3 ms·
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 res
by 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 agoBloomberg 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 agoAmazon 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.