Apple denies claim China slipped spy chips into its iCloud server hardware [u]

12346»

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 118
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,276member
    Rayz2016 said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    The Bloomberg story seems politically motivated...

    There isn’t enough information do determine fault in the separate firmware incident.  It also doesn’t say if Apple resumed using SuperMicro as a supplier...

    Bottom line is Apple found a problem and addressed it before it could cause damage.  We don’t know the results of their investigation into whom was responsible.  Was the firmware modified by a third party?  Was it a beta firmware? Was the hardware intercepted and modified after leaving the manufacturer, but before getting to Apple and an exploit introduced?

    No enough information... but Bloomberg needs to get their facts straight before publishing rumors.
    Bloomberg says they DO have their facts straight.
    "The companies’ denials are countered by six current and former senior national security officials, who—in conversations that began during the Obama administration and continued under the Trump administration—detailed the discovery of the chips and the government’s investigation. One of those officials and two people inside AWS provided extensive information on how the attack played out at Elemental and Amazon; the official and one of the insiders also described Amazon’s cooperation with the government investigation. In addition to the three Apple insiders, four of the six U.S. officials confirmed that Apple was a victim. In all, 17 people confirmed the manipulation of Supermicro’s hardware and other elements of the attacks. The sources were granted anonymity because of the sensitive, and in some cases classified, nature of the information."

    He said, she said...
    He said, she said...  but where is there even one of these servers that can be shown with the rumored chip, and more germaine, let’s see one that was ever in Apple’s server farms.  
    No one claimed there was one installed at an Apple server farm AFAIK. If anything it was in an Apple lab, and even that is still a very open question. The claims regarding Amazon are more involved, yet Amazon too categorically denies there's any truth whatsoever to anything Bloomberg reported, it wa all made up.  All very very weird. 
    I set a bit of a trap for you and you fell into it.  I knew you’d answer the second part of my question without making any comment in the bigger question; if Bloomberg has 17 sources (which seems a big deal to you) and if there were thousands of these affected severs, then why aren’t you also curious about not a single server having surfaced for inspection by the story’s reporters?  

    Whole lot of smoke, no smoking gun. 
    A trap? For what reason? You really wanted me back? Odd...
    Because people are getting tired of the usual Apple FUD pellet droppers, and their predictable narratives. Like yours.

    That's the thing about GoogleGuy: his reason for living seems to be to undermine Apple and sell Google at every opportunity, while trying to present a rather unconvincing persona as a concerned, but ultimately impartial observer.

    Still, in cases like these, where we have denials from both Amazon and Apple, and no tangible evidence from Bloomberg, you have to wonder why he is so desperate to keep this rumour alive, especially since he said he was going to drop out of the thread on Page 2. Does he really believe it has legs, or is he merely attempting to divert attention from somewhere else?

    I ask because Google's Dragonfly project has been causing quiet ructions around the internet for quite some time, leading to some rather noisy recent departures from the company.

    And now, in the last day or so, the rumbles are becoming a little bit loud because Mike Pence has now decided it's something he should be talking about.

    https://www.cnet.com/news/google-should-end-development-of-dragonfly-search-engine-for-china-says-pence/
    https://www.techtimes.com/articles/234346/20180916/google-employees-resign-in-protest-of-project-dragonfly-a-censored-search-engine-for-china.htm
    https://theintercept.com/2018/09/14/google-china-prototype-links-searches-to-phone-numbers/


    One of Google Guy's favourite sticks he likes to beat Apple with is the handover of its iCloud operations to a Chinese company (we shall ignore small details such as it being a requirement by Chinese law, and that Apple has claimed it still retains control of the keys), because Google, being such a champion of truth and justice, has steered clear of China (let's ignore small details such as China's homegrown search engine was handing them their heads and that the Chinese government thinks the only body that should be allowed to harvest data is the Chinese government).

    But now it appears that Google is heading back into China with a specialised search engine that will allow the Chinese Authority to track its users. Is this true?

    The employees resigning in numbers seem to think so.
    Various IT journals seem to think so too.
    And Google hasn't denied it.

    I wonder if GoogleGuy would be happy to accept this as a given, without any names or credible evidence backing it up or a straight out denial from the Mothership? I mean, he seems happy to accept Bloomberg's word under even less compelling evidence.
    As you said Google isn't denying it so not sure what your question is. It's hardly a given since the choice is not solely with them anyway. Whether they do or don't isn't finalized obviously so we can argue about that later if it happens. Actually probably not so much argue as agree since I don't think chasing  "mo' money" in return for your company soul is worth it, and you have "other reasons" for nailing google with it IF it happens.

    IMHO all the big techs have more than they can possibly use already, Google included, and the rich haven't historically been good to the rest of us. 
    muthuk_vanalingamronn
  • Reply 102 of 118
    Rayz2016 said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    The Bloomberg story seems politically motivated...

    There isn’t enough information do determine fault in the separate firmware incident.  It also doesn’t say if Apple resumed using SuperMicro as a supplier...

    Bottom line is Apple found a problem and addressed it before it could cause damage.  We don’t know the results of their investigation into whom was responsible.  Was the firmware modified by a third party?  Was it a beta firmware? Was the hardware intercepted and modified after leaving the manufacturer, but before getting to Apple and an exploit introduced?

    No enough information... but Bloomberg needs to get their facts straight before publishing rumors.
    Bloomberg says they DO have their facts straight.
    "The companies’ denials are countered by six current and former senior national security officials, who—in conversations that began during the Obama administration and continued under the Trump administration—detailed the discovery of the chips and the government’s investigation. One of those officials and two people inside AWS provided extensive information on how the attack played out at Elemental and Amazon; the official and one of the insiders also described Amazon’s cooperation with the government investigation. In addition to the three Apple insiders, four of the six U.S. officials confirmed that Apple was a victim. In all, 17 people confirmed the manipulation of Supermicro’s hardware and other elements of the attacks. The sources were granted anonymity because of the sensitive, and in some cases classified, nature of the information."

    He said, she said...
    He said, she said...  but where is there even one of these servers that can be shown with the rumored chip, and more germaine, let’s see one that was ever in Apple’s server farms.  
    No one claimed there was one installed at an Apple server farm AFAIK. If anything it was in an Apple lab, and even that is still a very open question. The claims regarding Amazon are more involved, yet Amazon too categorically denies there's any truth whatsoever to anything Bloomberg reported, it wa all made up.  All very very weird. 
    I set a bit of a trap for you and you fell into it.  I knew you’d answer the second part of my question without making any comment in the bigger question; if Bloomberg has 17 sources (which seems a big deal to you) and if there were thousands of these affected severs, then why aren’t you also curious about not a single server having surfaced for inspection by the story’s reporters?  

    Whole lot of smoke, no smoking gun. 
    A trap? For what reason? You really wanted me back? Odd...
    Because people are getting tired of the usual Apple FUD pellet droppers, and their predictable narratives. Like yours.

    That's the thing about GoogleGuy: his reason for living seems to be to undermine Apple and sell Google at every opportunity, while trying to present a rather unconvincing persona as a concerned, but ultimately impartial observer.

    Still, in cases like these, where we have denials from both Amazon and Apple, and no tangible evidence from Bloomberg, you have to wonder why he is so desperate to keep this rumour alive, especially since he said he was going to drop out of the thread on Page 2. Does he really believe it has legs, or is he merely attempting to divert attention from somewhere else?

    I ask because Google's Dragonfly project has been causing quiet ructions around the internet for quite some time, leading to some rather noisy recent departures from the company.

    And now, in the last day or so, the rumbles are becoming a little bit loud because Mike Pence has now decided it's something he should be talking about.

    https://www.cnet.com/news/google-should-end-development-of-dragonfly-search-engine-for-china-says-pence/
    https://www.techtimes.com/articles/234346/20180916/google-employees-resign-in-protest-of-project-dragonfly-a-censored-search-engine-for-china.htm
    https://theintercept.com/2018/09/14/google-china-prototype-links-searches-to-phone-numbers/


    One of Google Guy's favourite sticks he likes to beat Apple with is the handover of its iCloud operations to a Chinese company (we shall ignore small details such as it being a requirement by Chinese law, and that Apple has claimed it still retains control of the keys), because Google, being such a champion of truth and justice, has steered clear of China (let's ignore small details such as China's homegrown search engine was handing them their heads and that the Chinese government thinks the only body that should be allowed to harvest data is the Chinese government).

    But now it appears that Google is heading back into China with a specialised search engine that will allow the Chinese Authority to track its users. Is this true?

    The employees resigning in numbers seem to think so.
    Various IT journals seem to think so too.
    And Google hasn't denied it.

    I wonder if GoogleGuy would be happy to accept this as a given, without any names or credible evidence backing it up or a straight out denial from the Mothership? I mean, he seems happy to accept Bloomberg's word under even less compelling evidence.
    Yeah there hasn’t been much talk about google’s new censored search engine for china. DF covered it...

    https://theintercept.com/2018/08/01/google-china-search-engine-censorship/

    https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/08/17/dragonfly

    https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/08/17/google-search-protest

  • Reply 103 of 118
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,276member
    Rayz2016 said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    The Bloomberg story seems politically motivated...

    There isn’t enough information do determine fault in the separate firmware incident.  It also doesn’t say if Apple resumed using SuperMicro as a supplier...

    Bottom line is Apple found a problem and addressed it before it could cause damage.  We don’t know the results of their investigation into whom was responsible.  Was the firmware modified by a third party?  Was it a beta firmware? Was the hardware intercepted and modified after leaving the manufacturer, but before getting to Apple and an exploit introduced?

    No enough information... but Bloomberg needs to get their facts straight before publishing rumors.
    Bloomberg says they DO have their facts straight.
    "The companies’ denials are countered by six current and former senior national security officials, who—in conversations that began during the Obama administration and continued under the Trump administration—detailed the discovery of the chips and the government’s investigation. One of those officials and two people inside AWS provided extensive information on how the attack played out at Elemental and Amazon; the official and one of the insiders also described Amazon’s cooperation with the government investigation. In addition to the three Apple insiders, four of the six U.S. officials confirmed that Apple was a victim. In all, 17 people confirmed the manipulation of Supermicro’s hardware and other elements of the attacks. The sources were granted anonymity because of the sensitive, and in some cases classified, nature of the information."

    He said, she said...
    He said, she said...  but where is there even one of these servers that can be shown with the rumored chip, and more germaine, let’s see one that was ever in Apple’s server farms.  
    No one claimed there was one installed at an Apple server farm AFAIK. If anything it was in an Apple lab, and even that is still a very open question. The claims regarding Amazon are more involved, yet Amazon too categorically denies there's any truth whatsoever to anything Bloomberg reported, it wa all made up.  All very very weird. 
    I set a bit of a trap for you and you fell into it.  I knew you’d answer the second part of my question without making any comment in the bigger question; if Bloomberg has 17 sources (which seems a big deal to you) and if there were thousands of these affected severs, then why aren’t you also curious about not a single server having surfaced for inspection by the story’s reporters?  

    Whole lot of smoke, no smoking gun. 
    A trap? For what reason? You really wanted me back? Odd...
    Because people are getting tired of the usual Apple FUD pellet droppers, and their predictable narratives. Like yours.

    That's the thing about GoogleGuy: his reason for living seems to be to undermine Apple and sell Google at every opportunity, while trying to present a rather unconvincing persona as a concerned, but ultimately impartial observer.

    Still, in cases like these, where we have denials from both Amazon and Apple, and no tangible evidence from Bloomberg, you have to wonder why he is so desperate to keep this rumour alive, especially since he said he was going to drop out of the thread on Page 2. Does he really believe it has legs, or is he merely attempting to divert attention from somewhere else?

    I ask because Google's Dragonfly project has been causing quiet ructions around the internet for quite some time, leading to some rather noisy recent departures from the company.

    And now, in the last day or so, the rumbles are becoming a little bit loud because Mike Pence has now decided it's something he should be talking about.

    https://www.cnet.com/news/google-should-end-development-of-dragonfly-search-engine-for-china-says-pence/
    https://www.techtimes.com/articles/234346/20180916/google-employees-resign-in-protest-of-project-dragonfly-a-censored-search-engine-for-china.htm
    https://theintercept.com/2018/09/14/google-china-prototype-links-searches-to-phone-numbers/


    One of Google Guy's favourite sticks he likes to beat Apple with is the handover of its iCloud operations to a Chinese company (we shall ignore small details such as it being a requirement by Chinese law, and that Apple has claimed it still retains control of the keys), because Google, being such a champion of truth and justice, has steered clear of China (let's ignore small details such as China's homegrown search engine was handing them their heads and that the Chinese government thinks the only body that should be allowed to harvest data is the Chinese government).

    But now it appears that Google is heading back into China with a specialised search engine that will allow the Chinese Authority to track its users. Is this true?

    The employees resigning in numbers seem to think so.
    Various IT journals seem to think so too.
    And Google hasn't denied it.

    I wonder if GoogleGuy would be happy to accept this as a given, without any names or credible evidence backing it up or a straight out denial from the Mothership? I mean, he seems happy to accept Bloomberg's word under even less compelling evidence.
    Yeah there hasn’t been much talk about google’s new censored search engine for china. DF covered it...

    https://theintercept.com/2018/08/01/google-china-search-engine-censorship/

    https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/08/17/dragonfly

    https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/08/17/google-search-protest

    Thee's actually been a LOT of discussion about it, from Ars, the Verge, Android Central and Android Police, TechCrunch, the White House...
    IMO it's become less likely to happen, and if it does I'll be one of the first here to jump on the Google bash wagon. Money really is NOT that important once you have so much, enough to toss company values to the curb for more of what you don't need to begin with. 
    edited October 5
  • Reply 104 of 118

    gatorguy said:
    The more specific the denials the more strange this whole thing becomes.

    I don't know of Apple ever being so detailed and vehement in response to a story. When the BBC ran their hit piece on Apple and working conditions in China Mr Cook responded with an internal email leaked to the press. This time Apple came back hard and often in denials. Amazon too has gone with a point by point rebuttal, and likewise I don't recall a similar response in the past.

    At the same time the number of governments sources who would have had to work in concert to cooperate on spreading disinformation thru false statements to Bloomberg is unexplainable, I'm reaching the point personally of leaning towards Apple and Amazon,generally speaking the truth,  but there's really significant questions about what the goal of the both the sources and Bloomberg was if the entire scene was fabricated. It wasn't an Apple hit-piece as they were barely mentioned. It might have been an Amazon hit-piece, but why? No love lost between US intelligence and China but why drag Amazon into it if that was the rationale?

    I would certainly expect some greater detail from Bloomberg considering how hard the push-back has been. Either a retraction in full or part or at least some company official acknowledgement of the questionable aspects would seem appropriate if some more verifiable information isn't forthcoming. Intentional lying on the part of the publication, Apple, or Amazon is very unlikely IMHO so someplace in there is a better explanation of what's going on.

    EDIT; Gruber isn't as quite as convinced by Apple's denials as they were written by Public
    Relations and not attributed to any specific executive making the claims.  Amazon on the other hand was written by a company executive, Steve Schmidt Chief Information Security Officer. He's accountable. I expect much more to come.

    EDIT2: The Senate Intelligence committee may also be looking into this.  Two different members have made that suggestion. 
    As for why the govt would sponsor a hit piece on Amazon... Amazon = Bezos = Washington Post. Trump already criticized them about trying to take advantage of the USPS.

    Gruber said no such thing. He said sure, it’s attributed to Apple PR, but:

    ”I see no way around it: either Bloomberg’s report is significantly wrong, at least as pertains to Amazon and Apple, or Apple and Amazon have issued blatantly false denials. You can, perhaps, chalk up Apple’s denial to it being written by Apple PR. I don’t think this would happen, but hypothetically this issue could be deemed so sensitive — either within the company or as a national security issue — that the people at Apple with knowledge of the situation lied to Apple PR. But in my experience, Apple PR does not lie. Do they spin the truth in ways that favor the company? Of course. That’s their job. But they don’t lie, because they understand that one of Apple’s key assets is its credibility. They’d say nothing before they’d lie.

    https://daringfireball.net/2018/10/bloomberg_the_big_hack
    https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/10/04/what-businessweek-got-wrong-about-apple

    ...he never said he wasnt as convinced. Nice try. 


    edited October 5 ronn
  • Reply 105 of 118
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,276member

    gatorguy said:
    The more specific the denials the more strange this whole thing becomes.

    I don't know of Apple ever being so detailed and vehement in response to a story. When the BBC ran their hit piece on Apple and working conditions in China Mr Cook responded with an internal email leaked to the press. This time Apple came back hard and often in denials. Amazon too has gone with a point by point rebuttal, and likewise I don't recall a similar response in the past.

    At the same time the number of governments sources who would have had to work in concert to cooperate on spreading disinformation thru false statements to Bloomberg is unexplainable, I'm reaching the point personally of leaning towards Apple and Amazon,generally speaking the truth,  but there's really significant questions about what the goal of the both the sources and Bloomberg was if the entire scene was fabricated. It wasn't an Apple hit-piece as they were barely mentioned. It might have been an Amazon hit-piece, but why? No love lost between US intelligence and China but why drag Amazon into it if that was the rationale?

    I would certainly expect some greater detail from Bloomberg considering how hard the push-back has been. Either a retraction in full or part or at least some company official acknowledgement of the questionable aspects would seem appropriate if some more verifiable information isn't forthcoming. Intentional lying on the part of the publication, Apple, or Amazon is very unlikely IMHO so someplace in there is a better explanation of what's going on.

    EDIT; Gruber isn't as quite as convinced by Apple's denials as they were written by Public
    Relations and not attributed to any specific executive making the claims.  Amazon on the other hand was written by a company executive, Steve Schmidt Chief Information Security Officer. He's accountable. I expect much more to come.

    EDIT2: The Senate Intelligence committee may also be looking into this.  Two different members have made that suggestion. 
    As for why the govt would sponsor a hit piece on Amazon... Amazon = Bezos = Washington Post. Trump already criticized them about trying to take advantage of the USPS.

    Gruber said no such thing. He said sure, it’s attributed to Apple PR, but:

    “But in my experience, Apple PR does not lie. Do they spin the truth in ways that favor the company? Of course. That’s their job. But they don’t lie, because they understand that one of Apple’s key assets is its credibility. They’d say nothing before they’d lie.”

    https://daringfireball.net/2018/10/bloomberg_the_big_hack
    https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/10/04/what-businessweek-got-wrong-about-apple

    ...he never said he wasnt as convinced. Nice try. 


    You didn't actually read the whole thing did you, or worse purposefully left out the pertinent part just to argue using half-truths?:
    Quote: "You can, perhaps, chalk up Apple’s denial to it being written by Apple PR. I don’t think this would happen, but hypothetically this issue could be deemed so sensitive — either within the company or as a national security issue — that the people at Apple with knowledge of the situation lied to Apple PR...
    Schmidt signing his name to Amazon’s response is more telling. "

    I was correct. You weren't. Much more simple to figure that out than the Bloomberg story. ;)
    edited October 5 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 106 of 118
    gatorguy said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    The Bloomberg story seems politically motivated...

    There isn’t enough information do determine fault in the separate firmware incident.  It also doesn’t say if Apple resumed using SuperMicro as a supplier...

    Bottom line is Apple found a problem and addressed it before it could cause damage.  We don’t know the results of their investigation into whom was responsible.  Was the firmware modified by a third party?  Was it a beta firmware? Was the hardware intercepted and modified after leaving the manufacturer, but before getting to Apple and an exploit introduced?

    No enough information... but Bloomberg needs to get their facts straight before publishing rumors.
    Bloomberg says they DO have their facts straight.
    "The companies’ denials are countered by six current and former senior national security officials, who—in conversations that began during the Obama administration and continued under the Trump administration—detailed the discovery of the chips and the government’s investigation. One of those officials and two people inside AWS provided extensive information on how the attack played out at Elemental and Amazon; the official and one of the insiders also described Amazon’s cooperation with the government investigation. In addition to the three Apple insiders, four of the six U.S. officials confirmed that Apple was a victim. In all, 17 people confirmed the manipulation of Supermicro’s hardware and other elements of the attacks. The sources were granted anonymity because of the sensitive, and in some cases classified, nature of the information."

    He said, she said...
    He said, she said...  but where is there even one of these servers that can be shown with the rumored chip, and more germaine, let’s see one that was ever in Apple’s server farms.  
    No one claimed there was one installed at an Apple server farm AFAIK. If anything it was in an Apple lab, and even that is still a very open question. The claims regarding Amazon are more involved, yet Amazon too categorically denies there's any truth whatsoever to anything Bloomberg reported, it wa all made up.  All very very weird. 
    I set a bit of a trap for you and you fell into it.  I knew you’d answer the second part of my question without making any comment in the bigger question; if Bloomberg has 17 sources (which seems a big deal to you) and if there were thousands of these affected severs, then why aren’t you also curious about not a single server having surfaced for inspection by the story’s reporters?  

    Whole lot of smoke, no smoking gun. 
    A trap? For what reason? You really wanted me back? Odd...
    Because people are getting tired of the usual Apple FUD pellet droppers, and their predictable narratives. Like yours.

    That's the thing about GoogleGuy: his reason for living seems to be to undermine Apple and sell Google at every opportunity, while trying to present a rather unconvincing persona as a concerned, but ultimately impartial observer.

    Still, in cases like these, where we have denials from both Amazon and Apple, and no tangible evidence from Bloomberg, you have to wonder why he is so desperate to keep this rumour alive, especially since he said he was going to drop out of the thread on Page 2. Does he really believe it has legs, or is he merely attempting to divert attention from somewhere else?

    I ask because Google's Dragonfly project has been causing quiet ructions around the internet for quite some time, leading to some rather noisy recent departures from the company.

    And now, in the last day or so, the rumbles are becoming a little bit loud because Mike Pence has now decided it's something he should be talking about.

    https://www.cnet.com/news/google-should-end-development-of-dragonfly-search-engine-for-china-says-pence/
    https://www.techtimes.com/articles/234346/20180916/google-employees-resign-in-protest-of-project-dragonfly-a-censored-search-engine-for-china.htm
    https://theintercept.com/2018/09/14/google-china-prototype-links-searches-to-phone-numbers/


    One of Google Guy's favourite sticks he likes to beat Apple with is the handover of its iCloud operations to a Chinese company (we shall ignore small details such as it being a requirement by Chinese law, and that Apple has claimed it still retains control of the keys), because Google, being such a champion of truth and justice, has steered clear of China (let's ignore small details such as China's homegrown search engine was handing them their heads and that the Chinese government thinks the only body that should be allowed to harvest data is the Chinese government).

    But now it appears that Google is heading back into China with a specialised search engine that will allow the Chinese Authority to track its users. Is this true?

    The employees resigning in numbers seem to think so.
    Various IT journals seem to think so too.
    And Google hasn't denied it.

    I wonder if GoogleGuy would be happy to accept this as a given, without any names or credible evidence backing it up or a straight out denial from the Mothership? I mean, he seems happy to accept Bloomberg's word under even less compelling evidence.
    Yeah there hasn’t been much talk about google’s new censored search engine for china. DF covered it...

    https://theintercept.com/2018/08/01/google-china-search-engine-censorship/

    https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/08/17/dragonfly

    https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/08/17/google-search-protest

    Thee's actually been a LOT of discussion about it, from Ars, the Verge, Android Central and Android Police, TechCrunch, the White House...
    I’m talking about on this website. There hasn’t been much talk in these forums about Google reversing course and producing censored search results for china because there haven’t been any AI stories, oddly. This is the first I’m aware. 
    edited October 5
  • Reply 107 of 118
    gatorguy said:

    gatorguy said:
    The more specific the denials the more strange this whole thing becomes.

    I don't know of Apple ever being so detailed and vehement in response to a story. When the BBC ran their hit piece on Apple and working conditions in China Mr Cook responded with an internal email leaked to the press. This time Apple came back hard and often in denials. Amazon too has gone with a point by point rebuttal, and likewise I don't recall a similar response in the past.

    At the same time the number of governments sources who would have had to work in concert to cooperate on spreading disinformation thru false statements to Bloomberg is unexplainable, I'm reaching the point personally of leaning towards Apple and Amazon,generally speaking the truth,  but there's really significant questions about what the goal of the both the sources and Bloomberg was if the entire scene was fabricated. It wasn't an Apple hit-piece as they were barely mentioned. It might have been an Amazon hit-piece, but why? No love lost between US intelligence and China but why drag Amazon into it if that was the rationale?

    I would certainly expect some greater detail from Bloomberg considering how hard the push-back has been. Either a retraction in full or part or at least some company official acknowledgement of the questionable aspects would seem appropriate if some more verifiable information isn't forthcoming. Intentional lying on the part of the publication, Apple, or Amazon is very unlikely IMHO so someplace in there is a better explanation of what's going on.

    EDIT; Gruber isn't as quite as convinced by Apple's denials as they were written by Public
    Relations and not attributed to any specific executive making the claims.  Amazon on the other hand was written by a company executive, Steve Schmidt Chief Information Security Officer. He's accountable. I expect much more to come.

    EDIT2: The Senate Intelligence committee may also be looking into this.  Two different members have made that suggestion. 
    As for why the govt would sponsor a hit piece on Amazon... Amazon = Bezos = Washington Post. Trump already criticized them about trying to take advantage of the USPS.

    Gruber said no such thing. He said sure, it’s attributed to Apple PR, but:

    “But in my experience, Apple PR does not lie. Do they spin the truth in ways that favor the company? Of course. That’s their job. But they don’t lie, because they understand that one of Apple’s key assets is its credibility. They’d say nothing before they’d lie.”

    https://daringfireball.net/2018/10/bloomberg_the_big_hack
    https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/10/04/what-businessweek-got-wrong-about-apple

    ...he never said he wasnt as convinced. Nice try. 


    You didn't actually read the whole thing did you, or worse purposefully left out the pertinent part just to argue?:
    Quote: "You can, perhaps, chalk up Apple’s denial to it being written by Apple PR. I don’t think this would happen, but hypothetically this issue could be deemed so sensitive — either within the company or as a national security issue — that the people at Apple with knowledge of the situation lied to Apple PR...
    Schmidt signing his name to Amazon’s response is more telling. "

    I was correct. You weren't. Much more simple to figure that out than the Bloomberg story. ;)
    No you were not correct at all, you’re nuts if that’s how you’re reading that. Gruber is saying “one could say that BUT here’s why that’s wrong”. He’s specially saying you’re wrong. That’s why I left the top half out because he discounts that devil’s advocacy. He specially says he is convinced because they don’t lie:

    “But in my experience, Apple PR does not lie. Do they spin the truth in ways that favor the company? Of course. That’s their job. But they don’t lie, because they understand that one of Apple’s key assets is its credibility. They’d say nothing before they’d lie.

    ...he isn’t expressing doubt or being unconvinced at all. You just made that up and attributed it to him. 

    Jesus man your FUD narrative is pathetic. 
    edited October 5
  • Reply 108 of 118
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,276member
    gatorguy said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    The Bloomberg story seems politically motivated...

    There isn’t enough information do determine fault in the separate firmware incident.  It also doesn’t say if Apple resumed using SuperMicro as a supplier...

    Bottom line is Apple found a problem and addressed it before it could cause damage.  We don’t know the results of their investigation into whom was responsible.  Was the firmware modified by a third party?  Was it a beta firmware? Was the hardware intercepted and modified after leaving the manufacturer, but before getting to Apple and an exploit introduced?

    No enough information... but Bloomberg needs to get their facts straight before publishing rumors.
    Bloomberg says they DO have their facts straight.
    "The companies’ denials are countered by six current and former senior national security officials, who—in conversations that began during the Obama administration and continued under the Trump administration—detailed the discovery of the chips and the government’s investigation. One of those officials and two people inside AWS provided extensive information on how the attack played out at Elemental and Amazon; the official and one of the insiders also described Amazon’s cooperation with the government investigation. In addition to the three Apple insiders, four of the six U.S. officials confirmed that Apple was a victim. In all, 17 people confirmed the manipulation of Supermicro’s hardware and other elements of the attacks. The sources were granted anonymity because of the sensitive, and in some cases classified, nature of the information."

    He said, she said...
    He said, she said...  but where is there even one of these servers that can be shown with the rumored chip, and more germaine, let’s see one that was ever in Apple’s server farms.  
    No one claimed there was one installed at an Apple server farm AFAIK. If anything it was in an Apple lab, and even that is still a very open question. The claims regarding Amazon are more involved, yet Amazon too categorically denies there's any truth whatsoever to anything Bloomberg reported, it wa all made up.  All very very weird. 
    I set a bit of a trap for you and you fell into it.  I knew you’d answer the second part of my question without making any comment in the bigger question; if Bloomberg has 17 sources (which seems a big deal to you) and if there were thousands of these affected severs, then why aren’t you also curious about not a single server having surfaced for inspection by the story’s reporters?  

    Whole lot of smoke, no smoking gun. 
    A trap? For what reason? You really wanted me back? Odd...
    Because people are getting tired of the usual Apple FUD pellet droppers, and their predictable narratives. Like yours.

    That's the thing about GoogleGuy: his reason for living seems to be to undermine Apple and sell Google at every opportunity, while trying to present a rather unconvincing persona as a concerned, but ultimately impartial observer.

    Still, in cases like these, where we have denials from both Amazon and Apple, and no tangible evidence from Bloomberg, you have to wonder why he is so desperate to keep this rumour alive, especially since he said he was going to drop out of the thread on Page 2. Does he really believe it has legs, or is he merely attempting to divert attention from somewhere else?

    I ask because Google's Dragonfly project has been causing quiet ructions around the internet for quite some time, leading to some rather noisy recent departures from the company.

    And now, in the last day or so, the rumbles are becoming a little bit loud because Mike Pence has now decided it's something he should be talking about.

    https://www.cnet.com/news/google-should-end-development-of-dragonfly-search-engine-for-china-says-pence/
    https://www.techtimes.com/articles/234346/20180916/google-employees-resign-in-protest-of-project-dragonfly-a-censored-search-engine-for-china.htm
    https://theintercept.com/2018/09/14/google-china-prototype-links-searches-to-phone-numbers/


    One of Google Guy's favourite sticks he likes to beat Apple with is the handover of its iCloud operations to a Chinese company (we shall ignore small details such as it being a requirement by Chinese law, and that Apple has claimed it still retains control of the keys), because Google, being such a champion of truth and justice, has steered clear of China (let's ignore small details such as China's homegrown search engine was handing them their heads and that the Chinese government thinks the only body that should be allowed to harvest data is the Chinese government).

    But now it appears that Google is heading back into China with a specialised search engine that will allow the Chinese Authority to track its users. Is this true?

    The employees resigning in numbers seem to think so.
    Various IT journals seem to think so too.
    And Google hasn't denied it.

    I wonder if GoogleGuy would be happy to accept this as a given, without any names or credible evidence backing it up or a straight out denial from the Mothership? I mean, he seems happy to accept Bloomberg's word under even less compelling evidence.
    Yeah there hasn’t been much talk about google’s new censored search engine for china. DF covered it...

    https://theintercept.com/2018/08/01/google-china-search-engine-censorship/

    https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/08/17/dragonfly

    https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/08/17/google-search-protest

    Thee's actually been a LOT of discussion about it, from Ars, the Verge, Android Central and Android Police, TechCrunch, the White House...
    I’m talking about on this website. There hasn’t been much talk in these forums about Google reversing course and producing censored search results for china because there haven’t been any AI stories, oddly. This is the first I’m aware. 
    Probably because they haven't done it. But the possibility has been mentioned here several times by different members and I think even I've done so.
    One reason I spend significant time on a LOT of different blogs and forums is just for this reason. You don't see every story or get every angle from just a single one.  
  • Reply 109 of 118
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,276member
    gatorguy said:

    gatorguy said:
    The more specific the denials the more strange this whole thing becomes.

    I don't know of Apple ever being so detailed and vehement in response to a story. When the BBC ran their hit piece on Apple and working conditions in China Mr Cook responded with an internal email leaked to the press. This time Apple came back hard and often in denials. Amazon too has gone with a point by point rebuttal, and likewise I don't recall a similar response in the past.

    At the same time the number of governments sources who would have had to work in concert to cooperate on spreading disinformation thru false statements to Bloomberg is unexplainable, I'm reaching the point personally of leaning towards Apple and Amazon,generally speaking the truth,  but there's really significant questions about what the goal of the both the sources and Bloomberg was if the entire scene was fabricated. It wasn't an Apple hit-piece as they were barely mentioned. It might have been an Amazon hit-piece, but why? No love lost between US intelligence and China but why drag Amazon into it if that was the rationale?

    I would certainly expect some greater detail from Bloomberg considering how hard the push-back has been. Either a retraction in full or part or at least some company official acknowledgement of the questionable aspects would seem appropriate if some more verifiable information isn't forthcoming. Intentional lying on the part of the publication, Apple, or Amazon is very unlikely IMHO so someplace in there is a better explanation of what's going on.

    EDIT; Gruber isn't as quite as convinced by Apple's denials as they were written by Public
    Relations and not attributed to any specific executive making the claims.  Amazon on the other hand was written by a company executive, Steve Schmidt Chief Information Security Officer. He's accountable. I expect much more to come.

    EDIT2: The Senate Intelligence committee may also be looking into this.  Two different members have made that suggestion. 
    As for why the govt would sponsor a hit piece on Amazon... Amazon = Bezos = Washington Post. Trump already criticized them about trying to take advantage of the USPS.

    Gruber said no such thing. He said sure, it’s attributed to Apple PR, but:

    “But in my experience, Apple PR does not lie. Do they spin the truth in ways that favor the company? Of course. That’s their job. But they don’t lie, because they understand that one of Apple’s key assets is its credibility. They’d say nothing before they’d lie.”

    https://daringfireball.net/2018/10/bloomberg_the_big_hack
    https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/10/04/what-businessweek-got-wrong-about-apple

    ...he never said he wasnt as convinced. Nice try. 


    You didn't actually read the whole thing did you, or worse purposefully left out the pertinent part just to argue?:
    Quote: "You can, perhaps, chalk up Apple’s denial to it being written by Apple PR. I don’t think this would happen, but hypothetically this issue could be deemed so sensitive — either within the company or as a national security issue — that the people at Apple with knowledge of the situation lied to Apple PR...
    Schmidt signing his name to Amazon’s response is more telling. "

    I was correct. You weren't. Much more simple to figure that out than the Bloomberg story. ;)
    No you were not correct at all, you’re nuts if that’s how you’re reading that. Gruber is saying “one could say that BUT here’s why that’s wrong”. He’s specially saying you’re wrong. That’s why I left the top half out because he discounts that devil’s advocacy. 

    Jesus man your FUD narrative is pathetic. 
    I said "Gruber isn't as quite as convinced by Apple's denials as they were written by Public Relations...  Amazon on the other hand was written by a company executive, Steve Schmidt Chief Information Security Officer. He's accountable"
    Gruber said:
     "You can, perhaps, chalk up Apple’s denial to it being written by Apple PR.... hypothetically this issue could be deemed so sensitive — either within the company or as a national security issue — that the people at Apple with knowledge of the situation lied to Apple PR...
    "Schmidt signing his name to Amazon’s response is more telling."

    Clear as can be, he was more convinced by the Amazon denial which has no apparent out. Sorry....
    Give it up for a change. 
    edited October 5
  • Reply 110 of 118
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,399member
    And just as certain as death and taxes this story is all over the Internet this morning, plastered on every website, front page news on every newspaper. And of course stupidity and ignorance reigns with trolls reporting that ALL Apple products have been compromised and people believing that. Wait for the YouTubers to chime in against Apple with videos “showing” a little chip on an iPhone motherboard.
  • Reply 111 of 118
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 5,606member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:

    gatorguy said:
    The more specific the denials the more strange this whole thing becomes.

    I don't know of Apple ever being so detailed and vehement in response to a story. When the BBC ran their hit piece on Apple and working conditions in China Mr Cook responded with an internal email leaked to the press. This time Apple came back hard and often in denials. Amazon too has gone with a point by point rebuttal, and likewise I don't recall a similar response in the past.

    At the same time the number of governments sources who would have had to work in concert to cooperate on spreading disinformation thru false statements to Bloomberg is unexplainable, I'm reaching the point personally of leaning towards Apple and Amazon,generally speaking the truth,  but there's really significant questions about what the goal of the both the sources and Bloomberg was if the entire scene was fabricated. It wasn't an Apple hit-piece as they were barely mentioned. It might have been an Amazon hit-piece, but why? No love lost between US intelligence and China but why drag Amazon into it if that was the rationale?

    I would certainly expect some greater detail from Bloomberg considering how hard the push-back has been. Either a retraction in full or part or at least some company official acknowledgement of the questionable aspects would seem appropriate if some more verifiable information isn't forthcoming. Intentional lying on the part of the publication, Apple, or Amazon is very unlikely IMHO so someplace in there is a better explanation of what's going on.

    EDIT; Gruber isn't as quite as convinced by Apple's denials as they were written by Public
    Relations and not attributed to any specific executive making the claims.  Amazon on the other hand was written by a company executive, Steve Schmidt Chief Information Security Officer. He's accountable. I expect much more to come.

    EDIT2: The Senate Intelligence committee may also be looking into this.  Two different members have made that suggestion. 
    As for why the govt would sponsor a hit piece on Amazon... Amazon = Bezos = Washington Post. Trump already criticized them about trying to take advantage of the USPS.

    Gruber said no such thing. He said sure, it’s attributed to Apple PR, but:

    “But in my experience, Apple PR does not lie. Do they spin the truth in ways that favor the company? Of course. That’s their job. But they don’t lie, because they understand that one of Apple’s key assets is its credibility. They’d say nothing before they’d lie.”

    https://daringfireball.net/2018/10/bloomberg_the_big_hack
    https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/10/04/what-businessweek-got-wrong-about-apple

    ...he never said he wasnt as convinced. Nice try. 


    You didn't actually read the whole thing did you, or worse purposefully left out the pertinent part just to argue?:
    Quote: "You can, perhaps, chalk up Apple’s denial to it being written by Apple PR. I don’t think this would happen, but hypothetically this issue could be deemed so sensitive — either within the company or as a national security issue — that the people at Apple with knowledge of the situation lied to Apple PR...
    Schmidt signing his name to Amazon’s response is more telling. "

    I was correct. You weren't. Much more simple to figure that out than the Bloomberg story. ;)
    No you were not correct at all, you’re nuts if that’s how you’re reading that. Gruber is saying “one could say that BUT here’s why that’s wrong”. He’s specially saying you’re wrong. That’s why I left the top half out because he discounts that devil’s advocacy. 

    Jesus man your FUD narrative is pathetic. 
    I said "Gruber isn't as quite as convinced by Apple's denials as they were written by Public Relations...  Amazon on the other hand was written by a company executive, Steve Schmidt Chief Information Security Officer. He's accountable"
    Gruber said:
     "You can, perhaps, chalk up Apple’s denial to it being written by Apple PR.... hypothetically this issue could be deemed so sensitive — either within the company or as a national security issue — that the people at Apple with knowledge of the situation lied to Apple PR...
    "Schmidt signing his name to Amazon’s response is more telling."

    Clear as can be, he was more convinced by the Amazon denial which has no apparent out. Sorry....
    Give it up for a change. 
    Nonsense. Gruber never said HE wasn’t quite convinced — you did. He said “You can, perhaps, [make argument about PR lying]... But they don’t lie. They’d say nothing before they lie.” He’s saying FUD mongers like yourself might try to make that argument, but they’re wrong because of Apple’s refusal to lie, which he fully believes and trusts. 

    You’re just backpeddling now. A rather pathetic showing, but expected from one of our in-house knockoff trolls. Just part of your MO — attempt to distract, split hairs, and argue semantics as part of your FUD campaign.Yet all your wheel-spinning aside, you remain wrong. Apple isn’t lying, and the story is therefore bunk. 
    edited October 5
  • Reply 112 of 118
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,276member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:

    gatorguy said:
    The more specific the denials the more strange this whole thing becomes.

    I don't know of Apple ever being so detailed and vehement in response to a story. When the BBC ran their hit piece on Apple and working conditions in China Mr Cook responded with an internal email leaked to the press. This time Apple came back hard and often in denials. Amazon too has gone with a point by point rebuttal, and likewise I don't recall a similar response in the past.

    At the same time the number of governments sources who would have had to work in concert to cooperate on spreading disinformation thru false statements to Bloomberg is unexplainable, I'm reaching the point personally of leaning towards Apple and Amazon,generally speaking the truth,  but there's really significant questions about what the goal of the both the sources and Bloomberg was if the entire scene was fabricated. It wasn't an Apple hit-piece as they were barely mentioned. It might have been an Amazon hit-piece, but why? No love lost between US intelligence and China but why drag Amazon into it if that was the rationale?

    I would certainly expect some greater detail from Bloomberg considering how hard the push-back has been. Either a retraction in full or part or at least some company official acknowledgement of the questionable aspects would seem appropriate if some more verifiable information isn't forthcoming. Intentional lying on the part of the publication, Apple, or Amazon is very unlikely IMHO so someplace in there is a better explanation of what's going on.

    EDIT; Gruber isn't as quite as convinced by Apple's denials as they were written by Public
    Relations and not attributed to any specific executive making the claims.  Amazon on the other hand was written by a company executive, Steve Schmidt Chief Information Security Officer. He's accountable. I expect much more to come.

    EDIT2: The Senate Intelligence committee may also be looking into this.  Two different members have made that suggestion. 
    As for why the govt would sponsor a hit piece on Amazon... Amazon = Bezos = Washington Post. Trump already criticized them about trying to take advantage of the USPS.

    Gruber said no such thing. He said sure, it’s attributed to Apple PR, but:

    “But in my experience, Apple PR does not lie. Do they spin the truth in ways that favor the company? Of course. That’s their job. But they don’t lie, because they understand that one of Apple’s key assets is its credibility. They’d say nothing before they’d lie.”

    https://daringfireball.net/2018/10/bloomberg_the_big_hack
    https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/10/04/what-businessweek-got-wrong-about-apple

    ...he never said he wasnt as convinced. Nice try. 


    You didn't actually read the whole thing did you, or worse purposefully left out the pertinent part just to argue?:
    Quote: "You can, perhaps, chalk up Apple’s denial to it being written by Apple PR. I don’t think this would happen, but hypothetically this issue could be deemed so sensitive — either within the company or as a national security issue — that the people at Apple with knowledge of the situation lied to Apple PR...
    Schmidt signing his name to Amazon’s response is more telling. "

    I was correct. You weren't. Much more simple to figure that out than the Bloomberg story. ;)
    No you were not correct at all, you’re nuts if that’s how you’re reading that. Gruber is saying “one could say that BUT here’s why that’s wrong”. He’s specially saying you’re wrong. That’s why I left the top half out because he discounts that devil’s advocacy. 

    Jesus man your FUD narrative is pathetic. 
    I said "Gruber isn't as quite as convinced by Apple's denials as they were written by Public Relations...  Amazon on the other hand was written by a company executive, Steve Schmidt Chief Information Security Officer. He's accountable"
    Gruber said:
     "You can, perhaps, chalk up Apple’s denial to it being written by Apple PR.... hypothetically this issue could be deemed so sensitive — either within the company or as a national security issue — that the people at Apple with knowledge of the situation lied to Apple PR...
    "Schmidt signing his name to Amazon’s response is more telling."

    Clear as can be, he was more convinced by the Amazon denial which has no apparent out. Sorry....
    Give it up for a change. 
    Nonsense. Gruber never said HE wasn’t quite convinced — you did. 
    I said he wasn't quite AS convinced, which he wasn't. "Schmidt signing his name to Amazon’s response is more telling."  More telling than what? More telling than Apple's PR denial which has a possible out: If they didn't know then they didn't lie.  
    When you start your name-calling (and why do you do that anyway?) it's almost a sure sign you lost. Doing a Frilled-Lizard won't make you any more right. 
    edited October 5 muthuk_vanalingamavon b7
  • Reply 113 of 118
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 2,702member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:

    gatorguy said:
    The more specific the denials the more strange this whole thing becomes.

    I don't know of Apple ever being so detailed and vehement in response to a story. When the BBC ran their hit piece on Apple and working conditions in China Mr Cook responded with an internal email leaked to the press. This time Apple came back hard and often in denials. Amazon too has gone with a point by point rebuttal, and likewise I don't recall a similar response in the past.

    At the same time the number of governments sources who would have had to work in concert to cooperate on spreading disinformation thru false statements to Bloomberg is unexplainable, I'm reaching the point personally of leaning towards Apple and Amazon,generally speaking the truth,  but there's really significant questions about what the goal of the both the sources and Bloomberg was if the entire scene was fabricated. It wasn't an Apple hit-piece as they were barely mentioned. It might have been an Amazon hit-piece, but why? No love lost between US intelligence and China but why drag Amazon into it if that was the rationale?

    I would certainly expect some greater detail from Bloomberg considering how hard the push-back has been. Either a retraction in full or part or at least some company official acknowledgement of the questionable aspects would seem appropriate if some more verifiable information isn't forthcoming. Intentional lying on the part of the publication, Apple, or Amazon is very unlikely IMHO so someplace in there is a better explanation of what's going on.

    EDIT; Gruber isn't as quite as convinced by Apple's denials as they were written by Public
    Relations and not attributed to any specific executive making the claims.  Amazon on the other hand was written by a company executive, Steve Schmidt Chief Information Security Officer. He's accountable. I expect much more to come.

    EDIT2: The Senate Intelligence committee may also be looking into this.  Two different members have made that suggestion. 
    As for why the govt would sponsor a hit piece on Amazon... Amazon = Bezos = Washington Post. Trump already criticized them about trying to take advantage of the USPS.

    Gruber said no such thing. He said sure, it’s attributed to Apple PR, but:

    “But in my experience, Apple PR does not lie. Do they spin the truth in ways that favor the company? Of course. That’s their job. But they don’t lie, because they understand that one of Apple’s key assets is its credibility. They’d say nothing before they’d lie.”

    https://daringfireball.net/2018/10/bloomberg_the_big_hack
    https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/10/04/what-businessweek-got-wrong-about-apple

    ...he never said he wasnt as convinced. Nice try. 


    You didn't actually read the whole thing did you, or worse purposefully left out the pertinent part just to argue?:
    Quote: "You can, perhaps, chalk up Apple’s denial to it being written by Apple PR. I don’t think this would happen, but hypothetically this issue could be deemed so sensitive — either within the company or as a national security issue — that the people at Apple with knowledge of the situation lied to Apple PR...
    Schmidt signing his name to Amazon’s response is more telling. "

    I was correct. You weren't. Much more simple to figure that out than the Bloomberg story. ;)
    No you were not correct at all, you’re nuts if that’s how you’re reading that. Gruber is saying “one could say that BUT here’s why that’s wrong”. He’s specially saying you’re wrong. That’s why I left the top half out because he discounts that devil’s advocacy. 

    Jesus man your FUD narrative is pathetic. 
    I said "Gruber isn't as quite as convinced by Apple's denials as they were written by Public Relations...  Amazon on the other hand was written by a company executive, Steve Schmidt Chief Information Security Officer. He's accountable"
    Gruber said:
     "You can, perhaps, chalk up Apple’s denial to it being written by Apple PR.... hypothetically this issue could be deemed so sensitive — either within the company or as a national security issue — that the people at Apple with knowledge of the situation lied to Apple PR...
    "Schmidt signing his name to Amazon’s response is more telling."

    Clear as can be, he was more convinced by the Amazon denial which has no apparent out. Sorry....
    Give it up for a change. 
    Nonsense. Gruber never said HE wasn’t quite convinced — you did. He said “You can, perhaps, [make argument about PR lying]... But they don’t lie. They’d say nothing before they lie.” He’s saying FUD mongers like yourself might try to make that argument, but they’re wrong because of Apple’s refusal to lie, which he fully believes and trusts. 

    You’re just backpeddling now. A rather pathetic showing, but expected from one of our in-house knockoff trolls. Just part of your MO — attempt to distract, split hairs, and argue semantics as part of your FUD campaign.Yet all your wheel-spinning aside, you remain wrong. Apple isn’t lying, and the story is therefore bunk. 
    You are making a very particular interpretation of what Gruber wrote.

    I think you are wrong in interpreting it that way. IMO, Gruber clearly indicates that he sees the Amazon response as having more weight because of who it came from.

    Apple issued a statement that came from 'Apple' and suggests that it could be from Apple PR, and that they faithfully output the information as it was given to them because he is convinced that if the information were false, Apple PR wouldn't say anything. He accepts that it is possible (hypothetically speaking) that the source information that was provided to PR from higher up within Apple may not have been accurate.

    I see it how Gatorguy sees it.

    Gruber is not saying anything about 'fudmongers' or whatever they might do with the idea. 

    If he were so convinced about things and the companies being right, he wouldn't have ended with this:

    "One way or the other, there is more to come on this story, and the credibility of either Bloomberg, or Apple and Amazon, is going to take a significant hit."

  • Reply 114 of 118
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,137member
    avon b7 said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:

    gatorguy said:
    The more specific the denials the more strange this whole thing becomes.

    I don't know of Apple ever being so detailed and vehement in response to a story. When the BBC ran their hit piece on Apple and working conditions in China Mr Cook responded with an internal email leaked to the press. This time Apple came back hard and often in denials. Amazon too has gone with a point by point rebuttal, and likewise I don't recall a similar response in the past.

    At the same time the number of governments sources who would have had to work in concert to cooperate on spreading disinformation thru false statements to Bloomberg is unexplainable, I'm reaching the point personally of leaning towards Apple and Amazon,generally speaking the truth,  but there's really significant questions about what the goal of the both the sources and Bloomberg was if the entire scene was fabricated. It wasn't an Apple hit-piece as they were barely mentioned. It might have been an Amazon hit-piece, but why? No love lost between US intelligence and China but why drag Amazon into it if that was the rationale?

    I would certainly expect some greater detail from Bloomberg considering how hard the push-back has been. Either a retraction in full or part or at least some company official acknowledgement of the questionable aspects would seem appropriate if some more verifiable information isn't forthcoming. Intentional lying on the part of the publication, Apple, or Amazon is very unlikely IMHO so someplace in there is a better explanation of what's going on.

    EDIT; Gruber isn't as quite as convinced by Apple's denials as they were written by Public
    Relations and not attributed to any specific executive making the claims.  Amazon on the other hand was written by a company executive, Steve Schmidt Chief Information Security Officer. He's accountable. I expect much more to come.

    EDIT2: The Senate Intelligence committee may also be looking into this.  Two different members have made that suggestion. 
    As for why the govt would sponsor a hit piece on Amazon... Amazon = Bezos = Washington Post. Trump already criticized them about trying to take advantage of the USPS.

    Gruber said no such thing. He said sure, it’s attributed to Apple PR, but:

    “But in my experience, Apple PR does not lie. Do they spin the truth in ways that favor the company? Of course. That’s their job. But they don’t lie, because they understand that one of Apple’s key assets is its credibility. They’d say nothing before they’d lie.”

    https://daringfireball.net/2018/10/bloomberg_the_big_hack
    https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/10/04/what-businessweek-got-wrong-about-apple

    ...he never said he wasnt as convinced. Nice try. 


    You didn't actually read the whole thing did you, or worse purposefully left out the pertinent part just to argue?:
    Quote: "You can, perhaps, chalk up Apple’s denial to it being written by Apple PR. I don’t think this would happen, but hypothetically this issue could be deemed so sensitive — either within the company or as a national security issue — that the people at Apple with knowledge of the situation lied to Apple PR...
    Schmidt signing his name to Amazon’s response is more telling. "

    I was correct. You weren't. Much more simple to figure that out than the Bloomberg story. ;)
    No you were not correct at all, you’re nuts if that’s how you’re reading that. Gruber is saying “one could say that BUT here’s why that’s wrong”. He’s specially saying you’re wrong. That’s why I left the top half out because he discounts that devil’s advocacy. 

    Jesus man your FUD narrative is pathetic. 
    I said "Gruber isn't as quite as convinced by Apple's denials as they were written by Public Relations...  Amazon on the other hand was written by a company executive, Steve Schmidt Chief Information Security Officer. He's accountable"
    Gruber said:
     "You can, perhaps, chalk up Apple’s denial to it being written by Apple PR.... hypothetically this issue could be deemed so sensitive — either within the company or as a national security issue — that the people at Apple with knowledge of the situation lied to Apple PR...
    "Schmidt signing his name to Amazon’s response is more telling."

    Clear as can be, he was more convinced by the Amazon denial which has no apparent out. Sorry....
    Give it up for a change. 
    Nonsense. Gruber never said HE wasn’t quite convinced — you did. He said “You can, perhaps, [make argument about PR lying]... But they don’t lie. They’d say nothing before they lie.” He’s saying FUD mongers like yourself might try to make that argument, but they’re wrong because of Apple’s refusal to lie, which he fully believes and trusts. 

    You’re just backpeddling now. A rather pathetic showing, but expected from one of our in-house knockoff trolls. Just part of your MO — attempt to distract, split hairs, and argue semantics as part of your FUD campaign.Yet all your wheel-spinning aside, you remain wrong. Apple isn’t lying, and the story is therefore bunk. 
    You are making a very particular interpretation of what Gruber wrote.

    I think you are wrong in interpreting it that way. IMO, Gruber clearly indicates that he sees the Amazon response as having more weight because of who it came from.

    Apple issued a statement that came from 'Apple' and suggests that it could be from Apple PR, and that they faithfully output the information as it was given to them because he is convinced that if the information were false, Apple PR wouldn't say anything. He accepts that it is possible (hypothetically speaking) that the source information that was provided to PR from higher up within Apple may not have been accurate.

    I see it how Gatorguy sees it.

    Gruber is not saying anything about 'fudmongers' or whatever they might do with the idea. 

    If he were so convinced about things and the companies being right, he wouldn't have ended with this:

    "One way or the other, there is more to come on this story, and the credibility of either Bloomberg, or Apple and Amazon, is going to take a significant hit."

    I recall more than a few arguments that I had with you stating that, while politics certainly may have been involved, that U.S. National Security Agencies were the ones that advocated for Limiting or banning Huawei and ZTE products in the U.S. Your retort was that it was merely a protectionist move to protect Apple.

    Now it seems that you are a least partially in on Chinese manufacturers aiding the PLA in spying on US. citizens and interests?

    You need to figure out where you stand on this.


    edited October 5
  • Reply 115 of 118
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 2,702member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:

    gatorguy said:
    The more specific the denials the more strange this whole thing becomes.

    I don't know of Apple ever being so detailed and vehement in response to a story. When the BBC ran their hit piece on Apple and working conditions in China Mr Cook responded with an internal email leaked to the press. This time Apple came back hard and often in denials. Amazon too has gone with a point by point rebuttal, and likewise I don't recall a similar response in the past.

    At the same time the number of governments sources who would have had to work in concert to cooperate on spreading disinformation thru false statements to Bloomberg is unexplainable, I'm reaching the point personally of leaning towards Apple and Amazon,generally speaking the truth,  but there's really significant questions about what the goal of the both the sources and Bloomberg was if the entire scene was fabricated. It wasn't an Apple hit-piece as they were barely mentioned. It might have been an Amazon hit-piece, but why? No love lost between US intelligence and China but why drag Amazon into it if that was the rationale?

    I would certainly expect some greater detail from Bloomberg considering how hard the push-back has been. Either a retraction in full or part or at least some company official acknowledgement of the questionable aspects would seem appropriate if some more verifiable information isn't forthcoming. Intentional lying on the part of the publication, Apple, or Amazon is very unlikely IMHO so someplace in there is a better explanation of what's going on.

    EDIT; Gruber isn't as quite as convinced by Apple's denials as they were written by Public
    Relations and not attributed to any specific executive making the claims.  Amazon on the other hand was written by a company executive, Steve Schmidt Chief Information Security Officer. He's accountable. I expect much more to come.

    EDIT2: The Senate Intelligence committee may also be looking into this.  Two different members have made that suggestion. 
    As for why the govt would sponsor a hit piece on Amazon... Amazon = Bezos = Washington Post. Trump already criticized them about trying to take advantage of the USPS.

    Gruber said no such thing. He said sure, it’s attributed to Apple PR, but:

    “But in my experience, Apple PR does not lie. Do they spin the truth in ways that favor the company? Of course. That’s their job. But they don’t lie, because they understand that one of Apple’s key assets is its credibility. They’d say nothing before they’d lie.”

    https://daringfireball.net/2018/10/bloomberg_the_big_hack
    https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/10/04/what-businessweek-got-wrong-about-apple

    ...he never said he wasnt as convinced. Nice try. 


    You didn't actually read the whole thing did you, or worse purposefully left out the pertinent part just to argue?:
    Quote: "You can, perhaps, chalk up Apple’s denial to it being written by Apple PR. I don’t think this would happen, but hypothetically this issue could be deemed so sensitive — either within the company or as a national security issue — that the people at Apple with knowledge of the situation lied to Apple PR...
    Schmidt signing his name to Amazon’s response is more telling. "

    I was correct. You weren't. Much more simple to figure that out than the Bloomberg story. ;)
    No you were not correct at all, you’re nuts if that’s how you’re reading that. Gruber is saying “one could say that BUT here’s why that’s wrong”. He’s specially saying you’re wrong. That’s why I left the top half out because he discounts that devil’s advocacy. 

    Jesus man your FUD narrative is pathetic. 
    I said "Gruber isn't as quite as convinced by Apple's denials as they were written by Public Relations...  Amazon on the other hand was written by a company executive, Steve Schmidt Chief Information Security Officer. He's accountable"
    Gruber said:
     "You can, perhaps, chalk up Apple’s denial to it being written by Apple PR.... hypothetically this issue could be deemed so sensitive — either within the company or as a national security issue — that the people at Apple with knowledge of the situation lied to Apple PR...
    "Schmidt signing his name to Amazon’s response is more telling."

    Clear as can be, he was more convinced by the Amazon denial which has no apparent out. Sorry....
    Give it up for a change. 
    Nonsense. Gruber never said HE wasn’t quite convinced — you did. He said “You can, perhaps, [make argument about PR lying]... But they don’t lie. They’d say nothing before they lie.” He’s saying FUD mongers like yourself might try to make that argument, but they’re wrong because of Apple’s refusal to lie, which he fully believes and trusts. 

    You’re just backpeddling now. A rather pathetic showing, but expected from one of our in-house knockoff trolls. Just part of your MO — attempt to distract, split hairs, and argue semantics as part of your FUD campaign.Yet all your wheel-spinning aside, you remain wrong. Apple isn’t lying, and the story is therefore bunk. 
    You are making a very particular interpretation of what Gruber wrote.

    I think you are wrong in interpreting it that way. IMO, Gruber clearly indicates that he sees the Amazon response as having more weight because of who it came from.

    Apple issued a statement that came from 'Apple' and suggests that it could be from Apple PR, and that they faithfully output the information as it was given to them because he is convinced that if the information were false, Apple PR wouldn't say anything. He accepts that it is possible (hypothetically speaking) that the source information that was provided to PR from higher up within Apple may not have been accurate.

    I see it how Gatorguy sees it.

    Gruber is not saying anything about 'fudmongers' or whatever they might do with the idea. 

    If he were so convinced about things and the companies being right, he wouldn't have ended with this:

    "One way or the other, there is more to come on this story, and the credibility of either Bloomberg, or Apple and Amazon, is going to take a significant hit."

    I recall more than a few arguments that I had with you stating that, while politics certainly may have been involved, that U.S. National Security Agencies were the ones that advocated for Limiting or banning Huawei and ZTE products in the U.S. Your retort was that it was merely a protectionist move to protect Apple.

    Now it seems that you are a least partially in on Chinese manufacturers aiding the PLA in spying on US. citizens and interests?

    You need to figure out where you stand on this.


    I know where I stand.

    What I don't have a clue about is what you are saying!

    Recap:

    Huawei and the Chinese government are not the same thing. (I am not even 'partially in' on what you are suggesting.)

    Huawei phones are not banned from sale in the US.

    In spite of the accusations, not a single shred of evidence has been presented to support them.

    US carriers were pressured by government into backing out of deals to distribute Huawei phones this year.

    That was political pressure. If any evidence to support the accusations really existed, Huawei phones would not be allowed to even reach the US.

    It was protectionism. Protectionism without tariffs.

    This article is about supposed government spying/interference.

    Something that happens every day of the year and pretty much on all sides. Even among allies. Need I remind you of the US failure to cover its spying on Merkal? Project Shot Giant?

    Huawei would die an instant death if it were found to be involved in such moves. More than instant if that is possible. LOL


    cornchip
  • Reply 116 of 118
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,137member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:

    gatorguy said:
    The more specific the denials the more strange this whole thing becomes.

    I don't know of Apple ever being so detailed and vehement in response to a story. When the BBC ran their hit piece on Apple and working conditions in China Mr Cook responded with an internal email leaked to the press. This time Apple came back hard and often in denials. Amazon too has gone with a point by point rebuttal, and likewise I don't recall a similar response in the past.

    At the same time the number of governments sources who would have had to work in concert to cooperate on spreading disinformation thru false statements to Bloomberg is unexplainable, I'm reaching the point personally of leaning towards Apple and Amazon,generally speaking the truth,  but there's really significant questions about what the goal of the both the sources and Bloomberg was if the entire scene was fabricated. It wasn't an Apple hit-piece as they were barely mentioned. It might have been an Amazon hit-piece, but why? No love lost between US intelligence and China but why drag Amazon into it if that was the rationale?

    I would certainly expect some greater detail from Bloomberg considering how hard the push-back has been. Either a retraction in full or part or at least some company official acknowledgement of the questionable aspects would seem appropriate if some more verifiable information isn't forthcoming. Intentional lying on the part of the publication, Apple, or Amazon is very unlikely IMHO so someplace in there is a better explanation of what's going on.

    EDIT; Gruber isn't as quite as convinced by Apple's denials as they were written by Public
    Relations and not attributed to any specific executive making the claims.  Amazon on the other hand was written by a company executive, Steve Schmidt Chief Information Security Officer. He's accountable. I expect much more to come.

    EDIT2: The Senate Intelligence committee may also be looking into this.  Two different members have made that suggestion. 
    As for why the govt would sponsor a hit piece on Amazon... Amazon = Bezos = Washington Post. Trump already criticized them about trying to take advantage of the USPS.

    Gruber said no such thing. He said sure, it’s attributed to Apple PR, but:

    “But in my experience, Apple PR does not lie. Do they spin the truth in ways that favor the company? Of course. That’s their job. But they don’t lie, because they understand that one of Apple’s key assets is its credibility. They’d say nothing before they’d lie.”

    https://daringfireball.net/2018/10/bloomberg_the_big_hack
    https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/10/04/what-businessweek-got-wrong-about-apple

    ...he never said he wasnt as convinced. Nice try. 


    You didn't actually read the whole thing did you, or worse purposefully left out the pertinent part just to argue?:
    Quote: "You can, perhaps, chalk up Apple’s denial to it being written by Apple PR. I don’t think this would happen, but hypothetically this issue could be deemed so sensitive — either within the company or as a national security issue — that the people at Apple with knowledge of the situation lied to Apple PR...
    Schmidt signing his name to Amazon’s response is more telling. "

    I was correct. You weren't. Much more simple to figure that out than the Bloomberg story. ;)
    No you were not correct at all, you’re nuts if that’s how you’re reading that. Gruber is saying “one could say that BUT here’s why that’s wrong”. He’s specially saying you’re wrong. That’s why I left the top half out because he discounts that devil’s advocacy. 

    Jesus man your FUD narrative is pathetic. 
    I said "Gruber isn't as quite as convinced by Apple's denials as they were written by Public Relations...  Amazon on the other hand was written by a company executive, Steve Schmidt Chief Information Security Officer. He's accountable"
    Gruber said:
     "You can, perhaps, chalk up Apple’s denial to it being written by Apple PR.... hypothetically this issue could be deemed so sensitive — either within the company or as a national security issue — that the people at Apple with knowledge of the situation lied to Apple PR...
    "Schmidt signing his name to Amazon’s response is more telling."

    Clear as can be, he was more convinced by the Amazon denial which has no apparent out. Sorry....
    Give it up for a change. 
    Nonsense. Gruber never said HE wasn’t quite convinced — you did. He said “You can, perhaps, [make argument about PR lying]... But they don’t lie. They’d say nothing before they lie.” He’s saying FUD mongers like yourself might try to make that argument, but they’re wrong because of Apple’s refusal to lie, which he fully believes and trusts. 

    You’re just backpeddling now. A rather pathetic showing, but expected from one of our in-house knockoff trolls. Just part of your MO — attempt to distract, split hairs, and argue semantics as part of your FUD campaign.Yet all your wheel-spinning aside, you remain wrong. Apple isn’t lying, and the story is therefore bunk. 
    You are making a very particular interpretation of what Gruber wrote.

    I think you are wrong in interpreting it that way. IMO, Gruber clearly indicates that he sees the Amazon response as having more weight because of who it came from.

    Apple issued a statement that came from 'Apple' and suggests that it could be from Apple PR, and that they faithfully output the information as it was given to them because he is convinced that if the information were false, Apple PR wouldn't say anything. He accepts that it is possible (hypothetically speaking) that the source information that was provided to PR from higher up within Apple may not have been accurate.

    I see it how Gatorguy sees it.

    Gruber is not saying anything about 'fudmongers' or whatever they might do with the idea. 

    If he were so convinced about things and the companies being right, he wouldn't have ended with this:

    "One way or the other, there is more to come on this story, and the credibility of either Bloomberg, or Apple and Amazon, is going to take a significant hit."

    I recall more than a few arguments that I had with you stating that, while politics certainly may have been involved, that U.S. National Security Agencies were the ones that advocated for Limiting or banning Huawei and ZTE products in the U.S. Your retort was that it was merely a protectionist move to protect Apple.

    Now it seems that you are a least partially in on Chinese manufacturers aiding the PLA in spying on US. citizens and interests?

    You need to figure out where you stand on this.


    I know where I stand.

    What I don't have a clue about is what you are saying!

    Recap:

    Huawei and the Chinese government are not the same thing. (I am not even 'partially in' on what you are suggesting.)

    Huawei phones are not banned from sale in the US.

    In spite of the accusations, not a single shred of evidence has been presented to support them.

    US carriers were pressured by government into backing out of deals to distribute Huawei phones this year.

    That was political pressure. If any evidence to support the accusations really existed, Huawei phones would not be allowed to even reach the US.

    It was protectionism. Protectionism without tariffs.

    This article is about supposed government spying/interference.

    Something that happens every day of the year and pretty much on all sides. Even among allies. Need I remind you of the US failure to cover its spying on Merkal? Project Shot Giant?

    Huawei would die an instant death if it were found to be involved in such moves. More than instant if that is possible. LOL


    Huawei and ZTE Telecom equipment is banned; existing equipment in use by any carrier will have to be swapped out over time.

    https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/2/17310870/pentagon-ban-huawei-zte-phones-retail-stores-military-bases

    There's more.

    You keep stating it is protectionism, but neither of us has any data one way or another, and in the case of this article, nobody seems to have any data either.
  • Reply 117 of 118
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 1,817member
    Could you please format the Apple quote correctly? Not even quotation marks were used.
  • Reply 118 of 118
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 2,702member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:

    gatorguy said:
    The more specific the denials the more strange this whole thing becomes.

    I don't know of Apple ever being so detailed and vehement in response to a story. When the BBC ran their hit piece on Apple and working conditions in China Mr Cook responded with an internal email leaked to the press. This time Apple came back hard and often in denials. Amazon too has gone with a point by point rebuttal, and likewise I don't recall a similar response in the past.

    At the same time the number of governments sources who would have had to work in concert to cooperate on spreading disinformation thru false statements to Bloomberg is unexplainable, I'm reaching the point personally of leaning towards Apple and Amazon,generally speaking the truth,  but there's really significant questions about what the goal of the both the sources and Bloomberg was if the entire scene was fabricated. It wasn't an Apple hit-piece as they were barely mentioned. It might have been an Amazon hit-piece, but why? No love lost between US intelligence and China but why drag Amazon into it if that was the rationale?

    I would certainly expect some greater detail from Bloomberg considering how hard the push-back has been. Either a retraction in full or part or at least some company official acknowledgement of the questionable aspects would seem appropriate if some more verifiable information isn't forthcoming. Intentional lying on the part of the publication, Apple, or Amazon is very unlikely IMHO so someplace in there is a better explanation of what's going on.

    EDIT; Gruber isn't as quite as convinced by Apple's denials as they were written by Public
    Relations and not attributed to any specific executive making the claims.  Amazon on the other hand was written by a company executive, Steve Schmidt Chief Information Security Officer. He's accountable. I expect much more to come.

    EDIT2: The Senate Intelligence committee may also be looking into this.  Two different members have made that suggestion. 
    As for why the govt would sponsor a hit piece on Amazon... Amazon = Bezos = Washington Post. Trump already criticized them about trying to take advantage of the USPS.

    Gruber said no such thing. He said sure, it’s attributed to Apple PR, but:

    “But in my experience, Apple PR does not lie. Do they spin the truth in ways that favor the company? Of course. That’s their job. But they don’t lie, because they understand that one of Apple’s key assets is its credibility. They’d say nothing before they’d lie.”

    https://daringfireball.net/2018/10/bloomberg_the_big_hack
    https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/10/04/what-businessweek-got-wrong-about-apple

    ...he never said he wasnt as convinced. Nice try. 


    You didn't actually read the whole thing did you, or worse purposefully left out the pertinent part just to argue?:
    Quote: "You can, perhaps, chalk up Apple’s denial to it being written by Apple PR. I don’t think this would happen, but hypothetically this issue could be deemed so sensitive — either within the company or as a national security issue — that the people at Apple with knowledge of the situation lied to Apple PR...
    Schmidt signing his name to Amazon’s response is more telling. "

    I was correct. You weren't. Much more simple to figure that out than the Bloomberg story. ;)
    No you were not correct at all, you’re nuts if that’s how you’re reading that. Gruber is saying “one could say that BUT here’s why that’s wrong”. He’s specially saying you’re wrong. That’s why I left the top half out because he discounts that devil’s advocacy. 

    Jesus man your FUD narrative is pathetic. 
    I said "Gruber isn't as quite as convinced by Apple's denials as they were written by Public Relations...  Amazon on the other hand was written by a company executive, Steve Schmidt Chief Information Security Officer. He's accountable"
    Gruber said:
     "You can, perhaps, chalk up Apple’s denial to it being written by Apple PR.... hypothetically this issue could be deemed so sensitive — either within the company or as a national security issue — that the people at Apple with knowledge of the situation lied to Apple PR...
    "Schmidt signing his name to Amazon’s response is more telling."

    Clear as can be, he was more convinced by the Amazon denial which has no apparent out. Sorry....
    Give it up for a change. 
    Nonsense. Gruber never said HE wasn’t quite convinced — you did. He said “You can, perhaps, [make argument about PR lying]... But they don’t lie. They’d say nothing before they lie.” He’s saying FUD mongers like yourself might try to make that argument, but they’re wrong because of Apple’s refusal to lie, which he fully believes and trusts. 

    You’re just backpeddling now. A rather pathetic showing, but expected from one of our in-house knockoff trolls. Just part of your MO — attempt to distract, split hairs, and argue semantics as part of your FUD campaign.Yet all your wheel-spinning aside, you remain wrong. Apple isn’t lying, and the story is therefore bunk. 
    You are making a very particular interpretation of what Gruber wrote.

    I think you are wrong in interpreting it that way. IMO, Gruber clearly indicates that he sees the Amazon response as having more weight because of who it came from.

    Apple issued a statement that came from 'Apple' and suggests that it could be from Apple PR, and that they faithfully output the information as it was given to them because he is convinced that if the information were false, Apple PR wouldn't say anything. He accepts that it is possible (hypothetically speaking) that the source information that was provided to PR from higher up within Apple may not have been accurate.

    I see it how Gatorguy sees it.

    Gruber is not saying anything about 'fudmongers' or whatever they might do with the idea. 

    If he were so convinced about things and the companies being right, he wouldn't have ended with this:

    "One way or the other, there is more to come on this story, and the credibility of either Bloomberg, or Apple and Amazon, is going to take a significant hit."

    I recall more than a few arguments that I had with you stating that, while politics certainly may have been involved, that U.S. National Security Agencies were the ones that advocated for Limiting or banning Huawei and ZTE products in the U.S. Your retort was that it was merely a protectionist move to protect Apple.

    Now it seems that you are a least partially in on Chinese manufacturers aiding the PLA in spying on US. citizens and interests?

    You need to figure out where you stand on this.


    I know where I stand.

    What I don't have a clue about is what you are saying!

    Recap:

    Huawei and the Chinese government are not the same thing. (I am not even 'partially in' on what you are suggesting.)

    Huawei phones are not banned from sale in the US.

    In spite of the accusations, not a single shred of evidence has been presented to support them.

    US carriers were pressured by government into backing out of deals to distribute Huawei phones this year.

    That was political pressure. If any evidence to support the accusations really existed, Huawei phones would not be allowed to even reach the US.

    It was protectionism. Protectionism without tariffs.

    This article is about supposed government spying/interference.

    Something that happens every day of the year and pretty much on all sides. Even among allies. Need I remind you of the US failure to cover its spying on Merkal? Project Shot Giant?

    Huawei would die an instant death if it were found to be involved in such moves. More than instant if that is possible. LOL


    Huawei and ZTE Telecom equipment is banned; existing equipment in use by any carrier will have to be swapped out over time.

    https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/2/17310870/pentagon-ban-huawei-zte-phones-retail-stores-military-bases

    There's more.

    You keep stating it is protectionism, but neither of us has any data one way or another, and in the case of this article, nobody seems to have any data either.
    But we are talking about handsets and their sale in the US. We are not talking about what employers dictate to their employees.

Sign In or Register to comment.