6 ms·

Apple specifically states that they are not under any form of gag/confidentiality order/conditions: > Finally, in response to questions we have received from o

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?
  - ABCLAW 8y ago
    You don't need to blatantly lie to author a rebuttal that doesn't actual rebut the claims against you. You accuse me of selling pink and purple unicorns to gangsters. I reply that "I have no knowledge of any contracts or agreements relating to the sale of unicorns, horses or horse-related animals from my firm, regardless of the colour, breed or condition of the animals. I categorically also deny having any business dealings with any entity which has been charged on racketeering or any other gang related offenses. The reality being that I 'rent' pink and purple unicorns to Don Corleone for absurd amounts, then don't revendicate when payments stop. My rebuttal looks sweeping. I put in language to make it look like the scope of my denial is wide ranging and complete. In fact, I intentionally disclaim things you didn't claim to make it look like the moat of propriety surrounding me is vast. But it isn't. I did what was claimed. And I didn't lie in my rebuttal.
    - CamperBob2 8y ago
      The problem with your arguments throughout this thread is simple: if a rebuttal is clearly engineered to be deceptive, the courts will not regard it as a valid defense in any subsequent lawsuits from shareholders and customers. That's why rebuttals and denials are normally so vague. Courts have surprisingly little tolerance for companies who think they're being more clever than their customers, their shareholders, or, for that matter, the judge.
      - ABCLAW 8y ago
        I'd love if that were the reality, but it isn't. A judge will scrutinize a party they believe is acting in bad faith (this is a term of art, but I'm using it in the lay sense here), but you won't show that a party is acting in bad faith because they were linguistically precise during a statement of defense. You'll show they're acting in bad faith if documentary evidence shows they're baddies. The theory behind our court system is one thing. The reality is another.
        CamperBob2 8y ago
        "No one from Apple ever reached out to the FBI about anything like this," Apple writes. "We have never heard from the FBI about an investigation of this kind." With language like this, it's the very definition of bad faith if they're lying. These are specific assurances that directly contradict the Bloomberg reporters in specific ways, and the companies know that people are likely to rely on them to their detriment.
bsder 8y ago
Apple cannot do anything bad to China or their manufacturing stops. Apple would have to move tens of thousands of highly specific CNC machines from China to somewhere else, set them up, and get their line moving again. This is why I find the idea that Apple phones are "secure" to laughable on its face. China could kill years of Apple revenue if they ever did something truly offensive to the ruling party. Apple would roll over post haste if China demanded it.
- Yoyoyou 8y ago
  China could cause huge harm to Apple, but the reverse is also true - how would the US government, other corporations, consumers and investors react to such a news? The ultimate source of most Chinese factory equipment is Europe and US anyway, under extreme political/consumer pressure electronics factories can be setup in a matter of months in US.
  - teknologist 8y ago
    Not just the factories. Access to the market.
  - bsder 8y ago
    > China could cause huge harm to Apple, but the reverse is also true - how would the US government, other corporations, consumers and investors react to such a news? They would react as usual: lots of whingeing, no action, and roll over for a belly scratch afterward. > under extreme political/consumer pressure electronics factories can be setup in a matter of months in US. It takes 9 months to make a baby no matter how many women you get pregnant ... Many of these equipment manufacturers have entire facilities dedicated to producing equipment solely for Apple. They simply cannot replace that amount of equipment in any timely fashion. Edit (external reference): http://www.iphonehacks.com/2016/10/next-iphone-probably-wont.. http://www.iphonehacks.com/2016/10/next-iphone-probably-wont.... > Koenig writes. “Apple is such a huge buyer of a particular kind of mill (BT30 spindle drill-tap centers) that Fanuc, Brother and DMG Mori each have factories dedicated to building machines exclusively for Apple.”
- teknologist 8y ago
ryanmarsh 8y ago
Could they say if they were?
- stephenr 8y ago
  If they were, and couldn't say so, it's unlikely they would specifically say they aren't, they would say nothing about it.
- eridius 8y ago
  No. But gag orders do not require the recipient to lie about it. Someone who is under a gag order simply doesn't comment one way or the other about it. FWIW this is the principle behind warrant canaries. A warrant canary is the practice of putting a statement such as "we have not received any NSLs" in a regular report, and then omitting it once you have received an NSL. Because you've conditioned people to expect its presence, its absence then serves as a signal that you likely have received one (though not proof, as there are other reasons you may have removed it, such as being advised by your lawyer that it's a bad idea as the courts may not look favorably on the idea that, no, you weren't actually violating your gag order, you were technically saying nothing, given that you set up the conditions yourself such that saying nothing is in fact saying something).
  - kpil 8y ago
    I'm pretty sure that this strategy won't hold up in court. If you have a sign that indicates that a secret event have not happened, the intent of removing the sign is to indicate that the secret event did happen. The intent is particularly obvious to the originator of the secret event, so you won't be able to argue in the court that it was entirely coincidental.
    - iambateman 8y ago
      I agree. Could you have a canary community that calls companies once/quarter and specifically asks the NSL question? Seems safer for the companies themselves.

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?
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  You don't need to blatantly lie to author a rebuttal that doesn't actual rebut the claims against you. You accuse me of selling pink and purple unicorns to gangsters. I reply that "I have no knowledge of any contracts or agreements relating to the sale of unicorns, horses or horse-related animals from my firm, regardless of the colour, breed or condition of the animals. I categorically also deny having any business dealings with any entity which has been charged on racketeering or any other gang related offenses. The reality being that I 'rent' pink and purple unicorns to Don Corleone for absurd amounts, then don't revendicate when payments stop. My rebuttal looks sweeping. I put in language to make it look like the scope of my denial is wide ranging and complete. In fact, I intentionally disclaim things you didn't claim to make it look like the moat of propriety surrounding me is vast. But it isn't. I did what was claimed. And I didn't lie in my rebuttal.
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    The problem with your arguments throughout this thread is simple: if a rebuttal is clearly engineered to be deceptive, the courts will not regard it as a valid defense in any subsequent lawsuits from shareholders and customers. That's why rebuttals and denials are normally so vague. Courts have surprisingly little tolerance for companies who think they're being more clever than their customers, their shareholders, or, for that matter, the judge.
    - ABCLAW 8y ago
      I'd love if that were the reality, but it isn't. A judge will scrutinize a party they believe is acting in bad faith (this is a term of art, but I'm using it in the lay sense here), but you won't show that a party is acting in bad faith because they were linguistically precise during a statement of defense. You'll show they're acting in bad faith if documentary evidence shows they're baddies. The theory behind our court system is one thing. The reality is another.
      - CamperBob2 8y ago
        "No one from Apple ever reached out to the FBI about anything like this," Apple writes. "We have never heard from the FBI about an investigation of this kind." With language like this, it's the very definition of bad faith if they're lying. These are specific assurances that directly contradict the Bloomberg reporters in specific ways, and the companies know that people are likely to rely on them to their detriment.

bsder 8y ago

Apple cannot do anything bad to China or their manufacturing stops. Apple would have to move tens of thousands of highly specific CNC machines from China to somewhere else, set them up, and get their line moving again. This is why I find the idea that Apple phones are "secure" to laughable on its face. China could kill years of Apple revenue if they ever did something truly offensive to the ruling party. Apple would roll over post haste if China demanded it.

Yoyoyou 8y ago
China could cause huge harm to Apple, but the reverse is also true - how would the US government, other corporations, consumers and investors react to such a news? The ultimate source of most Chinese factory equipment is Europe and US anyway, under extreme political/consumer pressure electronics factories can be setup in a matter of months in US.
- teknologist 8y ago
  Not just the factories. Access to the market.
- bsder 8y ago
  > China could cause huge harm to Apple, but the reverse is also true - how would the US government, other corporations, consumers and investors react to such a news? They would react as usual: lots of whingeing, no action, and roll over for a belly scratch afterward. > under extreme political/consumer pressure electronics factories can be setup in a matter of months in US. It takes 9 months to make a baby no matter how many women you get pregnant ... Many of these equipment manufacturers have entire facilities dedicated to producing equipment solely for Apple. They simply cannot replace that amount of equipment in any timely fashion. Edit (external reference): http://www.iphonehacks.com/2016/10/next-iphone-probably-wont.. http://www.iphonehacks.com/2016/10/next-iphone-probably-wont.... > Koenig writes. “Apple is such a huge buyer of a particular kind of mill (BT30 spindle drill-tap centers) that Fanuc, Brother and DMG Mori each have factories dedicated to building machines exclusively for Apple.”
teknologist 8y ago

ryanmarsh 8y ago

Could they say if they were?

stephenr 8y ago
If they were, and couldn't say so, it's unlikely they would specifically say they aren't, they would say nothing about it.
eridius 8y ago
No. But gag orders do not require the recipient to lie about it. Someone who is under a gag order simply doesn't comment one way or the other about it. FWIW this is the principle behind warrant canaries. A warrant canary is the practice of putting a statement such as "we have not received any NSLs" in a regular report, and then omitting it once you have received an NSL. Because you've conditioned people to expect its presence, its absence then serves as a signal that you likely have received one (though not proof, as there are other reasons you may have removed it, such as being advised by your lawyer that it's a bad idea as the courts may not look favorably on the idea that, no, you weren't actually violating your gag order, you were technically saying nothing, given that you set up the conditions yourself such that saying nothing is in fact saying something).
- kpil 8y ago
  I'm pretty sure that this strategy won't hold up in court. If you have a sign that indicates that a secret event have not happened, the intent of removing the sign is to indicate that the secret event did happen. The intent is particularly obvious to the originator of the secret event, so you won't be able to argue in the court that it was entirely coincidental.
  - iambateman 8y ago
    I agree. Could you have a canary community that calls companies once/quarter and specifically asks the NSL question? Seems safer for the companies themselves.