Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK cyber security agency backs Apple, Amazon China hack denials

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 99 posts

Re: UK cyber security agency backs Apple, Amazon China hack denials

#51

Post by java-man »

tomjen3 wrote: post #26
chatmasta wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless the fine is implemented as a percent of revenue, market cap or the like. Similarly, the US government once threatened to fine Yahoo $250k per day for non-compliance with PRISM. [0] As an aside, what do you think is draconian about such a law? It seems like there are reasonable arguments for why it would be in the national best interest to keep an ongoing investigation classified. In fact it seems like an unusu…

It is also a straight forward violation of the first admentment.

I doubt that.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

talks about Congress, not an executive branch. the latter can gag a person, or a company.

Re: UK cyber security agency backs Apple, Amazon China hack denials

#52

Post by lovich »

fastball wrote: post #45
kryogen1c wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, NSLs prevent you from talking about being under a NSL. I don't think they can be forced to lie, though

Which is actually what Reddit did with their annual transparency report. They said something along the lines of "if we haven't been gagged, we'll explicitly tell you we haven't been gagged. Otherwise..."

If the government can compel one kind of speech, it's not hard to compel others. They don't even have to make a a brand new rule for this. The companies have stated they use this technique to get around the gag order.

Judges aren't compilers who will faithfully follow all the rules as written down without deviation. They at specifically empowered to make decisions in light of new evidence, so why wouldn't they force companies to actively like if they are already adding exceptions to the first amendment?

Re: UK cyber security agency backs Apple, Amazon China hack denials

#53

Post by Analemma_ »

parliament32 wrote: post #46
tptacek wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not "maintaining ignorance"; they're categorically denying it, and in significant detail. Both Apple and Amazon produced essentially bulleted refutations of the story. That's not what you do when you're trying to brush something off.

How is "we have found no evidence of..." categorically denying? They're doing exactly what parent says, turning a blind eye to it, and "truthfully" saying they haven't seen anything amiss.

The story claims that the Apple worked with the FBI to investigate the issue, and Apple is saying no such cooperation ever happened. There really is no way to square these two sides; somebody is either wrong or lying.

Re: UK cyber security agency backs Apple, Amazon China hack denials

#54

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #47
parliament32 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is "we have found no evidence of..." categorically denying? They're doing exactly what parent says, turning a blind eye to it, and "truthfully" saying they haven't seen anything amiss.

Because it explicitly contradicts Bloomberg's story, which repeatedly claims Apple had knowledge of compromised hardware.

[deleted]

Re: UK cyber security agency backs Apple, Amazon China hack denials

#55

Post by pvg »

Alex3917 wrote: post #43
tptacek wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not "maintaining ignorance"; they're categorically denying it, and in significant detail. Both Apple and Amazon produced essentially bulleted refutations of the story. That's not what you do when you're trying to brush something off.

> They're not "maintaining ignorance"; they're categorically denying it What makes you think the people denying it know about it though? E.g. if the head of Apple security got served an NSL, wouldn't that potentially prevent them from telling the company lawyers or the executive team?

It's a curious forum we're on where on one day there are jiggabytes spilled over how journalists get technical things wrong and on another, they're so reliably accurate, technology organizations making the case reporting on them is inaccurate must have been infiltrated by men in black and have had hapless employees flashed with a neuralyzer.

Re: UK cyber security agency backs Apple, Amazon China hack denials

#56

Post by LurkersWillLurk »

java-man wrote: post #51
tomjen3 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is also a straight forward violation of the first admentment.

I doubt that. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." talks about Congress, not an executive branch. the latter can gag a person, or a company.

The First Amendment applies to all three branches of the government, not just Congress. The executive branch can attempt to obtain a gag order, but the 1st Amendment nonetheless places limits upon them.

See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S...

Re: UK cyber security agency backs Apple, Amazon China hack denials

#57

Post by dang »

pvg wrote: post #55
Alex3917 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're not "maintaining ignorance"; they're categorically denying it What makes you think the people denying it know about it though? E.g. if the head of Apple security got served an NSL, wouldn't that potentially prevent them from telling the company lawyers or the executive team?

It's a curious forum we're on where on one day there are jiggabytes spilled over how journalists get technical things wrong and on another, they're so reliably accurate, technology organizations making the case reporting on them is inaccurate must have been infiltrated by men in black and have had hapless employees flashed with a neuralyzer.

Can you please not post unsubstantive comments?

HN has 5M monthly users. Obviously there isn't going to be any consistency.

Re: UK cyber security agency backs Apple, Amazon China hack denials

#58

Post by mynameisvlad »

pvg wrote: post #55
Alex3917 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're not "maintaining ignorance"; they're categorically denying it What makes you think the people denying it know about it though? E.g. if the head of Apple security got served an NSL, wouldn't that potentially prevent them from telling the company lawyers or the executive team?

It's a curious forum we're on where on one day there are jiggabytes spilled over how journalists get technical things wrong and on another, they're so reliably accurate, technology organizations making the case reporting on them is inaccurate must have been infiltrated by men in black and have had hapless employees flashed with a neuralyzer.

Apart from that not being remotely what's being said, HN is not one person, it's a lot of different people with different opinions, commenting on different articles.

Re: UK cyber security agency backs Apple, Amazon China hack denials

#60

Post by keehun »

sjcsjc wrote: post #59

GCHQ saying it's not true makes me far more inclined to believe it.

Just to clarify your sentence, do you mean "far more inclined to believe China did spy on Apple/Amazon, etc"? Or you're far more inclined to believe Apple/Amazon, etc?
Post reply on HN