Supermicro Spy Chips Controversy

More reputable organizations than Bloomberg made bigger claims that turned out to be false. Remember WMDs and the Nasrallah testimony?What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There is no evidence here. And it's not even a case of not being able to produce it, you could literally just get your hands on a compromised board and x-ray it. People do that all the time.

You can't just ask for proof for everything. Sometimes you need to read between the lines.You have no proof that the denial is genuine. Either those denials or the story on those spy chips is untrue.Seems more likely to me that the story is true but that everyone has been told to remain mute.

"...without evidence..."What he claimed was "high" (high-level, I assume, rather than intoxicated) and "reputable" sources who needed to remain anonymous told him there was circumstantial evidence of this.I don't see any motive for him to make this up, or for those sources to. Perhaps someone in some agency is jumping to conclusions on partial information.Or perhaps this fits into the pattern of DoD officials, ex-officials, and whistleblowers spinning

The FBI having "proof" that they can't disclose is just as good as nothing, you can pretty much do any claim as long as you can just say that you can't disclose all information.Please, this is the same people who said Iraq had nuclear guns, a much more serious claim.

The strongest hypothetical case for this story is that some NSA/CIA people told them on deep background that it's definitely happening, Bloomberg went out to try for parallel construction that proves it, and epically owned themselves with poor execution.Falling back on "you can't prove it isn't happening" is a really weak defense. If they have stronger evidence, they should either present it or stop talking about it.

If they're not going to publish their (hypothetical, ostensible, theoretical, possibly entirely imaginary) evidence, then why would we put much faith into their claim? It's not like all major US intelligence agencies haven't led deception campaigns against the public before.

Ah, so you are repeating the talking point that unless intel agencies role out all their evidence of what they say, completely burning sources and methods for future use, their claims (no matter how logical and rational) aren't valid. Or (even worse) they are no better than the claims of Wikileaks or RT holding up conspiracies theories that don't even make sense.Evidence was presented behind closed doors, of which even the hardcore Trump loyalists didn't argue against. This is

Sure, but you could link hundreds of photographs, testimonials from victims, etcThis question is more interesting, no one even tries to provide evidence. They'll link to the judgement, but what evidence was the judgement based on?If someone knew what the underlying evidence was, surely someone would say it, wouldn't they? Yet I've never had a single person provide that evidence, or stop and say "hmmmm, that's a good question".I wonder if it's

The article claims there is an email trail about this. Those communications could be leaked - that would make it pretty obvious this story is true, if it is.There could also be simply a picture of the spy chip! It's pretty easy to have stronger evidence than this article has.

The only parties who could provide this evidence are govt agencies who are clearly not pleased with Snowden. Seems kind of silly to expect them to provide evidence to substantiate his claim.In the absence of contrary evidence, we should take Snowden at his word because none of his releases have been discredited as fabrications and thats the only account we have of the situation.