3 ms·

We don't have facts here, just competing claims. From what I've read such attack would be possible, and I think that if it happened no-one would acknowledge it

We don't have facts here, just competing claims. From what I've read such attack would be possible, and I think that if it happened no-one would acknowledge it. This allegedly happened 3 years ago so no-one is going to find physical evidence anyway. They key is that it would be possible so the important thing here is for everyone to take appropriate defensive measures.

okket 8y ago
> We don't have facts here, just competing claims. This is not a case of competing claims. Believing that publicly traded companies would vehemently lie instead of keeping silence or use weasel words is essentially preferring conspiracy theories. Presenting such a case without hard, verifiable evidence is ludicrous and only works because many people are susceptible for a bad company/bad government conspiracy narrative.
- ElBarto 8y ago
  Believing that publicly traded companies would not lie is rather naive. This allegedly happened 3 years ago so there aren't going to be any physical evidence anyway and everyone knows it.
  - okket 8y ago
    > Believing that publicly traded companies would not lie is rather naive. You know that shareholders can sue the company if they lie publicly? That is the reason why they usually keep silent or use weasel words.
    - ElBarto 8y ago
      As mentioned, how are you going to prove who's lying? Why would anyone sue Apple over this? If anything a lie would help the company as acknowledging a hack would hit the share price. Nothing will happen, no-one is going to prove or disprove anything, and this will quietly be forgotten.
      - okket 8y ago
        > As mentioned, how are you going to prove who's lying? As I mentioned, the proof lies with the accuser. See "Presenting such a case without hard, verifiable evidence is ludicrous and only works because many people are susceptible for a bad company/bad government conspiracy narrative." If you think this is a he said/she said case, then you are deep into conspiracy territory.
        ElBarto 8y ago
        That's not a reply...

okket 8y ago

> We don't have facts here, just competing claims. This is not a case of competing claims. Believing that publicly traded companies would vehemently lie instead of keeping silence or use weasel words is essentially preferring conspiracy theories. Presenting such a case without hard, verifiable evidence is ludicrous and only works because many people are susceptible for a bad company/bad government conspiracy narrative.

ElBarto 8y ago
Believing that publicly traded companies would not lie is rather naive. This allegedly happened 3 years ago so there aren't going to be any physical evidence anyway and everyone knows it.
- okket 8y ago
  > Believing that publicly traded companies would not lie is rather naive. You know that shareholders can sue the company if they lie publicly? That is the reason why they usually keep silent or use weasel words.
  - ElBarto 8y ago
    As mentioned, how are you going to prove who's lying? Why would anyone sue Apple over this? If anything a lie would help the company as acknowledging a hack would hit the share price. Nothing will happen, no-one is going to prove or disprove anything, and this will quietly be forgotten.
    - okket 8y ago
      > As mentioned, how are you going to prove who's lying? As I mentioned, the proof lies with the accuser. See "Presenting such a case without hard, verifiable evidence is ludicrous and only works because many people are susceptible for a bad company/bad government conspiracy narrative." If you think this is a he said/she said case, then you are deep into conspiracy territory.
      - ElBarto 8y ago
        That's not a reply...