AWS CEO Jassy follows Apple in calling for retraction of Chinese spy chip story

Post by bsder » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 3:45 AM UTC

jackconnor wrote: post #169

michaelmrose wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if a newspaper wanted evidence that your company fucked up you would go and dismantle company property to discredit your employer knowing that it's likely to damage them and ruin you.

Well, if you're Apple/Amazon you have the SEC and your shareholders ready to ruin your life if you say anything that could even be interpreted as a lie. So, in this hypothetical you may not want to, but you will definitely feel forced to.

Post by nneonneo » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 3:56 AM UTC

will4274 wrote: post #210

SEJeff wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Apple and Amazon statements were bulletproof, and would very likely guarantee them shareholder lawsuits if they were in fact falsified. Additionally, the SEC would likely investigate if this did happen (since it would be fraud with harmed investors looking for blood)

> Additionally, the SEC would likely investigate if this did happen The phone companies all denied providing metadata to the NSA when the story first came out. I couldn't find the WaPo article from the same week, which I remembering reading in hardcopy, but here's a cite for the same from NPR: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=540913... . Did the SEC sue Verizon here?

Post by vlovich123 » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 4:14 AM UTC

stupidbird wrote: post #207

simonh wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s size up the options. Bloomberg is wrong. Apple and Amazing have every incentive to strongly deny the story. Bloomberg is right. Multiple employees up to executive level at 30 US companies and the government know about it and are actively leaking to Bloomberg about it. Numerous boards are out there at 30+ companies as physical evidence. There’s no way Apple and Amazon could risk denying this so strongly. It’s al…

If they were instructed to do so by the government they would not really have a choice, which would very likely produce leaks. If true, this is vastly different from the government requesting a backdoor or various warrant canaries, this would be an actual national security threat.

Post by vlovich123 » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 4:22 AM UTC

nneonneo wrote: post #214

stupidbird wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they were instructed to do so by the government they would not really have a choice, which would very likely produce leaks. If true, this is vastly different from the government requesting a backdoor or various warrant canaries, this would be an actual national security threat.

It would also be compelled speech, and from what I've read, > governments have the right to mandate corporate speech “if the information in the disclosure is reasonably related to a substantial governmental interest and is purely factual.” ( https://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-speech/when-the-gover... ) Since that would not be the case here, I do not believe it would be legally defensible for the government to com…

Post by panda888888 » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 4:55 AM UTC

duxup wrote: post #173

Any reason for these calls for retraction? It's not like there aren't false stories about what happens at Apple or Amazon regularly, not that they're usually about hacking but the public calls for retraction seem somewhat as unique as the story.