[dataflow]

> Not sure why this isn't higher up. This is crucial information showing this is FUD.

It's already too high up given it's a blatantly baseless accusation. I'm confused why you think it's more credible than the article when it provides zero evidence.

[meowface]

True. Evidence one way or the other is needed.

[wealthyyy]

Both articles provides zero evidence other than concept of attack in general and all of them just claiming that mobile numbers can be hacked.