171–180 of 334 posts
And Bloomberg is standing by the story. All of the people who think that Apple is being misled coerced by the government into denying factual reports, I want to know how that belief is squared with the _lack_ of a retraction. If the government is powerful enough to get Apple to go to these lengths in defense of a falsehood, why can't they convince Bloomberg to retract?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Goes directly to FBI without telling boss at Apple. This is really hard to believe. An engineer who found this bug at Apple would most likely be praised for finding it. It is a huge discovery. What motivation would he have to not tell his manager?
> would most likely be praised for finding it. It is a huge discovery. Seriously, history, recent and otherwise, is littered w/the ghosts and carcasses of employees who were anything but rewarded for identifying problems great and small. Oftentimes the safest thing to do is to pretend that one saw/heard/knows nothing while hoping that someone else has the steel to sound the alarm. And for this sort of situation, ther…
1) Whistle-blowers are rarely rewarded. If anything, they are typically penalized, which is why most people 'stfu' and go about their daily business.
2) There is a multi-dimensional chess game happening. I live in DC. The "Rise of China" and the "decline of American power" are frequently discussed topics. People interpret as threatening all sorts of things that the average person wouldn't bother to think much about. Likewise, strategies abound on how to engage/counter these perceived threats.
The idea that a government would tamper w/electronics isn't far-fetched. Nor is it absurd to believe that government actors would use press outlets and the like to disseminate narratives. Some known examples of, and/or references to the practice...[1], [2], [3], [4].
3) Does anyone really think that Bloomberg would produce and release such a piece w/o someone in the Administration knowing about it ahead of time and/or seeking guidance as to how, or even whether, it should be released? Seriously?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-nov... [3] https://www.airforcehollywood.af.mil [4] https://www.army.mil/info/institution/publicAffairs/ocpa-wes...
I doubt anyone will see my comment since I am a few hours late. BUT, I want to say, despite what bloomberg AND apple say, here is why I think Bloomberg failed on this report, and didn't do enough to PROVE their claims were accurate. They made the flat out claim that AWS sold its Chinese infrastructure because of the hack. But this is flat out not true, anyone who actually knows anything about the Chinese goverment kn…
Is it precedented for a news organization to double down like this in the case where a reporter just makes stuff up Stephen Glass style? Because barring a Stephen Glass scenario, what's fascinating here is that no matter which side is right, this is evidence of some sort of mysterious power play. Either Apple was hacked, they know, and are denying, which is evidence of them being under the thumb of U.S. national secu…
Gruber made a good point: They aren't quite doubling down as hard as they could.[1] They said their reporters spoke with a lot of people and spent a long time on the story. They checked the boxes in the journalistic process, so to speak. But they didn't detail, like, that there was substantial corroboration of specific details like Apple working with the FBI. That leaves open possibilities that it came from just one…
If so, the rest of the 17 are just echoing what the inner group told them, without having done substantial independent verification.
Bloomberg says they have THREE senior sources at Apple. Why would they retract? My guess is Cook is fishing for the leaker.
There is a distinct whiff of the aroma of propaganda around this one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tim Cook would have to know. If there is something like a NSL involved, Apple's legal team would have already reviewed it. That same legal team would also be advising Cook on what he publicly says since he is an officer in the company. He could lose his job or be fined for saying false information in the press (think about what happened to Musk) so its in his and his legal team's best interest to only say true things…
>> its probably against the law for him to outright lie about the situation in the eyes of the SEC Didn't some leaked documents show that a 'shadow' judicial status has been created ( under post 9/11 histeria ) where, in the interest of national security, firms are allowed and even required to lie about things?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Clinton administration and CIA tried to deny the China-Boeing technology transfer incident. But others in the CIA were concerned, raised the issue and were later proven right. I asked people in the CIA about the Bloomberg story and their response seemed to indicate that the story is real. There’s immense pressure to deny this story for several reasons.
Care to talk about your background?
In the past, Apple has lied about a severe security incident involving Super Micro hardware. In 2016 Super Micro Senior Vice President of Technology himself said Apple found "infected firmware." It was so bad that Apple "discontinued future business [with Super Micro] as a result of a compromised internal development environment". Strangely Apple at the time was denying the whole thing: https://appleinsider.com/artic…
In the past, these Bloomberg reporters have misreported on NSA exploiting Heartbleed. Here is the Washington Post giving them shit about it:[1] As for the 2016 incident, read Apple's denial more closely. They denied finding infected firmware on servers purchased from SuperMicro. What happened is someone in the design lab (not in production) downloaded infected firmware from SM's support site, where it was "still host…
Bad source given. The WP relies on NSA officials denying they used heartbleed. You believe that?