6 ms·

The US cannot force those companies to lie. They can force them to stay silent, in which case they'd just say "No comments". If those companies are lying, they

The US cannot force those companies to lie. They can force them to stay silent, in which case they'd just say "No comments". If those companies are lying, they are committing security fraud.

394549 8y ago
> The US cannot force those companies to lie. They can force them to stay silent, in which case they'd just say "No comments". If those companies are lying, they are committing security fraud. Would the US government have to force these companies to lie? It's quite possible that the denials were the result of voluntary cooperation.
- macintux 8y ago
  A public company issuing such strongly-worded denials that turn out to be untrue would be leaving themselves at risk of an investigation by the SEC and/or a shareholder lawsuit.
  - ggggtez 8y ago
    It would be pretty extraordinary for the government to sue a company for cooperating with the government. A company has to follow court orders. The government would have to sue itself.
    - macintux 8y ago
      The SEC prides itself on its independence; I don't think it would have any problem taking on a company that lied on behalf of some other agency of the federal government. Now, a court order would indeed be something different, but I find it hard to conceive of a judge compelling a company to lie.
    - PeterisP 8y ago
      If they didn't have to lie and there was no legal order but voluntary cooperation, as the grandparent post suggests, then such voluntary misinformation can easily be a violation of SEC requirements; and one part of the government certainly can prosecute you for doing something that another part of the government suggested (but didn't/couldn't legally require), it wouldn't be the first time.
swarnie_ 8y ago
> The US cannot force those companies to lie That's a nice government tender you're working on, looks very profitable! Would be a shame if someone rejected it because reasons. While it isn't the direct influence described i imagine this scenario is highly effective and getting companies to stay in line.
solarkraft 8y ago
Is it really so clear-cut what the US can do? Maybe this so significant (it may well be if the allegations are correct) that they're running a campaign to really try to make people believe that this story is false. The companies may have a strong incentive to cooperate in this campaign too, both to save face and government relations. Unfortunately all of Bloomberg's allegations don't hold much water either, even though it'd be so easy for them to make the story credible with some details.
monocasa 8y ago
What case law exists for not being able to force a company to lie? Particularly non-press.
busterarm 8y ago
But if the story was entirely false, they'd have sued Bloomberg for libel already.
- macintux 8y ago
  Well, the story just came out a few days ago. I wouldn't rule it out in the future, nor would I leap to the conclusion that an absence of such a move means there's truth to the story.
- module0000 8y ago
  There could be other arrangements made with Bloomberg that would be jeopardized by that course of action. EG... you find a serious piece of news that can destroy me, so I pay you or make another arrangement to prevent that. If I later turn around and sue you, our backroom deal could blow up in my face. Too much is unknown right now.
- Karunamon 8y ago
  That might still be in the works, legal process moves slowly. If we don't hear anything in another week or so, this could be worth considering.
pixl97 8y ago
>The US cannot force those companies to lie. When it comes to companies like ATT/Verizon it seems like no forcing is necessary. They are complicit.
late2part 8y ago
You are right and you are wrong. Legally, you are right. Practically, there is evidence that various elements in the US Government have at times coerced people into making untrue statements.
cm2187 8y ago
But they probably can force a handful of engineers to tell nothing to their employer, who would be vehemently denying in good faith.
- mediocrejoker 8y ago
  How would the government get in contact with the engineers who discovered the hack without going through their managers, the CISO, etc. ?
  - cwkoss 8y ago
    An LRAD "Voice of God" would certainly get their attention. https://www.wired.com/2007/12/the-voice-of-go/ https://www.wired.com/2007/12/the-voice-of-go/
- pishpash 8y ago
  Not only would they have to force the engineers to tell nothing, they'd have to force all capable engineers to vehemently deny it to their bosses who ask or ask them to look again.
PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>The US cannot force those companies to lie. But they can. Maybe only in cases where silence is a canary, but that still sets a precedence for them being able to force you to lie.
ggggtez 8y ago
You have it backwards. The government can't force them to put out "no comment" press releases. They can force them not to reveal certain information. Maybe that means the only logical thing to do is to say "no comment", but it certainly doesn't prevent a company from commenting as long as they don't reveal the gagged info.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
It's interesting that everyone is assuming the only country interested in pressuring them to lie would be the US rather than China.

The US cannot force those companies to lie. They can force them to stay silent, in which case they'd just say "No comments". If those companies are lying, they are committing security fraud.

394549 8y ago

> The US cannot force those companies to lie. They can force them to stay silent, in which case they'd just say "No comments". If those companies are lying, they are committing security fraud. Would the US government have to force these companies to lie? It's quite possible that the denials were the result of voluntary cooperation.

macintux 8y ago
A public company issuing such strongly-worded denials that turn out to be untrue would be leaving themselves at risk of an investigation by the SEC and/or a shareholder lawsuit.
- ggggtez 8y ago
  It would be pretty extraordinary for the government to sue a company for cooperating with the government. A company has to follow court orders. The government would have to sue itself.
  - macintux 8y ago
    The SEC prides itself on its independence; I don't think it would have any problem taking on a company that lied on behalf of some other agency of the federal government. Now, a court order would indeed be something different, but I find it hard to conceive of a judge compelling a company to lie.
  - PeterisP 8y ago
    If they didn't have to lie and there was no legal order but voluntary cooperation, as the grandparent post suggests, then such voluntary misinformation can easily be a violation of SEC requirements; and one part of the government certainly can prosecute you for doing something that another part of the government suggested (but didn't/couldn't legally require), it wouldn't be the first time.

swarnie_ 8y ago

> The US cannot force those companies to lie That's a nice government tender you're working on, looks very profitable! Would be a shame if someone rejected it because reasons. While it isn't the direct influence described i imagine this scenario is highly effective and getting companies to stay in line.

solarkraft 8y ago

Is it really so clear-cut what the US can do? Maybe this so significant (it may well be if the allegations are correct) that they're running a campaign to really try to make people believe that this story is false. The companies may have a strong incentive to cooperate in this campaign too, both to save face and government relations. Unfortunately all of Bloomberg's allegations don't hold much water either, even though it'd be so easy for them to make the story credible with some details.

monocasa 8y ago

What case law exists for not being able to force a company to lie? Particularly non-press.

busterarm 8y ago

But if the story was entirely false, they'd have sued Bloomberg for libel already.

macintux 8y ago
Well, the story just came out a few days ago. I wouldn't rule it out in the future, nor would I leap to the conclusion that an absence of such a move means there's truth to the story.
module0000 8y ago
There could be other arrangements made with Bloomberg that would be jeopardized by that course of action. EG... you find a serious piece of news that can destroy me, so I pay you or make another arrangement to prevent that. If I later turn around and sue you, our backroom deal could blow up in my face. Too much is unknown right now.
Karunamon 8y ago
That might still be in the works, legal process moves slowly. If we don't hear anything in another week or so, this could be worth considering.

pixl97 8y ago

>The US cannot force those companies to lie. When it comes to companies like ATT/Verizon it seems like no forcing is necessary. They are complicit.

late2part 8y ago

You are right and you are wrong. Legally, you are right. Practically, there is evidence that various elements in the US Government have at times coerced people into making untrue statements.

cm2187 8y ago

But they probably can force a handful of engineers to tell nothing to their employer, who would be vehemently denying in good faith.

mediocrejoker 8y ago
How would the government get in contact with the engineers who discovered the hack without going through their managers, the CISO, etc. ?
- cwkoss 8y ago
  An LRAD "Voice of God" would certainly get their attention. https://www.wired.com/2007/12/the-voice-of-go/ https://www.wired.com/2007/12/the-voice-of-go/
pishpash 8y ago
Not only would they have to force the engineers to tell nothing, they'd have to force all capable engineers to vehemently deny it to their bosses who ask or ask them to look again.

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago

>The US cannot force those companies to lie. But they can. Maybe only in cases where silence is a canary, but that still sets a precedence for them being able to force you to lie.

ggggtez 8y ago

You have it backwards. The government can't force them to put out "no comment" press releases. They can force them not to reveal certain information. Maybe that means the only logical thing to do is to say "no comment", but it certainly doesn't prevent a company from commenting as long as they don't reveal the gagged info.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

It's interesting that everyone is assuming the only country interested in pressuring them to lie would be the US rather than China.