What Businessweek got wrong about Apple • Hacker News Board

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#161

Post by teknologist » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 4:35 PM UTC

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…

One thing that sticks out to me is that they are fairly persistent on using "Apple" rather than something like "Apple and its security partners and subcontractors", which would eliminate most of the potential for doubt.

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#162

Post by teknologist » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 4:39 PM UTC

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #94

amelius wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel ME seems pretty successful though.

This amazes me. Everyone freaks about the Chinese doing it, whereas we're surrounded by millions of computers doing the same thing - or at least able to - without us even knowing or being able to block it.

I suppose a big difference is that Intel ME is on the spec sheet, is known about, and is sold as a feature for sysadmins. It's not cool that it's not optional, but it can be switched off.

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#163

Post by Armisael16 » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 4:50 PM UTC

Theodores wrote: post #132

Theodores wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "chinese whispers" Does anyone have a better phrase for this? A Chinese workmate called me out for using that phrase in his presence. Until then I had used the phrase since childhood without thinking that there were connotations and with nobody complaining. However, after that one fateful conversation I did see that my language could be improved. But how? Does anyone have a concise alternative that conveys the same…

The Telephone Game is not common parlance in British English, just American English. So a better phrase is sought than that to convey the idea.

I suspect there is no common phrase. Chinese whispers isn't common parlance in american english.

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#164

Post by parliament32 » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 5:14 PM UTC

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).

https://www.theverge.com/2013/6/6/4404112/nsa-prism-surveill...

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#165

Post by parliament32 » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 5:19 PM UTC

onetimemanytime wrote: post #8

Very strong denial. Frankly, if true and Apple is saying this kind of a "no" shareholders will sue. Two possibilities: Left hand doesn't know (or can't know) what the right hand is doing at Apple. Top secret? Bloomberg was a victim of a hoax, some nation state (huh huhm!) wants to target China for something so they need a story. Based on what I've read here these past days, I'm leaning towards the second one. Apple c…

Nobody sued over numerous public companies claiming "we've never heard of PRISM", despite it turning out to be a lie. You can't get sued for complying with a government order...

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#166

Post by hef19898 » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 6:52 PM UTC

jnbiche wrote: post #159

hef19898 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a good question, did the Chinese target specific customers, identifying the relevant sub-contractors and modify these boards? Or are these boards commercial-of-the-shelf things that are mass produced? In the latter case these boards can just end up anywhere, in the first case not so much. As a result using commodity boards would provide some degree of protection against such an attack as slipping a manipulate…

> That is a good question, did the Chinese target specific customers, identifying the relevant sub-contractors and modify these boards? Why not go read the story? It addresses this question and many others HNers are asking now. It's actually a fairly detailed story, although annoyingly short on technical detail (which could have been because their sources refused to go into much detail).

I did read it, so if it was mentioned I missed the part where Bloomberg stated if it was targeted at specific orders and thus customers or if it was seeded into the supply chain to see what sticks.

So, if you know the answer, why not just providing the information? ;-)

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#167

Post by x0054 » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 6:57 PM UTC

chrisdhoover wrote: post #139

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…

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. That makes sense. I ate the pudding it tasted good it proved to me its deliciousness. There is no proof in a pudding that is not eaten.

You clearly not an Agatha Christie Fan

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#168

Post by lordlimecat » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 7:22 PM UTC

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.

Lying publicly and on the record about something that should have been disclosed in their financials as a risk is not something the SEC would take kindly to.

Publicly traded companies do not have the same freedom to lie because the truth or falsity of this claim has a direct impact on their stock price. Something we just saw with Musk less than a week ago.

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#169

Post by lordlimecat » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 7:24 PM UTC

kevin_b_er wrote: post #148

brorfred wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the story were true Apple cannot lie about it publicly like this; the SEC would have their heads.

They would have to hedge, "we are investigating Bloomberg's allegations and take security seriously."

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#170

Post by darawk » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 8:08 PM UTC

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.

I certainly understand why they wouldn't want people to know about it. But lying outright in a public statement in a way that is direct and clear could expose them to serious legal risk. Trading PR risk for legal risk seems like a dangerous move that companies this large wouldn't take lightly.