7 ms·

First guess: not being allowed to admit it due to national security reasons and it being an ongoing investigation. On the same day several Russians were exposed

by wjnc 8y ago

First guess: not being allowed to admit it due to national security reasons and it being an ongoing investigation. On the same day several Russians were exposed trying to attack OPCW. They were exposed by Dutch military intelligence. At the press briefing the UK ambassador was there. Same day US indicts several Russian spies. This to show that these are major, international events and that proper disclosure towards investors is probably on the back burner as long as operations are continuing. It must be maddening for those involved not to be allowed to discuss it, or even having to actively lie about it while government officials leak freely in the game of thrones.

lern_too_spel 8y ago
If they are under a gag order, they would simply not comment on it. Lying about it is never required and puts them at risk for shareholder lawsuits.
- lozaning 8y ago
  I wonder if there isn't some level of national security super mega secret scenario situation where the government requires companies to do something and the government indemnifies them against all risks associated with the required action.
  - trhway 8y ago
    hasn't it been the case with NSA and carriers all along? http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/09/business/la-fi-court-wiretapping-20121010 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/09/business/la-fi-court... "Congress granted retroactive immunity to people or companies aiding U.S. intelligence agents." In this case i'd not be surprised if Google/FB/AMZN/Apple/MS/Supermicro were even part of the CIA/NSA counter-sting - feeding of the false info back to Chinese intelligence through the detected 'mistery' chips.
    - lern_too_spel 8y ago
      The carriers never lied about it. They were provided immunity from criminal lawsuits, not civil lawsuits.
  - rrix2 8y ago
    How does the USG indemnify these companies for the massive breach of trust if that's indeed the case? You can't pay for trust.
  - ryanmarsh 8y ago
    I would be highly surprised if this wasn’t the case.
- stephenr 8y ago
  Apple specifically states that they are not under any form of gag/confidentiality order/conditions: > Finally, in response to questions we have received from other news organisations since Businessweek published its story, we are not under any kind of gag order or other confidentiality obligations.
  - amoshi 8y ago
    And if they were, you think they would admit it?
    - avip 8y ago
      They would not have blatantly lied about it in an official statement. That could not have passed legal.
      - zanmat0 8y ago
        Aren't they required to do so in the context of a NSL?
        djrogers 8y ago
        No, they are not required to provide materially false information in direct violation of SarbOx, the SEC, and several other federal agencies and statutes - not to mention the various EU laws surrounding such activity. If they were under an NSL they would simply not comment on this at all. That would be pretty normal for Apple, so people would probably take it in stride.
        ocschwar 8y ago
        No. THere's plenty of case law establishing that you cannot be compelled to outright lie.
      - Arbitrary4657 8y ago
        Most of Apple's "creative image" is one gigantic lie. Why would they suddenly have scruples now?
- walshemj 8y ago
  In all cases? possibly not if it is covered by national security.
- rossdavidh 8y ago
  Are you sure about that? I recall reading, in reference to canary clauses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary) that the government can and has required lying. If there's an ongoing national security concern, I would expect that they would.
  - gowld 8y ago
    The article you linked is primarily a disproof of your claim. It cites some hearsay speculation that Warrant Canaries are illegal, and cites several court cases that say Warrant Canaries are protected and compelled lies are illegal: "West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette and Wooley v. Maynard rule the Free Speech Clause prohibits compelling someone to speak against one's wishes; this can easily be extended to prevent someone from being compelled to lie."
- cjarrett 8y ago
  --no. That's not how this works.
ryanmarsh 8y ago
not being allowed to admit it due to national security reasons Came here to say this. When I read Amazon’s rebuttal my gut said “what if these folks had to respond but weren’t allowed to tell the truth?”. If the allegations went unanswered it could be damaging to Amazon and tip the hand of the spooks. If they answered and said they did find the devices the story could run away from them, the internet mob is good at writing articles with “problematic” in the title. Still I think this was a calculated leak. Why? Probably to put pressure on China in negotiations.
- WillPostForFood 8y ago
  Bloomberg specifically says some of their sources are senior national security officials from the Obama administration, and the conversations date back to the Obama administration. It doesn't make sense they would have been planning this leak for years in anticipation of Trump winning and a trade war with China.
- ocschwar 8y ago
  Amazon Web Services is the one branch of AMZN that is actually profitable. And the make or break for AWS is the assurance that when you're runnign stuff on one Amazon pizza box, your data are safe even from other users on that same box. You HAVE to get your assurance from Amazon if you're a corporate customer, for due diligence reasons. If that assurance is established to be a lie, every single corporate customer they have would be obliged to migrate to MSFT/RHAT/GOOG or elsewhere. AWS would be dead. I would say it's a calculated leak that happens to be materially false, meant to pressure CHina and kicj Bezos in the shin.
ABCLAW 8y ago
I think the NSL angle to the denials is bullshit - the denials themselves give you all you need. Read the denials carefully. They don't say the attacks haven't happened. They say they haven't found a variety of things. The apple denial in particular is interesting as it indicates that they have been corresponding with Bloomberg about this issue for a YEAR. Yet despite the magnitude of contact they refer to, they do not describe the nature of the vulnerability being discussed or refer to specific material elements they've refuted. Their statement regarding Bloomberg's most recent version of the facts isn't on material elements of the story. Having been involved in corporate risk responses I can say I've seen more vehement denials penned with perfect factual accuracy in respect of larger allegations, where the allegations turned out to be true. Almost every statement of defense looks exactly like this, with easy-win half-truth rebuttals to facts peppered around liberally to call the competence of your opposites into question. Edit: inserted a missing word.
- djrogers 8y ago
  I'm not sure where you're reading the Apple denial you're referring to, but this is *incredibly clear, detailed, and leaves no room to wiggle: "Apple has never found malicious chips, “hardware manipulations” or vulnerabilities purposely planted in any server. Apple never had any contact with the FBI or any other agency about such an incident. We are not aware of any investigation by the FBI, nor are our contacts in law enforcement." Also: "If there were ever such an event as Bloomberg News has claimed, we would be forthcoming about it and we would work closely with law enforcement." And: "No one from Apple ever reached out to the FBI about anything like this, and we have never heard from the FBI about an investigation of this kind — much less tried to restrict it." If you read those as not material, then I'm at a loss as to what exactly would convince you.
  - ABCLAW 8y ago
    Those aren't clear at all. They're clear to you because you don't see the weasel wording. "Apple has never found [...]" So what about third parties/reports/partners/contractors? Have they found anything and is Apple aware of those findings? Not disclosed here. Are the QC processes in place sufficient to lead us to believe that Apple would/should have found this issue? etc. If not, who cares if they haven't found it. Before you complain about the semantics, Apple specifically uses the phrasing "We are not aware of any" in respect of investigations, yet they don't use that all-encompassing language in reference to attacks. "malicious chips, “hardware manipulations” or vulnerabilities purposely planted in any server" What is a malicious chip - could the inserted piece be classified as non-malicious or simply not a chip? What is a hardware manipulation - are they saying they've literally never found any deviation between spec and what they've received? Why place 'purposely planted' as a qualifying requirement there? "If there were ever such an event as Bloomberg News has claimed, we would be forthcoming about it and we would work closely with law enforcement." They don't indicate what was claimed. They reference a volume of correspondence with a variety of claims instead of the claims. We assume, contextually, that they're referring to the specific chip insertion, but that's not borne out by their statement. "No one from Apple ever reached out to the FBI about anything like this, and we have never heard from the FBI about an investigation of this kind — much less tried to restrict it." This is fully plausible and means nothing. They restrict their denial of contact with the FBI to outgoing, indicate they haven't received notice of an investigation of some kind, which doesn't mean there's no investigation - collaborating with the FBI specifically on this point wouldn't involve the FBI disclosing the full scope of the investigation to them. None of these statements actually deal with the issues claimed. They look like they do, but they don't. Want a real statement? "Upon being notified of the potential issue by Bloomberg this past year, we have analyzed all of the SuperMicro boards referenced to determine if any unauthorized chip insertion occurred and have found none of the alleged inserted chips or any evidence of associated suspicious network activity."
matt4077 8y ago
The press release specifically said that they are not under any sort of order preventing any disclosure. And while it is indeed possible for the government to make you stay quiet, forcing you to lie is considered compelled speech, which is a fundamental aspect of current thinking on the 1st Amendment, and not something that is likely to change. No, not even when a three-letter agency wants it. Also nobody at the either the NSA nor Apple cares about the sort of everyday world news you're mentioning. Maybe lay of the Tom Clancy for a while?

by wjnc 8y ago

lern_too_spel 8y ago

If they are under a gag order, they would simply not comment on it. Lying about it is never required and puts them at risk for shareholder lawsuits.

lozaning 8y ago
I wonder if there isn't some level of national security super mega secret scenario situation where the government requires companies to do something and the government indemnifies them against all risks associated with the required action.
- trhway 8y ago
  hasn't it been the case with NSA and carriers all along? http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/09/business/la-fi-court-wiretapping-20121010 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/09/business/la-fi-court... "Congress granted retroactive immunity to people or companies aiding U.S. intelligence agents." In this case i'd not be surprised if Google/FB/AMZN/Apple/MS/Supermicro were even part of the CIA/NSA counter-sting - feeding of the false info back to Chinese intelligence through the detected 'mistery' chips.
  - lern_too_spel 8y ago
    The carriers never lied about it. They were provided immunity from criminal lawsuits, not civil lawsuits.
- rrix2 8y ago
  How does the USG indemnify these companies for the massive breach of trust if that's indeed the case? You can't pay for trust.
- ryanmarsh 8y ago
  I would be highly surprised if this wasn’t the case.
stephenr 8y ago
Apple specifically states that they are not under any form of gag/confidentiality order/conditions: > Finally, in response to questions we have received from other news organisations since Businessweek published its story, we are not under any kind of gag order or other confidentiality obligations.
- amoshi 8y ago
  And if they were, you think they would admit it?
  - avip 8y ago
    They would not have blatantly lied about it in an official statement. That could not have passed legal.
    - zanmat0 8y ago
      Aren't they required to do so in the context of a NSL?
      - djrogers 8y ago
        No, they are not required to provide materially false information in direct violation of SarbOx, the SEC, and several other federal agencies and statutes - not to mention the various EU laws surrounding such activity. If they were under an NSL they would simply not comment on this at all. That would be pretty normal for Apple, so people would probably take it in stride.
      - ocschwar 8y ago
        No. THere's plenty of case law establishing that you cannot be compelled to outright lie.
    - Arbitrary4657 8y ago
      Most of Apple's "creative image" is one gigantic lie. Why would they suddenly have scruples now?
walshemj 8y ago
In all cases? possibly not if it is covered by national security.
rossdavidh 8y ago
Are you sure about that? I recall reading, in reference to canary clauses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary) that the government can and has required lying. If there's an ongoing national security concern, I would expect that they would.
- gowld 8y ago
  The article you linked is primarily a disproof of your claim. It cites some hearsay speculation that Warrant Canaries are illegal, and cites several court cases that say Warrant Canaries are protected and compelled lies are illegal: "West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette and Wooley v. Maynard rule the Free Speech Clause prohibits compelling someone to speak against one's wishes; this can easily be extended to prevent someone from being compelled to lie."
cjarrett 8y ago
--no. That's not how this works.

ryanmarsh 8y ago

not being allowed to admit it due to national security reasons Came here to say this. When I read Amazon’s rebuttal my gut said “what if these folks had to respond but weren’t allowed to tell the truth?”. If the allegations went unanswered it could be damaging to Amazon and tip the hand of the spooks. If they answered and said they did find the devices the story could run away from them, the internet mob is good at writing articles with “problematic” in the title. Still I think this was a calculated leak. Why? Probably to put pressure on China in negotiations.

WillPostForFood 8y ago
Bloomberg specifically says some of their sources are senior national security officials from the Obama administration, and the conversations date back to the Obama administration. It doesn't make sense they would have been planning this leak for years in anticipation of Trump winning and a trade war with China.
ocschwar 8y ago
Amazon Web Services is the one branch of AMZN that is actually profitable. And the make or break for AWS is the assurance that when you're runnign stuff on one Amazon pizza box, your data are safe even from other users on that same box. You HAVE to get your assurance from Amazon if you're a corporate customer, for due diligence reasons. If that assurance is established to be a lie, every single corporate customer they have would be obliged to migrate to MSFT/RHAT/GOOG or elsewhere. AWS would be dead. I would say it's a calculated leak that happens to be materially false, meant to pressure CHina and kicj Bezos in the shin.

ABCLAW 8y ago

I think the NSL angle to the denials is bullshit - the denials themselves give you all you need. Read the denials carefully. They don't say the attacks haven't happened. They say they haven't found a variety of things. The apple denial in particular is interesting as it indicates that they have been corresponding with Bloomberg about this issue for a YEAR. Yet despite the magnitude of contact they refer to, they do not describe the nature of the vulnerability being discussed or refer to specific material elements they've refuted. Their statement regarding Bloomberg's most recent version of the facts isn't on material elements of the story. Having been involved in corporate risk responses I can say I've seen more vehement denials penned with perfect factual accuracy in respect of larger allegations, where the allegations turned out to be true. Almost every statement of defense looks exactly like this, with easy-win half-truth rebuttals to facts peppered around liberally to call the competence of your opposites into question. Edit: inserted a missing word.

djrogers 8y ago
I'm not sure where you're reading the Apple denial you're referring to, but this is *incredibly clear, detailed, and leaves no room to wiggle: "Apple has never found malicious chips, “hardware manipulations” or vulnerabilities purposely planted in any server. Apple never had any contact with the FBI or any other agency about such an incident. We are not aware of any investigation by the FBI, nor are our contacts in law enforcement." Also: "If there were ever such an event as Bloomberg News has claimed, we would be forthcoming about it and we would work closely with law enforcement." And: "No one from Apple ever reached out to the FBI about anything like this, and we have never heard from the FBI about an investigation of this kind — much less tried to restrict it." If you read those as not material, then I'm at a loss as to what exactly would convince you.
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  Those aren't clear at all. They're clear to you because you don't see the weasel wording. "Apple has never found [...]" So what about third parties/reports/partners/contractors? Have they found anything and is Apple aware of those findings? Not disclosed here. Are the QC processes in place sufficient to lead us to believe that Apple would/should have found this issue? etc. If not, who cares if they haven't found it. Before you complain about the semantics, Apple specifically uses the phrasing "We are not aware of any" in respect of investigations, yet they don't use that all-encompassing language in reference to attacks. "malicious chips, “hardware manipulations” or vulnerabilities purposely planted in any server" What is a malicious chip - could the inserted piece be classified as non-malicious or simply not a chip? What is a hardware manipulation - are they saying they've literally never found any deviation between spec and what they've received? Why place 'purposely planted' as a qualifying requirement there? "If there were ever such an event as Bloomberg News has claimed, we would be forthcoming about it and we would work closely with law enforcement." They don't indicate what was claimed. They reference a volume of correspondence with a variety of claims instead of the claims. We assume, contextually, that they're referring to the specific chip insertion, but that's not borne out by their statement. "No one from Apple ever reached out to the FBI about anything like this, and we have never heard from the FBI about an investigation of this kind — much less tried to restrict it." This is fully plausible and means nothing. They restrict their denial of contact with the FBI to outgoing, indicate they haven't received notice of an investigation of some kind, which doesn't mean there's no investigation - collaborating with the FBI specifically on this point wouldn't involve the FBI disclosing the full scope of the investigation to them. None of these statements actually deal with the issues claimed. They look like they do, but they don't. Want a real statement? "Upon being notified of the potential issue by Bloomberg this past year, we have analyzed all of the SuperMicro boards referenced to determine if any unauthorized chip insertion occurred and have found none of the alleged inserted chips or any evidence of associated suspicious network activity."

matt4077 8y ago

The press release specifically said that they are not under any sort of order preventing any disclosure. And while it is indeed possible for the government to make you stay quiet, forcing you to lie is considered compelled speech, which is a fundamental aspect of current thinking on the 1st Amendment, and not something that is likely to change. No, not even when a three-letter agency wants it. Also nobody at the either the NSA nor Apple cares about the sort of everyday world news you're mentioning. Maybe lay of the Tom Clancy for a while?