4 ms·

That's not how TS/SCI works. You've been watching too many movies. Source: was TS/SCI cleared for 15 years. Information being classified just means you can't di

That's not how TS/SCI works. You've been watching too many movies. Source: was TS/SCI cleared for 15 years. Information being classified just means you can't divulge the information, not that you can't divulge the existence of the info.

jnbiche 8y ago
That's a bit misleading. There are code word programs and classified investigations where just revealing the existence of the info would be a serious violation. In this case, if a cleared employee is asked: is this information true, is there such an investigation? Then simply by saying they can't comment on the question, they reveal the info to be true. I think most people with high-level clearances would play it safe in such situations and just deny any knowledge of the situation.
- drawnwren 8y ago
  I can't comment is exactly what they can and do say very frequently. Apple could have not commented on any investigation or not responded to a request for comment. This would have been completely normal. "That's not something I can talk about" is a very common phrase.
- addicted 8y ago
  Frequently is not the same as always. And, if true, this situation would almost certainly fall outside the common scenario.
  - drawnwren 8y ago
    Absolutely correct, but extraordinary claims require proof. I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong, and of course I could be, but there is no indication that this is anything other than Bloomberg being misled at this point. Location of clearly exploited hardware, acknowledgement by anyone involved, or analysis of traffic from one of these boards would all corroborate the story.
grecy 8y ago
I would say it depends on the thing. I worked at Defense Science & Technology for a year, and there were levels of classification I wasn't even cleared to know about. It was very common for someone to be working on something they could not tell their direct boss about, because their boss was not cleared for it.
onetimemanytime 8y ago
>>just means you can't divulge the information, not that you can't divulge the existence of the info. The existence of it is important. I can't tell the content of x letter sent from China's Amb to the mother ship but I can tell you that we intercepted the letter. How was it intercepted? That in itself means a lot.

jnbiche 8y ago

That's a bit misleading. There are code word programs and classified investigations where just revealing the existence of the info would be a serious violation. In this case, if a cleared employee is asked: is this information true, is there such an investigation? Then simply by saying they can't comment on the question, they reveal the info to be true. I think most people with high-level clearances would play it safe in such situations and just deny any knowledge of the situation.

drawnwren 8y ago
I can't comment is exactly what they can and do say very frequently. Apple could have not commented on any investigation or not responded to a request for comment. This would have been completely normal. "That's not something I can talk about" is a very common phrase.
addicted 8y ago
Frequently is not the same as always. And, if true, this situation would almost certainly fall outside the common scenario.
- drawnwren 8y ago
  Absolutely correct, but extraordinary claims require proof. I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong, and of course I could be, but there is no indication that this is anything other than Bloomberg being misled at this point. Location of clearly exploited hardware, acknowledgement by anyone involved, or analysis of traffic from one of these boards would all corroborate the story.

grecy 8y ago

I would say it depends on the thing. I worked at Defense Science & Technology for a year, and there were levels of classification I wasn't even cleared to know about. It was very common for someone to be working on something they could not tell their direct boss about, because their boss was not cleared for it.

onetimemanytime 8y ago

>>just means you can't divulge the information, not that you can't divulge the existence of the info. The existence of it is important. I can't tell the content of x letter sent from China's Amb to the mother ship but I can tell you that we intercepted the letter. How was it intercepted? That in itself means a lot.