4 ms·

As a former spook with absolutely no knowledge about this incident, the whole thing sounds like: * The Chinese supply chain interdiction / implant installation

As a former spook with absolutely no knowledge about this incident, the whole thing sounds like: * The Chinese supply chain interdiction / implant installation is real * Those companies ARE aware of such events * Those companies DID report it to USGOV * The investigation is classified and Bloomberg didn't know or doesn't care * The government is doing its traditional "Deny, disavow, do not acknowledge" etc. * The companies were probably threatened with legal action / gag order preventing them from acknowledging the event When I started working for DOD, one of the things in training was that you were always to say "I can neither confirm nor deny X". Eventually they realized that this statement itself is revealing, and suggested you just STFU. The whole thing sounds incredibly plausible, and nooooooooobody was supposed to know about it.

macintux 8y ago
The fact that Apple and Amazon are willing to go on the record adamantly denying it is more than just a gag order. That’s a serious breach of both SEC rules and public trust if it turns out they’re lying.
- Niksko 8y ago
  Does freedom of speech guarantee that they can't be coerced into punlic denial? Does a national security letter / other forms of government oversight override this? (It absolutely shouldn't in a democracy, but there are plenty of things that shouldn't happen in democracies that have been happening lately)
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Freedom of speech doesn't supersede securities fraud.
    - Intermernet 8y ago
      NSL probably does.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - jsjohnst 8y ago
    An NSL can compel you to not speak, it can not compel you to say something that is factually a lie in the manner they did. Look up the case law on “compelled speech” to back this up.
- King-Aaron 8y ago
  If the possibility of creating an international armed conflict could be on the table (i.e. infiltration of military infrastructure being seen as a premise for war), at what point would these institutions no longer "care" about what SEC rules are breached? I mean, what would happen if this was seen as an act of war by the President's office? Surely there would be some above-and-beyond damage control measures.
- blihp 8y ago
  Not to mention completely unnecessary.
- cm2187 8y ago
  If there is a conflict between national security and SEC rules, I am not convinced any court would go for the SEC rules.
  - jake_the_third 8y ago
    Then again, I'm not convinced that these companies needed to be as specific as they were when denying bloomberg's story if they must comply with some court order. That's not to mention the lack of evidence of an operation of this scale. Keeping that amount of people quiet for this long is something more newsworthy to me than spy chips.
dsl 8y ago
Having been party to stuff like this before, absolutely this. There are people at Amazon and Apple that know and are participating in an investigation. The vast majority of people (including almost all executives) don't know. Amazon's denial for example came from the CISO of AWS (who is a VP), not Michael Cava the CSO of Amazon itself (who is an officer of the company) and the most likely person to be handling the situation.
- Pyxl101 8y ago
  Amazon's denial also came from Amazon Web Services CEO Andy Jassy, who wrote: > @tim_cook is right. Bloomberg story is wrong about Amazon, too. They offered no proof, story kept changing, and showed no interest in our answers unless we could validate their theories. Reporters got played or took liberties. Bloomberg should retract. https://twitter.com/ajassy/status/1054401346827243520 https://twitter.com/ajassy/status/1054401346827243520 Given that the alleged incident concerned Amazon Web Services, I would hesitate to make the assumption that anyone knows more or would be more involved than AWS's CEO and CISO. Of course, you can accuse them of lying, but it seems unreasonable that they would both somehow not know. I don't know much about Michael Cava but I'd guess from his LinkedIn job description that he's involved in Amazon.com security specifically and not AWS. He is not listed as an officer or director in the investor relations website: https://ir.aboutamazon.com/board-of-directors https://ir.aboutamazon.com/board-of-directors while Jassy is. Cava's job as he described it on LinkedIn sounds like it involves retail operations security, and not AWS data center security: > Serve as the Chief Security Officer for Worldwide Operations and Customer Service. Lead a team of security, loss prevention, inventory control and business continuity professionals providing physical security design standards, access control management, loss prevention and shrink reduction programs, inventory quality assurance, crisis management and investigative services in support of Amazon's global fulfillment, logistics, delivery and retail operations. (emphasis mine)
- yvdriess 8y ago
  I assume that only the execs with (plausible) deniability can do the denial.
angry_octet 8y ago
Much more sensible to attribute it to a stuff up by Bloomberg. Also, if they had this proof, much more likely this admin would use it as bluster against China. I'd be more inclined to believe the whole story is IO (i.e. lies) from the current administration.

macintux 8y ago

The fact that Apple and Amazon are willing to go on the record adamantly denying it is more than just a gag order. That’s a serious breach of both SEC rules and public trust if it turns out they’re lying.

Niksko 8y ago
Does freedom of speech guarantee that they can't be coerced into punlic denial? Does a national security letter / other forms of government oversight override this? (It absolutely shouldn't in a democracy, but there are plenty of things that shouldn't happen in democracies that have been happening lately)
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Freedom of speech doesn't supersede securities fraud.
  - Intermernet 8y ago
    NSL probably does.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- jsjohnst 8y ago
  An NSL can compel you to not speak, it can not compel you to say something that is factually a lie in the manner they did. Look up the case law on “compelled speech” to back this up.
King-Aaron 8y ago
If the possibility of creating an international armed conflict could be on the table (i.e. infiltration of military infrastructure being seen as a premise for war), at what point would these institutions no longer "care" about what SEC rules are breached? I mean, what would happen if this was seen as an act of war by the President's office? Surely there would be some above-and-beyond damage control measures.
blihp 8y ago
Not to mention completely unnecessary.
cm2187 8y ago
If there is a conflict between national security and SEC rules, I am not convinced any court would go for the SEC rules.
- jake_the_third 8y ago
  Then again, I'm not convinced that these companies needed to be as specific as they were when denying bloomberg's story if they must comply with some court order. That's not to mention the lack of evidence of an operation of this scale. Keeping that amount of people quiet for this long is something more newsworthy to me than spy chips.

dsl 8y ago

Having been party to stuff like this before, absolutely this. There are people at Amazon and Apple that know and are participating in an investigation. The vast majority of people (including almost all executives) don't know. Amazon's denial for example came from the CISO of AWS (who is a VP), not Michael Cava the CSO of Amazon itself (who is an officer of the company) and the most likely person to be handling the situation.

Pyxl101 8y ago
Amazon's denial also came from Amazon Web Services CEO Andy Jassy, who wrote: > @tim_cook is right. Bloomberg story is wrong about Amazon, too. They offered no proof, story kept changing, and showed no interest in our answers unless we could validate their theories. Reporters got played or took liberties. Bloomberg should retract. https://twitter.com/ajassy/status/1054401346827243520 https://twitter.com/ajassy/status/1054401346827243520 Given that the alleged incident concerned Amazon Web Services, I would hesitate to make the assumption that anyone knows more or would be more involved than AWS's CEO and CISO. Of course, you can accuse them of lying, but it seems unreasonable that they would both somehow not know. I don't know much about Michael Cava but I'd guess from his LinkedIn job description that he's involved in Amazon.com security specifically and not AWS. He is not listed as an officer or director in the investor relations website: https://ir.aboutamazon.com/board-of-directors https://ir.aboutamazon.com/board-of-directors while Jassy is. Cava's job as he described it on LinkedIn sounds like it involves retail operations security, and not AWS data center security: > Serve as the Chief Security Officer for Worldwide Operations and Customer Service. Lead a team of security, loss prevention, inventory control and business continuity professionals providing physical security design standards, access control management, loss prevention and shrink reduction programs, inventory quality assurance, crisis management and investigative services in support of Amazon's global fulfillment, logistics, delivery and retail operations. (emphasis mine)
yvdriess 8y ago
I assume that only the execs with (plausible) deniability can do the denial.

angry_octet 8y ago

Much more sensible to attribute it to a stuff up by Bloomberg. Also, if they had this proof, much more likely this admin would use it as bluster against China. I'd be more inclined to believe the whole story is IO (i.e. lies) from the current administration.