15 ms·

It could also be possible that these companies are legally bound by some sort of investigation-related order to maintain ignorance to the presence of the chips

It could also be possible that these companies are legally bound by some sort of investigation-related order to maintain ignorance to the presence of the chips and that Bloomberg have just sunk an ongoing investigation/counter-espionage operation, potentially putting an associated intelligence network at risk.

sschueller 8y ago
This seems preposterous to me. We are not in China here.
- chatmasta 8y ago
  There is plenty of precedent for the US government issuing national security letters (“NSLs”) containing gag orders for ongoing investigations, often with massive monetary penalties imposed for violations.
  - sschueller 8y ago
    Apple with the largest pockets and very positive ratings would be the one that could make a stance against such draconian laws.
    - chatmasta 8y ago
      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 unusually straight forward application of the cliche justification “for national security reasons.” [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8305925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8305925
      - sschueller 8y ago
        I have no problem with keeping the details of an investigation classified. The issues is that you can't even say there is an investigation.
      - tomjen3 8y ago
        It is also a straight forward violation of the first admentment.
        java-man 8y ago
        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.
        LurkersWillLurk 8y ago
        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_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S...
      - billyggruff 8y ago
        That would be less than a $100 million per year operating expendeture.
        adventured 8y ago
        Which Yahoo shareholders would be irate about, and the Yahoo corporation could not trivially afford to throw away regardless. That would have destroyed about 1/4 of Yahoo's profit at the time. That would be bad enough, however the next step by the government would be to increase the fine amount, were Yahoo to hold out over time. Kick it up to $1 million per day and Yahoo would have folded no matter what. The problem is pretty straight forward: the government could push it as high as necessary to compel the result they wanted.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > There is plenty of precedent for the US government issuing national security letters (“NSLs”) containing gag orders for ongoing investigations I don't think the U.S. government can compel companies to lie. It can, though, request them to. If the NSA said "your servers were compromised by a state-sponsored scheme, and we'd like your co-operation in running counterintelligence operations" I think it would be fair for a company to say "yes". Particularly if part of the offer included help extracting infected hardware from said company's infrastructure.
- beaker52 8y ago
  However, the US enforces the Patriot Act that obligates US companies to turn over user data and are further legally obligated to keep the fact secret? Is it that far fetched to think they couldn't be obligated to avoid admitting (explicitly, or implicitly) something that would jeopardise ongoing espionage-related activities?
kryogen1c 8y ago
This seems the most likely scenario to me. The official response definitely does not pass the smell test, and this is the simplest way 5 eyes has to benefit from lying.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  Out of curiosity, why doesn't the response pass the smell test? Why is one of the possibilities more likely than another?
- hrktb 8y ago
  What would have made you believe Apple if they said it ?
lolc 8y ago
Wow, that would be the press doing their job! Still too early to tell whether this is what happened.
tptacek 8y ago
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.
- adventured 8y ago
  At this point it's clearly down to Bloomberg / Businessweek to bring more evidence to the table, and support their story further. The other side has entirely put the ball back in Bloomberg's court. Their credibility will be severely thrashed by this if they don't.
  - atmosx 8y ago
    I don’t believe that. No one will remember in a week or two.
    - kasey_junk 8y ago
      SuperMicro shareholders might.
      - atmosx 8y ago
        Indeed. SuperMicro is the victim so far. If trustworthiness amounted for anything in today's world, all major news agencies would be out of business.
        vkou 8y ago
        Why limit yourself to news agencies? If trustworthiness amounted for anything, nearly all corporations big enough to have a PR department, and all governments would be out of business.
- Alex3917 8y ago
  > 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?
pkamb 8y ago
APPLE: > 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. https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/10/04/what-businessweek-got-wrong-about-apple https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/10/04/what-businesswe...
- kryogen1c 8y ago
  FWIW, NSLs prevent you from talking about being under a NSL. I don't think they can be forced to lie, though
  - fastball 8y ago
    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..."
    - lovich 8y ago
      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?
  - ben_w 8y ago
    That is a commonly accepted position. As any prosecutions under an NSL would presumably be kept secret in order to keep the NSL itself secret, I strongly suspect that governments in general will take a dim view of such loopholes. The aforementioned secrecy means you are unlikely to find out.

sschueller 8y ago

This seems preposterous to me. We are not in China here.

chatmasta 8y ago
There is plenty of precedent for the US government issuing national security letters (“NSLs”) containing gag orders for ongoing investigations, often with massive monetary penalties imposed for violations.
- sschueller 8y ago
  Apple with the largest pockets and very positive ratings would be the one that could make a stance against such draconian laws.
  - chatmasta 8y ago
    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 unusually straight forward application of the cliche justification “for national security reasons.” [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8305925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8305925
    - sschueller 8y ago
      I have no problem with keeping the details of an investigation classified. The issues is that you can't even say there is an investigation.
    - tomjen3 8y ago
      It is also a straight forward violation of the first admentment.
      - java-man 8y ago
        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.
        LurkersWillLurk 8y ago
        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_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S...
    - billyggruff 8y ago
      That would be less than a $100 million per year operating expendeture.
      - adventured 8y ago
        Which Yahoo shareholders would be irate about, and the Yahoo corporation could not trivially afford to throw away regardless. That would have destroyed about 1/4 of Yahoo's profit at the time. That would be bad enough, however the next step by the government would be to increase the fine amount, were Yahoo to hold out over time. Kick it up to $1 million per day and Yahoo would have folded no matter what. The problem is pretty straight forward: the government could push it as high as necessary to compel the result they wanted.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > There is plenty of precedent for the US government issuing national security letters (“NSLs”) containing gag orders for ongoing investigations I don't think the U.S. government can compel companies to lie. It can, though, request them to. If the NSA said "your servers were compromised by a state-sponsored scheme, and we'd like your co-operation in running counterintelligence operations" I think it would be fair for a company to say "yes". Particularly if part of the offer included help extracting infected hardware from said company's infrastructure.
beaker52 8y ago
However, the US enforces the Patriot Act that obligates US companies to turn over user data and are further legally obligated to keep the fact secret? Is it that far fetched to think they couldn't be obligated to avoid admitting (explicitly, or implicitly) something that would jeopardise ongoing espionage-related activities?

kryogen1c 8y ago

This seems the most likely scenario to me. The official response definitely does not pass the smell test, and this is the simplest way 5 eyes has to benefit from lying.

throwawaymath 8y ago
Out of curiosity, why doesn't the response pass the smell test? Why is one of the possibilities more likely than another?
hrktb 8y ago
What would have made you believe Apple if they said it ?

lolc 8y ago

Wow, that would be the press doing their job! Still too early to tell whether this is what happened.

tptacek 8y ago

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.

adventured 8y ago
At this point it's clearly down to Bloomberg / Businessweek to bring more evidence to the table, and support their story further. The other side has entirely put the ball back in Bloomberg's court. Their credibility will be severely thrashed by this if they don't.
- atmosx 8y ago
  I don’t believe that. No one will remember in a week or two.
  - kasey_junk 8y ago
    SuperMicro shareholders might.
    - atmosx 8y ago
      Indeed. SuperMicro is the victim so far. If trustworthiness amounted for anything in today's world, all major news agencies would be out of business.
      - vkou 8y ago
        Why limit yourself to news agencies? If trustworthiness amounted for anything, nearly all corporations big enough to have a PR department, and all governments would be out of business.
Alex3917 8y ago
> 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?

pkamb 8y ago

APPLE: > 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. https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/10/04/what-businessweek-got-wrong-about-apple https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/10/04/what-businesswe...

kryogen1c 8y ago
FWIW, NSLs prevent you from talking about being under a NSL. I don't think they can be forced to lie, though
- fastball 8y ago
  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..."
  - lovich 8y ago
    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?
- ben_w 8y ago
  That is a commonly accepted position. As any prosecutions under an NSL would presumably be kept secret in order to keep the NSL itself secret, I strongly suspect that governments in general will take a dim view of such loopholes. The aforementioned secrecy means you are unlikely to find out.