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

UK cyber security agency backs Apple, Amazon China hack denials

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 99 posts

Re: UK cyber security agency backs Apple, Amazon China hack denials

#21

Post by JumpCrisscross »

chatmasta wrote: post #13
sschueller wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems preposterous to me. We are not in China here.

There is plenty of precedent for the US government issuing national security letters (“NSLs”) containing gag orders for ongoing investigations, often with massive monetary penalties imposed for violations.

> There is plenty of precedent for the US government issuing national security letters (“NSLs”) containing gag orders for ongoing investigations

I don't think the U.S. government can compel companies to lie. It can, though, request them to.

If the NSA said "your servers were compromised by a state-sponsored scheme, and we'd like your co-operation in running counterintelligence operations" I think it would be fair for a company to say "yes". Particularly if part of the offer included help extracting infected hardware from said company's infrastructure.

Re: UK cyber security agency backs Apple, Amazon China hack denials

#25

Post by throwawaymath »

kryogen1c wrote: post #12
beaker52 wrote: post #7

It could also be possible that these companies are legally bound by some sort of investigation-related order to maintain ignorance to the presence of the chips and that Bloomberg have just sunk an ongoing investigation/counter-espionage operation, potentially putting an associated intelligence network at risk.

This seems the most likely scenario to me. The official response definitely does not pass the smell test, and this is the simplest way 5 eyes has to benefit from lying.

Out of curiosity, why doesn't the response pass the smell test? Why is one of the possibilities more likely than another?

Re: UK cyber security agency backs Apple, Amazon China hack denials

#26

Post by tomjen3 »

chatmasta wrote: post #18
sschueller wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple with the largest pockets and very positive ratings would be the one that could make a stance against such draconian laws.

Unless the fine is implemented as a percent of revenue, market cap or the like. Similarly, the US government once threatened to fine Yahoo $250k per day for non-compliance with PRISM. [0] As an aside, what do you think is draconian about such a law? It seems like there are reasonable arguments for why it would be in the national best interest to keep an ongoing investigation classified. In fact it seems like an unusu…

It is also a straight forward violation of the first admentment.

Re: UK cyber security agency backs Apple, Amazon China hack denials

#27

Post by tptacek »

beaker52 wrote: post #7

It could also be possible that these companies are legally bound by some sort of investigation-related order to maintain ignorance to the presence of the chips and that Bloomberg have just sunk an ongoing investigation/counter-espionage operation, potentially putting an associated intelligence network at risk.

They're not "maintaining ignorance"; they're categorically denying it, and in significant detail. Both Apple and Amazon produced essentially bulleted refutations of the story. That's not what you do when you're trying to brush something off.

Re: UK cyber security agency backs Apple, Amazon China hack denials

#28

Post by billyggruff »

chatmasta wrote: post #18
sschueller wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple with the largest pockets and very positive ratings would be the one that could make a stance against such draconian laws.

Unless the fine is implemented as a percent of revenue, market cap or the like. Similarly, the US government once threatened to fine Yahoo $250k per day for non-compliance with PRISM. [0] As an aside, what do you think is draconian about such a law? It seems like there are reasonable arguments for why it would be in the national best interest to keep an ongoing investigation classified. In fact it seems like an unusu…

That would be less than a $100 million per year operating expendeture.

Re: UK cyber security agency backs Apple, Amazon China hack denials

#29

Post by adventured »

tptacek wrote: post #27
beaker52 wrote: post #7

It could also be possible that these companies are legally bound by some sort of investigation-related order to maintain ignorance to the presence of the chips and that Bloomberg have just sunk an ongoing investigation/counter-espionage operation, potentially putting an associated intelligence network at risk.

They're not "maintaining ignorance"; they're categorically denying it, and in significant detail. Both Apple and Amazon produced essentially bulleted refutations of the story. That's not what you do when you're trying to brush something off.

At this point it's clearly down to Bloomberg / Businessweek to bring more evidence to the table, and support their story further. The other side has entirely put the ball back in Bloomberg's court. Their credibility will be severely thrashed by this if they don't.

Re: UK cyber security agency backs Apple, Amazon China hack denials

#30

Post by adventured »

billyggruff wrote: post #28
chatmasta wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless the fine is implemented as a percent of revenue, market cap or the like. Similarly, the US government once threatened to fine Yahoo $250k per day for non-compliance with PRISM. [0] As an aside, what do you think is draconian about such a law? It seems like there are reasonable arguments for why it would be in the national best interest to keep an ongoing investigation classified. In fact it seems like an unusu…

That would be less than a $100 million per year operating expendeture.

Which Yahoo shareholders would be irate about, and the Yahoo corporation could not trivially afford to throw away regardless. That would have destroyed about 1/4 of Yahoo's profit at the time.

That would be bad enough, however the next step by the government would be to increase the fine amount, were Yahoo to hold out over time. Kick it up to $1 million per day and Yahoo would have folded no matter what. The problem is pretty straight forward: the government could push it as high as necessary to compel the result they wanted.

Post reply on HN