[otterley]

> 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.)

[toast0]

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.

[otterley]

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.

[ajross]

You know how every year the DEA seizes enough fentanyl in one truck to kill half of Chicago or whatever? It's like that.

[otterley]

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.

[ajross]

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.

[1] This one is at the top of the front page as we speak: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45357693

[otterley]

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.