5 ms·

What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

79 points by coloneltcb 8y ago

minimaxir 8y ago
This kind of harsh rebuttal is rare for Apple. The closest comparison was the Letter about the San Bernardino shooter's phone and the request to build a backdoor into iOS: https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/ https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/ They did do something similar for the PRISM reporting: https://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/ https://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/
Shank 8y ago
> Finally, in response to questions we have received from other news organizations since Businessweek published its story, we are not under any kind of gag order or other confidentiality obligations. They're really covering all of their bases here. I guess any human or set of humans can make mistakes. That would include Bloomberg, but I'm utterly perplexed as to which side could be so completely wrong right now.
sulam 8y ago
This is very clear and doesn’t include any of the usual wiggle words corporate entities use to create uncertainty about facts. I’m personally assessing it as an accurate representation of Apple’s piece of this story.
tlow 8y ago
Here's my take: Apple is serious about security. They recognize beyond utility, it has huge brand value. In the fake news era, it seems Apple decided it was important enough to merit a response to set the record straight, no doubt a tremendous amount of thought went into this response and the decision to publish it.
saudioger 8y ago
If this were true Apple likely couldn't say it was, so I'd take this with a big grain of salt. They have a lot to lose if the story is true; look at what happened to Super Micro today. Bloomberg, on the other hand, has no incentive to lie. At worst they were misinformed by verified sources.
- mcphage 8y ago
  > If this were true Apple likely couldn't say it was Why not?
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    They're probably referring to National Security Letters, which include a gag order that prevents even disclosing the existence of the order/letter, or the investigation it's a part of. https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters
    - okket 8y ago
      If there is a gag order, how can Apple then write such a statement? AFAIK you can't legally force someone to lie. (At least not yet)
      - ceejayoz 8y ago
        If you haven't received an NSL, you can say you haven't received one. It's a bit unclear if "we can't confirm or deny having gotten one" is, in effect, disclosing that you did get one as a result. Same issue with "warrant canaries" - I wouldn't want to be the first legal test case on one. That said, I think if they'd gotten an NSL-style gag order, you'd wouldn't get this vehement a denial of the incident in question. I'm inclined to believe Apple as a result.
        dwighttk 8y ago
        if you've gotten an NSL, can you say "we are not under any kind of gag order or other confidentiality obligations."
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        From the FBI's (or whoever issued it) perspective, I believe they'd say you're even required to do that, as saying otherwise implies the existence of the order you're not allowed to disclose the existence of. The EFF would say requiring you to say that is a violation of the First Amendment as it's prior restraint. The SEC might say it's illegally lying to shareholders. In short: We don't really know.
ohiovr 8y ago
The FANGS are furious
dwighttk 8y ago
Why is this marked dupe? Because the Bloomberg article is on the main page? This seems pretty different.
- dwighttk 8y ago
  ah, I see the other article now.

79 points by coloneltcb 8y ago

This kind of harsh rebuttal is rare for Apple. The closest comparison was the Letter about the San Bernardino shooter's phone and the request to build a backdoor into iOS: https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/ https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/ They did do something similar for the PRISM reporting: https://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/ https://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/

Shank 8y ago

> Finally, in response to questions we have received from other news organizations since Businessweek published its story, we are not under any kind of gag order or other confidentiality obligations. They're really covering all of their bases here. I guess any human or set of humans can make mistakes. That would include Bloomberg, but I'm utterly perplexed as to which side could be so completely wrong right now.

sulam 8y ago

This is very clear and doesn’t include any of the usual wiggle words corporate entities use to create uncertainty about facts. I’m personally assessing it as an accurate representation of Apple’s piece of this story.

tlow 8y ago

Here's my take: Apple is serious about security. They recognize beyond utility, it has huge brand value. In the fake news era, it seems Apple decided it was important enough to merit a response to set the record straight, no doubt a tremendous amount of thought went into this response and the decision to publish it.

saudioger 8y ago

If this were true Apple likely couldn't say it was, so I'd take this with a big grain of salt. They have a lot to lose if the story is true; look at what happened to Super Micro today. Bloomberg, on the other hand, has no incentive to lie. At worst they were misinformed by verified sources.

mcphage 8y ago
> If this were true Apple likely couldn't say it was Why not?
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  They're probably referring to National Security Letters, which include a gag order that prevents even disclosing the existence of the order/letter, or the investigation it's a part of. https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters
  - okket 8y ago
    If there is a gag order, how can Apple then write such a statement? AFAIK you can't legally force someone to lie. (At least not yet)
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      If you haven't received an NSL, you can say you haven't received one. It's a bit unclear if "we can't confirm or deny having gotten one" is, in effect, disclosing that you did get one as a result. Same issue with "warrant canaries" - I wouldn't want to be the first legal test case on one. That said, I think if they'd gotten an NSL-style gag order, you'd wouldn't get this vehement a denial of the incident in question. I'm inclined to believe Apple as a result.
      - dwighttk 8y ago
        if you've gotten an NSL, can you say "we are not under any kind of gag order or other confidentiality obligations."
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        From the FBI's (or whoever issued it) perspective, I believe they'd say you're even required to do that, as saying otherwise implies the existence of the order you're not allowed to disclose the existence of. The EFF would say requiring you to say that is a violation of the First Amendment as it's prior restraint. The SEC might say it's illegally lying to shareholders. In short: We don't really know.

ohiovr 8y ago

The FANGS are furious

dwighttk 8y ago

Why is this marked dupe? Because the Bloomberg article is on the main page? This seems pretty different.

dwighttk 8y ago
ah, I see the other article now.