7 ms·
Tim Cook would have to know. If there is something like a NSL involved, Apple's legal team would have already reviewed it. That same legal team would also be ad
by moftz 8y ago
Tim Cook would have to know. If there is something like a NSL involved, Apple's legal team would have already reviewed it. That same legal team would also be advising Cook on what he publicly says since he is an officer in the company. He could lose his job or be fined for saying false information in the press (think about what happened to Musk) so its in his and his legal team's best interest to only say true things in the press or at least spin things so they aren't blatantly false. An NSL compels you to say nothing. You can neither confirm nor deny anything and its probably against the law for him to outright lie about the situation in the eyes of the SEC so he has to either be spinning things, omitting things, or outright telling the truth. The Bloomberg piece is fantastic but that kind of attack vector does exist however narrow it may be. I don't know why Bloomberg seems to want to double down on this. They are either incredibly stupid and are involved in some murder-suicide plot against Supermicro or they are telling the truth but maybe a little misguided.
- freyr 8y ago> An NSL compels you to say nothing. You can neither confirm nor deny anything Ordinarily, yes. But what if this was double secret NSL?
- athrowaway3z 8y ago>> its probably against the law for him to outright lie about the situation in the eyes of the SEC Didn't some leaked documents show that a 'shadow' judicial status has been created ( under post 9/11 histeria ) where, in the interest of national security, firms are allowed and even required to lie about things?
- losvedir 8y agoNo.
- ColanR 8y agoDo you remember what those documents were, or how they might be found online? (being curious, not confrontational)
- kylel 8y agoSee the wiki page for the FISA court [0] I haven’t read anything that says people/companies must lie, but I have read that they cannot divulge information due to gag orders. (See the court case Microsoft vs US Government [1] ) [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intell... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._United_States_(2016_lawsuit) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._United_States_(20...
- ColanR 8y agoThanks for the sources. I've definitely seen/know of the gag order business. It was the suggested extension to that I'm curious about ("firms are allowed and even required to lie about things").
- lawnchair_larry 8y agoNope.
- stephenr 8y ago> If there is something like a NSL involved, Apple's legal team would have already reviewed it. Apple's official statement clearly said, they're not under any form of NSL or gag order. The prevailing logic seems to be that US courts still believe the government can't force you to say something against your will, only prevent you from saying something.
- kakarot 8y agoI'm not saying I don't believe they could be telling the truth, but why should we should take their word for it?
- CamperBob2 8y agoAre you asking Apple, or Bloomberg?
- kakarot 8y agoI meant Apple, but the broader implication is that we can't trust either party with the information we have now.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 8y agoI mean Apple's account seems a lot more believable to me. I know we all want Jason Bourne to be real, but he isn't.
- panda888888 8y agoWhy trust Apple over Bloomberg? What if the hack were so bad (e.g. a keylogger + who knows what else) that none of the tech giants would ever admit it?
- stephenr 8y agoThen Apple would simply say nothing. Saying nothing is Apple's thing. No one would question them saying nothing.
- abalone 8y agoJust for clarity, there are some cases where the CEO is in fact left out of the loop specifically so they aren't in jeopardy of lying to shareholders. But typically it is the chief counsel who is informed in these scenarios. It is significant the Apple statements have been clear to rule out that possibility.
- chrisdhoover 8y agoApple has a new chief counsel. Hmm the plot thickens
- abalone 8y agoOld one was in place at the time of these alleged events and has publicly denied it as well.[1] [1] https://www.macrumors.com/2018/10/05/sewell-says-fbi-never-heard-of-supermicro-hack/ https://www.macrumors.com/2018/10/05/sewell-says-fbi-never-h...
- saagarjha 8y agoIs he under the same burden to tell the truth, legally speaking, as the current chief counsel?
- WrtCdEvrydy 8y agoProbably ethical violation to lie (lawyers)
- neom 8y agoFeudatory obligation is feudatory obligation, senior execs almost always have feudatory obligations.
- Godel_unicode 8y agoDo you perhaps mean fiduciary?
- Latteland 8y agoI think it's possible to set things up so that leaders of the companies are shielded from the knowledge on purpose. GM notoriously set up their lawsuit handling legal unit to shield knowledge of problems, among other things with the ignition switch [0]. This was a very specifically organized system where they tried to keep the knowledge of agreements on lawsuits from being visible up the chain - it was no accident. So big companies can and will do this when it suits them. I think this was clearly unethical, but I suspect it's common. 0: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/attorneys_fired_by_gm_after_law_firm_ignition-switch_probe_are_reporte1/ http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/attorneys_fired_by_gm...
- tomtang0514 8y agoAlso Supermicro is not even a chinese company. It's based in San Jose and founded by taiwanese american...
- moftz 8y agoAll of their manufacturing is in China along with everyone else.
- Godel_unicode 8y ago> An NSL compels you to say nothing. Is that true in this case? My understanding is that NSLs are a subpoena with an accompanying gag order _about the subpoena_. I haven't heard of a case where an NSL was used to restrict speech in the manner you're suggesting. In other words, I believe an NSL could be used to hide government interest in such a breach, but not to hide the fact of the breach. This is one of the main differences between the US and UK approach to classified information; there's no official secrets act in the US.
- rrcaptain 8y agoIt's also possible Bloomberg's sources are lying to them. It's not unwarranted for intelligence agencies to leak things to the press deliberately to create a story.
- moftz 8y agoIt seems irresponsible to leak information that could be so damaging to multiple American companies just to prop up a single tech journalist.
- rrcaptain 8y agoI doubt they're trying to prop up a single tech journalist. If I had to speculate on intelligence agency motivations I'd speculate that they're trying to attack SuperMicro.