Apple CEO Tim Cook Calling for Bloomberg to Retract Its Chinese Spy Chip Story • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple CEO Tim Cook Calling for Bloomberg to Retract Its Chinese Spy Chip Story

#271

Post by lawnchair_larry » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 4:05 AM UTC

lovich wrote: post #246

roblabla wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An NSL cannot force you to lie. You can say "no comment", and that's how it's always been handled. Why would they vehemently deny an NSL (with all the risks involved) when "no comment" would suffice ?

Is that still true though? The NSL already compel speech in that they limit what you can say. We already have secret courts making decisions that we find out about years later. At this point the major wall has been breached in terms of rights, altering speech for national security, and we can no longer trust anything. If the secret courts decided they were going to compel active speech instead of compelling negative…

That is not what compel speech means.

Re: Apple CEO Tim Cook Calling for Bloomberg to Retract Its Chinese Spy Chip Story

#272

Post by lawnchair_larry » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 4:06 AM UTC

athrowaway3z wrote: post #151

moftz wrote: post #135

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?

Nope.

Re: Apple CEO Tim Cook Calling for Bloomberg to Retract Its Chinese Spy Chip Story

#273

Post by jsoc815 » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 4:14 AM UTC

nil_pointer wrote: post #193

catchaway727 wrote: post #165

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.

China is Apple's most important market. They have a huge motivation to deny it, as it could cost them doing business there.

Ah! Someone gets it.

Re: Apple CEO Tim Cook Calling for Bloomberg to Retract Its Chinese Spy Chip Story

#274

Post by jsoc815 » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 4:26 AM UTC

cmurf wrote: post #126

Shades of Operation Mockingbird (1953), and "The CIA and the Media". http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php Of course, whether the story is true or not matters, but at least as important is who Bloomberg's source is - as that goes to motive for releasing this information (true or false). And it isn't just Bloomberg who will be asking these kinds of questions.

+1 for the Bernstein ref. Had it mind, but couldn't remember the deets.

Re: Apple CEO Tim Cook Calling for Bloomberg to Retract Its Chinese Spy Chip Story

#275

Post by oh-kumudo » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 4:51 AM UTC

Likely Bloomberg is wrong. There is enough time for them to offer concrete evidence just for the sake of spinning more drama and hype. The attention they are getting by proving Apple/Amazon is lying would be incredible.

Yet, there is nothing except denial and then silence.

Without going too far into the conspiracy realm, the answer right now is that they can't. The longer they still quiet, the bigger joke they will become.

Re: Apple CEO Tim Cook Calling for Bloomberg to Retract Its Chinese Spy Chip Story

#276

Post by glenra » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 4:59 AM UTC

GCA10 wrote: post #175

abalone wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Also in the mix is the possibility that Bloomberg's "17 sources" consist of a only a few that claim first-hand knowledge, supplemented by a larger circle of people who were briefed about it. If so, the rest of the 17 are just echoing what the inner group told them, without having done substantial independent verification.

My guess is that a lot of the 17 are just adding color or confirming individual parts that don't add up to the whole. For instance, they must have had at least one source who told them about the factory with chinese-speaking workers that orders chinese pastries instead of donuts and has separate meetings/announcements for people who don't speak English. Those details help sell the article - and help create an impression that innocuous immigrant workers who enjoy delicious bright yellow pastries are some kind of nefarious 5th column - but do absolutely nothing to establish the central claim. If they had 3 sources on the donuts-and-meetings thing and include those in the 17 that only leaves 14 for the important stuff, and so on. Dial in far enough and I bet there's only one or two dubious sources for the big picture, while everyone else is in their own little information silos not knowing anything but their own part.

Re: Apple CEO Tim Cook Calling for Bloomberg to Retract Its Chinese Spy Chip Story

#277

Post by WillPostForFood » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 5:00 AM UTC

tunesmith wrote: post #63

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…

In the Rolling Stone UVA rape story, they initially backed the reporter when doubts began to arise (not full double down) before backing away when the story began to collapse. It's a good example to consider here - earnest journalist, eager source stretching the truth to either make a point or please the journalist.

The story we published was one woman’s account of a sexual assault at a UVA fraternity in October 2012 – and the subsequent ordeal she experienced at the hands of University administrators in her attempts to work her way through the trauma of that evening. The indifference with which her complaint was met was, we discovered, sadly consistent with the experience of many other UVA women who have tried to report such assaults. Through our extensive reporting and fact–checking, we found Jackie to be entirely credible and courageous and we are proud to have given her disturbing story the attention it deserves.

Three days later they retracted the story.

Re: Apple CEO Tim Cook Calling for Bloomberg to Retract Its Chinese Spy Chip Story

#278

Post by garmaine » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 5:16 AM UTC

lovich wrote: post #246

roblabla wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An NSL cannot force you to lie. You can say "no comment", and that's how it's always been handled. Why would they vehemently deny an NSL (with all the risks involved) when "no comment" would suffice ?

Is that still true though? The NSL already compel speech in that they limit what you can say. We already have secret courts making decisions that we find out about years later. At this point the major wall has been breached in terms of rights, altering speech for national security, and we can no longer trust anything. If the secret courts decided they were going to compel active speech instead of compelling negative…

Most people in this thread have zero experience with national security issues, and the ACLU/EFF opinions are more what those organizations feel should be the constitutional interpretation, not what actual circumstance is. You certainly can be compelled to say certain things to keep classified information secret, at risk of federal prison or worse, and this is the same law that is being abused for NSLs.

Re: Apple CEO Tim Cook Calling for Bloomberg to Retract Its Chinese Spy Chip Story

#279

Post by garmaine » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 5:21 AM UTC

stephenr wrote: post #225

garmaine wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be compelled to act exactly as you would as if the NSL had not been issued, and indeed they seem to contain language to that effect. A reasonable response would be to adopt a policy of "no comment" and most do, but if you have previously responded to questions about NSLs in the negative, you would then be required to continue doing the same. Q: Have you received an NSL? A: No. Q: Now have you received an NSL?…

Apple made a statement, that they have are not under NSL/gag. They don’t routinely make these statements, and they weren’t asked directly about it. They therefore are not “acting exactly as they would” without a NSL.

They’ve made similar statements in the past, e.g. regarding patriot act requests in 2013.

Re: Apple CEO Tim Cook Calling for Bloomberg to Retract Its Chinese Spy Chip Story

#280

Post by lostapathy » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 5:27 AM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #187

olyjohn wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's what I expect them to do. Show me a real picture of the chip. Show me some samples of the malicious traffic. Show me some code that they found, tell us which server models they found the affected hardware in. Somebody should have SOME shred of information on this, but there is none. You don't just sell thousands of servers, and not have a few of them that end up getting shipped to someone else, or have a few t…

Because it's easier to share words than steal hardware that may be classified due to it's security implications. Which is easier? Telling me what you saw in someone else's safe, or giving me it's contents?

If this story is as real as Bloomberg wants us to think, there are too many tampered motherboards in circulation for them to have all been vacuumed up by someone with a clearance.

A random technician in a datacenter is under no obligation not to leak one unless he holds (or held) a clearance and has agreed to the terms of it.

Example - back when internet worms like SQL slammer were a thing, classification was a huge point of contention among gov security. At least in some agencies, because they were due to a vulnerability in a gov system, the IT/security staff were unable to discuss it with outside, uncleared people, because the vulnerability aspect made it classified. At the same time, knowledge of said worms and backdoors was public all over the news, and no reporters ever went to jail for discussing it.

This isn't so different - it only takes one person without a clearance to dig up one of these chips and publish pictures, and they can do so legally. The fact that it hasn't happened tells me this isn't a widespread problem.