Apple launched investigation into Bloomberg's China hack claims, 'found nothing'

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 44
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,062member
    JFC_PA said:
    At some point does such damaging reporting about such a specific thing become actionable in court?
    Find and watch an old movie titled “Absence of Malice” starring Sally Field and Paul Newman. The movie addresses this very topic. In another case some might be too young to remember the time NBC had to put Jane Pauley and Stone Phillips on the air to apologize and retract their story about GM trucks having exploding gas tanks. Turns out NBC faked the explosions using incendiary devices to make the tanks catch fire for their report. GM sued NBC for $1 Billion. NBC settled one day later and had Pauley and Phillips conduct a prime time news show to admit what happened and apologize to GM. It was quite a sordid affair that really damaged NBC’s reputation at the time. 

    So it can be done but the press is generally protected from such legal action unless it can be proven they did it intentionally, knowing it was incorrect, and “with malice of forethought."
    edited October 2018 radarthekat
  • Reply 22 of 44
    realisticrealistic Posts: 1,139member
    JFC_PA said:
    At some point does such damaging reporting about such a specific thing become actionable in court?
    We can only hope that Bloomberg can be held accountable.
  • Reply 23 of 44
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 3,979member
    rob53 said:
    So Bloomberg makes an unsubstantiated claim, Apple's stock and reputation falls, yet Bloomberg gets away for free. Elon Musk makes a simple comment that costs him $20M. Why?????

    Apple’s stock and reputation fell because of this story? When? I’m a little confused as to why Apple would go to buzzfeed anonymously. If they did an internal investigation and found nothing why not go on the record about it?
  • Reply 24 of 44
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,062member
    rob53 said:
    So Bloomberg makes an unsubstantiated claim, Apple's stock and reputation falls, yet Bloomberg gets away for free. Elon Musk makes a simple comment that costs him $20M. Why?????

    Apple’s stock and reputation fell because of this story? When? I’m a little confused as to why Apple would go to buzzfeed anonymously. If they did an internal investigation and found nothing why not go on the record about it?
    "Citing multiple high-ranking Apple executives who spoke on the matter anonymously, BuzzFeed News reports...”

    So in other words the same type of “sources” that Bloomberg and other “news” media use. Off the record, anonymous, high ranking, insiders, and any other “source" to make your story without having to prove it. And from the responses we have read in the articles here on AI alone it would appear that some have no trust in anything, choosing to live in a conspiratorial cocoon where nothing is as it seems and all actors are malevolent. I had a brother-in-law like that and he had a conspiracy theory for everything, including a theory abut how the $100 bill had something to do with JFK’s assassination.

    So if this as big a deal as Bloomberg says it is then let’s see one of these compromised servers. If Apple and Amazon are lying then let’s see the SEC start an investigation. But that will never happen, will it. It’s all a conspiracy by the boogeyman de jour, the NSA, Apple, Amazon, Bloomberg. They’re all in on it, right? My faith in human intelligence and reasoning has been going down for years now.

    Apple’s stock and reputation fell because of this story? That’s nonsense. No one but tech blogs care. The market is in a pull back right now and this story has nothing to do with it. In the end, though, stories like this are short seller’s manna from Heaven.

    edited October 2018
  • Reply 25 of 44
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 1,966member
    Why everybody cannot find the evidence? Does Bloomberg think because the chip is a grain of rice nobody can find its reporting fraud or stupidity? I say the evidence is very big you can easily see it at a far distance. The evidence if the allegedly affected thousands of server. Apple used to have them. Amazon used to have them. Why can't Apple find the chip? Is Apple trying to protect China? This is the question Bloomberg trying to plant in the reader's mind. 
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 26 of 44
    Bloomberg seems to be turning in to the National Enquirer of business news.
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 27 of 44
    lkrupp said:

    ...Apple’s stock and reputation fell because of this story? That’s nonsense. No one but tech blogs care. The market is in a pull back right now and this story has nothing to do with it. In the end, though, stories like this are short seller’s manna from Heaven.

    Sorry, lkrupp, you don't get to have it both ways. If you say short sellers hugely benefitted from this story, then you're literally saying the stock and reputation fell because of this story.

    Maybe you'd like to rephrase your statement?
    edited October 2018 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 28 of 44
     This feels like a case of deliberate Stock Market manipulation to me.  I think the SEC ought to be following the money trail left by the Short Sellers who just made billions off of these allogations - with no proof. 
  • Reply 29 of 44
    grifmxgrifmx Posts: 88member
    commercial news, nothing more
  • Reply 30 of 44
    Rayz2016 said:

    Thursday's story claimed Chinese operatives managed to sneak a microchip the size of a grain of rice onto motherboards produced by Supermicro, which supplied the parts for use in Apple's iCloud data centers. The chip, supposedly designed by the Chinese military, was said to act as a "stealth doorway onto any network" and offered "long-term stealth access" to attached computer systems. 

    A chip the size of a grain of rice that can access any network without being detected.

    This is beginning to sound more and more like some of Dan Brown's earlier works.

    I'm afraid Bloomberg's going to have to do much better than a few anonymous sources now. We need to see some solid evidence. Have they got any more details of this alleged chip? If the Chinese military really does have such a device then we should be stealing their IP.
    This is the thing that seems weird to me. Are these existing servers or ones sent to add or replace existing servers? If the former how did the Chinese get into American data centres or are these the ones in China? A chip the size of a grain of rice is still a noticeable sized chip and would need to be inline with the Ethernet chips to get access.
  • Reply 31 of 44
    flydog said:

    JFC_PA said:
    At some point does such damaging reporting about such a specific thing become actionable in court?
    When the statement is false, the statement cause damages, and the person who made the statement knew it was false.  Applying this to Bloomberg, it is unlikely that it would be held liable because there are no damages and the article writer relied on people who represented to the writer that the facts were true. 
    No damages?  Au contraire.  Within hours of the article, the value of the company that makes the servers dropped by 50%, costing investors a billion dollars (collectively).  The damage part of this will be easy to provide.  Reckless disregard for the truth will be harder, but if Apple and Amazon did tell the reporter how wrong he was before publication that will help the case.
    radarthekat
  • Reply 32 of 44
    lkrupp said:

    So it can be done but the press is generally protected from such legal action unless it can be proven they did it intentionally, knowing it was incorrect, and “with malice of forethought."
    Actually the legal term is "malice aforethought."  Lawyers love their funny turns of phrase.
  • Reply 33 of 44
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,040moderator
    flydog said:

    JFC_PA said:
    At some point does such damaging reporting about such a specific thing become actionable in court?
    When the statement is false, the statement cause damages, and the person who made the statement knew it was false.  Applying this to Bloomberg, it is unlikely that it would be held liable because there are no damages and the article writer relied on people who represented to the writer that the facts were true. 
    No damages?  Au contraire.  Within hours of the article, the value of the company that makes the servers dropped by 50%, costing investors a billion dollars (collectively).  The damage part of this will be easy to provide.  Reckless disregard for the truth will be harder, but if Apple and Amazon did tell the reporter how wrong he was before publication that will help the case.
    Exactly.  And Soole is now publicly stating its position so for Bloomberg to not retract is akin to implying Apple is lying, furthering any damage they have already done, and know doing so knowingly.  
  • Reply 34 of 44
    macguimacgui Posts: 1,248member
    lenn said:
    I don't trust either side on this issue. There is no honest news reporting today and Apple, Amazon, Google, ect are all bending over backwards for the Chinese government to chase the almighty dollar.
    Somebody actually found that post— informative?? That's funny, right there. And pretty sad.


  • Reply 35 of 44
    macguimacgui Posts: 1,248member
    lkrupp said:

    So it can be done but the press is generally protected from such legal action unless it can be proven they did it intentionally, knowing it was incorrect, and “with malice of forethought."
    Actually the legal term is "malice aforethought."  Lawyers love their funny turns of phrase.
    Especially since the phrases, as written, are two different things. Somewhat of an important point when arguing points of law in court.
  • Reply 36 of 44
    macguimacgui Posts: 1,248member
    gatorguy said:
    Reportedly executive management and CEO's tend to be kept in the dark for plausible deniability reasons. But after reading this just now I'm a little less firmly in Apple's camp. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" comes to mind.
    A fine example of objective, evidentiary based high level critical thinking. /s

    This is the stuff FUD mountains are made of. 

    dewmerandominternetperson
  • Reply 37 of 44
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,585member
    macgui said:
    gatorguy said:
    Reportedly executive management and CEO's tend to be kept in the dark for plausible deniability reasons. But after reading this just now I'm a little less firmly in Apple's camp. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" comes to mind.
    A fine example of objective, evidentiary based high level critical thinking. /s

    This is the stuff FUD mountains are made of. 

    Has any current Apple executive denied the story on the record? Anyone at all? As far as I know it's only been Apple PR releasing statements.

    This Buzzfeed story is no better than the Bloomberg one in some ways. Why, if there's absolutely nothing true in the Bloomberg story, would those Apple executives who offered comments to Buzzfeed only agree to do so only "off the record"?  Weirder and weirder....

    While originally I had doubts about where the truth was when Apple and Amazon came out with their first set of denials I came around to believing Apple/Amazon as their denials became more specific. While I'm still on Apple's side with this I'm less firmly so less than I was two days ago. A Buzzfeed story claiming absolutely nothing was found after an extensive company-wide investigation but attributed to "multiple high-ranking Apple executives who spoke on the matter anonymously" didn't help anything. 
    edited October 2018
  • Reply 38 of 44
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,585member
    flydog said:

    JFC_PA said:
    At some point does such damaging reporting about such a specific thing become actionable in court?
    When the statement is false, the statement cause damages, and the person who made the statement knew it was false.  Applying this to Bloomberg, it is unlikely that it would be held liable because there are no damages and the article writer relied on people who represented to the writer that the facts were true. 
    No damages?  Au contraire.  Within hours of the article, the value of the company that makes the servers dropped by 50%, costing investors a billion dollars (collectively).  The damage part of this will be easy to provide.  Reckless disregard for the truth will be harder, but if Apple and Amazon did tell the reporter how wrong he was before publication that will help the case.
    Shocked they still had investors if that's true. I thought they had been delisted for somewhat unexplainable accounting issues including failure to submit timely financial reports to the SEC for several consecutive quarters dating back to 2015 when "something happened" to make it impossible for the company to reconcile it's reports. 

    EDIT: And yes that's correct. 
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/super-micros-stock-set-to-be-delisted-as-filing-deadline-wont-be-met-2018-08-22
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-cloud-over-super-micro-adds-to-its-dark-relationship-with-wall-street-2018-10-04

    edited October 2018
  • Reply 39 of 44
    claire1claire1 Posts: 503unconfirmed, member
    lenn said:
    I don't trust either side on this issue. There is no honest news reporting today and Apple, Amazon, Google, ect are all bending over backwards for the Chinese government to chase the almighty dollar.
    Right, comparing Apple to Amazon and Google. You must be new to Apple?

    And you can't decide between Bloomberg and Apple? Hilarious.

    One-post moron see yourself out. >>>
  • Reply 40 of 44
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,612member
    lkrupp said:

    Apple’s stock and reputation fell because of this story? That’s nonsense. No one but tech blogs care. The market is in a pull back right now and this story has nothing to do with it. In the end, though, stories like this are short seller’s manna from Heaven.

    Really?  Or perhaps the story was a distraction to have people look at Amazon and Apple, so no one is paying attention to Supermicro.
    http://fortune.com/2018/10/04/super-micro-shares-hacking/

    And Supermicro's stock prices collapsed even further... they lost over 50% of their value in hours.  I bet (and hope) the feds are looking into the short sellers. There's a huge stink in the air.
Sign In or Register to comment.