Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 183 posts

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#141

Post by brorfred »

Arn_Thor wrote: post #70
darawk wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Apple and Amazon release such vehement denials, though? If it were an ongoing investigation, wouldn't they use more hedging and obfuscatory language? They could just as easily say "we're not aware of anything like this, but we take all allegations of this nature seriously and are looking into it". The whole situation is just odd.

Their reputations could take a huge hit from this story alone, so a strong denial is the first defense. If they are unaware of any investigation, as they claim, then that makes even more sense.

The part I don't understand is why Apple would take such a huge PR hit from the story. I way I read it is that they found out about the problem, diagnosed it and replaced all servers all within a very short time. A careful writeup about what happened, what kind of information that might have leaked, and what they do to avoid it in the future would to me be a net PR win at this point. The next question would be how all other customers has acted.

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#142

Post by sct202 »

michaelt wrote: post #113
tinus_hn wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is no way they would claim they are not under any gag order if they were forced to never confirm such an order, if there also is the option of not addressing it at all.

I think there is no way they would claim they are not under any gag order if they were forced to never confirm such an order I've always thought such denials are pointless. You think everyone at Google knows every secret gag order they're under? Of course not, that would get leaked within minutes. If I was the NSA I'd find a "patriotic" mid-level or junior employee with the power I wanted to subvert, and give them a…

I think it would be odd then if no one else in the company is aware of the issue that those mid/junior level employees would then leak the information to Bloomberg during an active investigation.

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#143

Post by okket »

FYI: "Britain’s national cyber security agency said on Friday it had no reason to doubt the assessments made by Apple and Amazon that refuted a Bloomberg story that their systems contained malicious computer chips inserted by Chinese intelligence. [...]"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-cyber-britain/uk-cy...

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#144

Post by brorfred »

dannyw wrote: post #41
amf12 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Two possibilities: Left hand doesn't know (or can't know) what the right hand is doing at Apple. Top secret? I am sure the CEO must know both the hands, if the hands don't know each other. Also that Apple is going to release a strong denial must also have been known to Tim. I don't think that's the case here. Your second possibility looks more plausible.

If you talk to anyone with a TS/SCI clearance, you'll know that it is very common to be unable to discuss or divulge what you're working on to your superiors. There are MANY material things that CEOs do not know about TS/SCI information.

But that's when your company has a contract with the government, right? Why would there be anyone on Apple's side with TS/SCI clearance? Didn't Bloomberg say that Apple found the chips? How would you be able to replace + change suppliers of 7000 servers without explaining why to senior leadership?

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#145

Post by tptacek »

sterlind wrote: post #49
Jerry2 wrote: post #12

Both Apple and Amazon have released VERY STRONG denial statements that bring the whole Bloomberg narrative into question. It's also convenient that no one has yet been able to verify or find any of these mysterious Chinese chips on any of the Supermicro servers in the wild. So what is the real story here? Did Bloomberg reporters deliberately deceive everyone or were they deceived by the US IC ("intelligence community…

Remember when Clapper gave the "least untruthful answer possible" about domestic bulk collection? [0] It's naive to think Apple and Amazon couldn't lie in response to the article, if the intelligence was highly-classified. They may be under extremely strict gag orders (e.g. "give no response whatsoever, including silence, other than denial") and protected by promises of indemnity, as telcos were in the wake of the NS…

This isn't how gag orders (or, in the case of online services, NSLs) work. A gag order can compel you not to share data, but they cannot compel you to lie, let alone lie elaborately, as Apple and Amazon at this point would have to be for their denials to be false.

If Apple is lying here, they're lying because they want to, not because something is forcing them to. I believe them.

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#146

Post by brorfred »

ItsMe000001 wrote: post #83
hacknat wrote: post #74

Companies don’t give vehement denials like this unless they’re telling the truth. People claiming gag orders are crazy, mostly for thinking that Apple, or anyone else for that matter, would ever sign a document forcing them to lie to their customers (I’m not saying they wouldn’t lie, just that they wouldn’t sign anything that would force them to do so).

That makes no sense. What do you think is the difference in "denial levels"? Kind of like Dragonball-Z power levels? Does a "vehement denial" cost the one making it any more than a "meek denial"? If making "vehement denials", coming at exactly the same cost as less strong denials, are more effective, you would just have made all PR companies/people extremely happy - they get a stringer weapon for free. All the have t…

I saw figures that Bloomberg had 17 sources for this story. For that to in nay way be realistic, this must be a deliberate leak by the US government. Why would they put such a strong gag order on Apple/Amazon and then leak the information themselves? It makes no sense.

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#147

Post by kevin_b_er »

tptacek wrote: post #145
sterlind wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember when Clapper gave the "least untruthful answer possible" about domestic bulk collection? [0] It's naive to think Apple and Amazon couldn't lie in response to the article, if the intelligence was highly-classified. They may be under extremely strict gag orders (e.g. "give no response whatsoever, including silence, other than denial") and protected by promises of indemnity, as telcos were in the wake of the NS…

This isn't how gag orders (or, in the case of online services, NSLs) work. A gag order can compel you not to share data, but they cannot compel you to lie, let alone lie elaborately, as Apple and Amazon at this point would have to be for their denials to be false. If Apple is lying here, they're lying because they want to, not because something is forcing them to. I believe them.

"Did you receive an NSL?"

You have been compel to lie, by the government, to answer "NO" if you've received one.

If you can be compelled to lie that you have received an NSL then I do not see why you can't be forced to lie more.

We already compelled speech, why not more?

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#148

Post by kevin_b_er »

brorfred wrote: post #141
Arn_Thor wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their reputations could take a huge hit from this story alone, so a strong denial is the first defense. If they are unaware of any investigation, as they claim, then that makes even more sense.

The part I don't understand is why Apple would take such a huge PR hit from the story. I way I read it is that they found out about the problem, diagnosed it and replaced all servers all within a very short time. A careful writeup about what happened, what kind of information that might have leaked, and what they do to avoid it in the future would to me be a net PR win at this point. The next question would be how al…

If Apple were to agree with and state that China is spying on them, then they might face repercussions from the Chinese government on their extensive business interests in China. They make all the stuff there. This is monetary threat to Apple, so lying is within character for a corporation to preserve their business.

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#149

Post by the_duke »

_red wrote: post #114
chillax wrote: post #23

The Norwegian National Security Authority ( https://nsm.stat.no/english/ ) is quoted in a norwegian paper today saying they knew about problems with Super Micro since at least june. https://www.vg.no/nyheter/i/xRkLep/storavis-hevder-kina-inst...

This is completely anecdotal, but I'm on several mailing list for bulk buyers of off-lease server equipment. Typically these list are 90% Dell, HP, IBM. About 6 months ago I started to notice a huge percentage of SuperMicros being sold. Sometimes the whole list was nothing but SM servers. Obviously could be many factors, but does strike me as odd.

Any of those public or easy to get in to?

Would be nice to quantify this.

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#150

Post by rocqua »

tptacek wrote: post #145
sterlind wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember when Clapper gave the "least untruthful answer possible" about domestic bulk collection? [0] It's naive to think Apple and Amazon couldn't lie in response to the article, if the intelligence was highly-classified. They may be under extremely strict gag orders (e.g. "give no response whatsoever, including silence, other than denial") and protected by promises of indemnity, as telcos were in the wake of the NS…

This isn't how gag orders (or, in the case of online services, NSLs) work. A gag order can compel you not to share data, but they cannot compel you to lie, let alone lie elaborately, as Apple and Amazon at this point would have to be for their denials to be false. If Apple is lying here, they're lying because they want to, not because something is forcing them to. I believe them.

> This isn't how gag orders (or, in the case of online services, NSLs) work. A gag order can compel you not to share data, but they cannot compel you to lie, let alone lie elaborately

Is there case-law to support this? I've heard the argument often, but I don't believe it has yet been tested.

Post reply on HN