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

171–180 of 183 posts

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#171

Post by eeeeeeeeeeeee »

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…

The last paragraph of the press release on this hacker news post:

"Finally, in response to questions we have received from other news organisations since Businessweek published its story, we are not under any kind of gag order or other confidentiality obligations."

So you're basically implying that Apple is colluding with the US government to actively lie to discredit this story.

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#172

Post by acct1771 »

eeeeeeeeeeeee wrote: post #171
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 last paragraph of the press release on this hacker news post: "Finally, in response to questions we have received from other news organisations since Businessweek published its story, we are not under any kind of gag order or other confidentiality obligations." So you're basically implying that Apple is colluding with the US government to actively lie to discredit this story.

The funny part is that, based on your tone, you can't imagine a case where: 1) that's possible and 2) Apple may not be a willing colluding party.

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#173

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

acct1771 wrote: post #172
eeeeeeeeeeeee wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last paragraph of the press release on this hacker news post: "Finally, in response to questions we have received from other news organisations since Businessweek published its story, we are not under any kind of gag order or other confidentiality obligations." So you're basically implying that Apple is colluding with the US government to actively lie to discredit this story.

The funny part is that, based on your tone, you can't imagine a case where: 1) that's possible and 2) Apple may not be a willing colluding party.

I can't imagine a case where it's within the US's power to force Apple to falsely deny a story for them, but not within their power to feed a fake story to Bloomberg.

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#174

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

chasd00 wrote: post #135

Incredibly interesting story and discussion, this is why i come to this site. Isn't this practice known, if not common, in the infosec/intelligence communities at the nation level? There's lots of stories of hardware exploits in copy machines, faxes, etc that took place during the Cold War.

It's a known practice, but security-sensitive organizations have supply chain management that's typically understood to prevent it from happening on a large scale.

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#175

Post by ItsMe000001 »

brorfred wrote: post #146
ItsMe000001 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then it would make no sense for it to not be true either, unless one assumes the government to spread lies to damage those companies, which also makes no sense.

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#176

Post by vsl »

rocqua wrote: post #150
tptacek wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s a well established doctrine that this is a direct consequence of First Amedment: https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/933/compelled-speec...

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#177

Post by _Tev »

lordlimecat wrote: post #169
kevin_b_er wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

I wonder why people on HN take these arguments seriously.

You either anger govt that is authoritarian & capable of confiscating your entire production (basically ending your current business)

OR

You make some half-truth statement (not necessary to be lying, but that does not change the point), and - if everything will be revealed - one agency of democratic govt will be pissed and slap you with big fine.

Basically this is big enough to make SEC meaningless.

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#178

Post by _Tev »

Arn_Thor wrote: post #80
whatever1 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No offense, but I think that your suggested statement would only lead to serious escalation for media enquiries, especially since this story came 2 days after the interview of the Apple CEO [1], where he underlined that privacy (and the relevant security measures) constitutes the core value of the company. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD1cP8SK3Q0

If Apple or Amazon are found to have lied in their statements I think they could be in serious legal trouble with both their customers but also (sadly, more importantly) their stock holders.

More trouble than if they pissed China off enough to threaten Apple's manufacturing in China?

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#179

Post by alwayseasy »

Jerry2 wrote: post #29
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...

What exactly did they know? Did they check anything themselves or did they hear the same story from the US IC that Bloomberg also heard? Supermicro servers are extremely popular in data centers. Yet no one has noticed anything and no one has found any malicious chips in them. Unless the Chinese secret services also hacked all of the firewalls, someone would have picked up some outgoing packets that are going to Chine…

That's not how journalism works, "Anonymous sources" are not anonymous to the journalists and editor of Bloomberg. Evidence can be vetted but not published.

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#180

Post by lordlimecat »

_Tev wrote: post #177
lordlimecat wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

I wonder why people on HN take these arguments seriously. You either anger govt that is authoritarian & capable of confiscating your entire production (basically ending your current business) OR You make some half-truth statement (not necessary to be lying, but that does not change the point), and - if everything will be revealed - one agency of democratic govt will be pissed and slap you with big fine. Basically thi…

The idea that the Chinese gov't would seize Apple's "entire production" is up there with the possibility that the US invades China. It isn't going to happen. There are just too many consequences, not least of which is the withdrawal of most US companies from China.

The SEC on the other hand literally just got done fining Elon Musk $20m for a tweet. Fines for something like this could be in the hundreds of millions, that's not something you risk when you could just say "we are investigating the claims and take them seriously."

Post reply on HN