married under 25 years old and have a higher fertility rate, probably do place a higher value on having a family than the urban parts of the country where career is prioritized. Good politicians (like Barack Obama did in his prime) take pains to acknowledge truths from the other side.
> I think there’s a kernel of truth in what he said, surrounded by some exaggeration
lol that just means you agree with him, not that he's encouraging a marketplace of ideas.
Your claim was "he was promoting tolerance to more diverse political points of view". Saying "your political point of view has and is destroying the nuclear family" isn't promoting tolerance of it.
The rural parts of the country, where people get married under 25 years old are overwhelming divorced by 35. If you call that "place a higher value on having a family" than the low divorce rates of educated, high earning women, then we disagree on definitions.
Tesla Headlines Sentiment Analysis - Electrek.co
Bottom Line: Strongly Negative Sentiment
Based on analysis of Tesla headlines and articles from Electrek over the past few months, the sentiment is overwhelmingly negative (approximately 85% negative, 10% neutral, 5% positive). The coverage reveals a company in decline across multiple fronts.
Just got a 2014 500e for $5k - 50k miles. What a great city car! We also have Model Y, and so the Fiat's 2 pedal driving, lack of good regen, multi-step lock/unlock process can all be forgiven for the price.
Tether had a big chunk of funds seized by a government/bank making them less then whole. They did the needful to get past that and now a distant memory. Scam allegations are made by old curmudgeons who drank the bitfinexed cool-aid.
“We need to do forensics on 100,000 cell phones, essentially all the phone calls, all the text messages, anything to do with communications, see where those numbers end up,” "You can’t text message, you can’t use your cell phone. And if you coupled that with some sort of other event associated with UNGA, you know, use your imagination there, it could be catastrophic to the city."
So until we do our jobs, imagine the worst case scenario. Thanks guys.
Could be rent US a number service, data roaming, VOIP or SMS termination, account registration (google, tiktok, whatsapp).
There are data roaming services that use 5G GSM modems to transfer the SIMs tower connection to pocket wifi devices for tourists who need data.