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

Post by panda888888 » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 8:34 AM UTC

IBM wrote: post #59

electrograv wrote: post #51

I think Bloomberg was probably irresponsible to publish the Chinese spy chip story, whether it was true or false! Here's why: * If the story is false , it's irresponsible because it causes severe monetary and reputational damage to companies that do not deserve it (e.g. Supermicro's stock is still down ~ 40% ). * If the story is true , it's a MAJOR breach of classified information from US intelligence operations; ope…

It's not irresponsible at all if the story is true. Bloomberg has no responsibility to Supermicro's stock (or anyone else's). They also aren't responsible for protecting classified information. But the story probably isn't true.

Post by panda888888 » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 8:40 AM UTC

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #265

kakarot wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant Apple, but the broader implication is that we can't trust either party with the information we have now.

I mean Apple's account seems a lot more believable to me. I know we all want Jason Bourne to be real, but he isn't.

Post by c3534l » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 9:05 AM UTC

MaysonL wrote: post #259

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…

Gruber's theory that someone in the administration wants to turn up the heat on China and is feeding Bloomberg disinformation, while wild, makes the most sense.

Post by lolc » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 9:44 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #101

macspoofing wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There is no reason to believe than Tim Cook or any executive would be aware of anything. The minute this story hit publication you can bet internal security teams at Apple would have validated it and submitted findings to Tim Cook. At this point Tim Cook, along with his legal team, has all the facts as they pertain to Apple and Apple suppliers and every component inside Apple devices. You don't come out without a st…

Unless there are moles on both sides inside of Apple, and the PRC-malicious-chip-installation moles managed to destroy evidence and silence witnesses. That sounds vaguely fantastic, but "PRC installing malicious chips on server motherboards and Anonymous Sources discovering those chips and leaking news to Bloomberg" is already well into spy vs. spy territory.

Post by mattzito » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 9:48 AM UTC

garmaine wrote: post #278

lovich wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.