3 ms·
It's worth noting that Apple and Amazon can't lie about their business without opening themselves up to potential criminal liability under securities laws. [1]
by rmrfstar 6y ago
It's worth noting that Apple and Amazon can't lie about their business without opening themselves up to potential criminal liability under securities laws. [1]
That means Apple and Amazon are more credible in this case, unless there is some super secret NatSec exception to securities law that we don't know about.
[1] Specifically, SEC Rule 14a-9 in conjunction with Section 32(a) of the Exchange Act.
- snypher 6y agoIf it was true, would they disclose, even if they could? It's not a secret exemption, it's all in the law, Section 505 of the PATRIOT Act.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- roenxi 6y ago> unless there is some super secret NatSec exception to securities law that we don't know about. Did you not hear about the phonetapping business [0]? There is no way that a government-sponsored secret hardware backdoor would get any executives in trouble. SEC rules are not a reasonable protection - or even consideration - when dealing with the US spying apparatus. If there was a hardware backdoor program: (1) There would be a secret exemption to SEC rules. (2) There would probably be a secret "we will end you" threat if the execs revealed details. Snowden & Assange would be mentioned. (3) Even ignoring those two points, the rules would be ignored and changed later if there were any legal difficulties. [0] https://www.cnet.com/news/senate-endorses-retroactive-fisa-immunity-for-warrantless-wiretapping/ https://www.cnet.com/news/senate-endorses-retroactive-fisa-i...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]