6 ms·
> 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
by 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.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 8y agoIt's not about trust (at least for me). It's about the credibility of the account. "Journalists got something wrong" is a lot easier for me to believe than "there is a massive conspiracy to cover something up and there just so happens to be no evidence of it besides our say so."
- panda888888 8y agoHmm. The involvement of Elemental is enough evidence for me. A then 200-person startup with maybe 10 hardware engineers and lots of government clients would be a great target. It makes me thing the hack was real. Why else would Bloomberg have even bothered to report about Elemental?
- stephenr 8y agoIt's not necessarily all or nothing. It could be that the actual story is something at some small company, which ballooned into a shit storm of assumptions and embellishment.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 8y agoSo, are you saying that if a big journalism outlet wants to convince you that a world-shaking hack has occurred, all they have to do is name a plausible target? Interesting. My standards of evidence are higher.
- kakarot 8y agoI'm not saying I believe either party in this mess, but to be fair Occam's Razor is used very often to disregard legitimately viable conspiracy theories.
- DuskStar 8y agoAnd how would the CEO know what sort of NSL some datacenter employees are under?
- stephenr 8y agoThe original claim is that Apple conducted it's own investigation and refused to cooperate with the FBI on the matter. They (apple) have refuted this claim and said they're also not under any form of NSL or gag order. Your suggestion is that both accounts are false, and that a secret government run investigation was run without Apple management's knowledge, but involving Apple datacenter staff, who are in fact under some form of NSL/gag order? Perhaps you should go work for Bloomberg, they'll run your theory as gospel next week.
- neom 8y agoThat's not how it works. The company at large works with the government to figure out and certify who can receive NSL/FISA, and those folks have an internal process to make sure they're compliant with the law as they execute it.
- garmaine 8y ago> Apple's official statement clearly said, they're not under any form of NSL or gag order. Except that a NSL can (legally) command the recipient to lie about it.
- roblabla 8y agoAn NSL cannot force you to lie. You can say "no comment", and that's how it's always been handled. Why would they vehemently deny an NSL (with all the risks involved) when "no comment" would suffice ?
- lovich 8y agoIs that still true though? The NSL already compel speech in that they limit what you can say. We already have secret courts making decisions that we find out about years later. At this point the major wall has been breached in terms of rights, altering speech for national security, and we can no longer trust anything. If the secret courts decided they were going to compel active speech instead of compelling negative speech, what mechanism would let us know of the change? I don't think there is any
- lawnchair_larry 8y agoThat is not what compel speech means.
- garmaine 8y agoMost people in this thread have zero experience with national security issues, and the ACLU/EFF opinions are more what those organizations feel should be the constitutional interpretation, not what actual circumstance is. You certainly can be compelled to say certain things to keep classified information secret, at risk of federal prison or worse, and this is the same law that is being abused for NSLs.
- mattzito 8y agoI’ve seen you make this claim several times in this thread, but haven’t provided any evidence. Can you provide a source that says that the federal government can compel false statements as part of national security demands?