"That couldn't ever happen" with our system is the claim of pretty much every security system -- until it happens. It wasn't long ago that science "proved" the "the Negro" was not human and man could not ever fly.
It will be interesting to see if they are able to bury this embarrassing story. It's possible since, in these times, truth seems to be whatever one wants it to be or what serves one's purpose the best.
Again with more of this claptrap nonsense? Nothing will convince you because you have the mind of a conspiracist. You should read up on what that implies about you more than what it implies about the world you live in.
Conspiracist? LOL... Actually, quite the opposite.
Bloomberg presented a wide range of detailed evidence of what happened and how. All we have on the other side is outrage and blanket denial.
I'll go with the facts as they are presented and unfold. We've heard part of this story but, since it is still under federal investigation there is likely more to unfold.
Sorry, but your personal insults won't change either the facts or my opinion.
Bloomberg presented no proof at all. All they have are allegations and a strung-together theory that doesn't hold up. Logically, how are you asking for Apple and Amazon to prove a negative?
Denials from a company under SEC laws and regulations versus Bloomberg with no real accountability to speak of? Yeah, guess which I'm going with.
OK,,, That's fine. I'll go with U.S. Intelligence and the industry whistle blowers (including three from Apple) -- none of whom have any reason to lie or make up a story.
But more importantly, as I pointed out earlier, the informants pointed the finger primarily at Amazon and its AWS -- which Apple was using for its cloud services at the time (2014 & 2015). So: 1) How does Apple credibly deny that Amazon's servers were not affected? They can't.
2) Why did Apple move from Amazon to Google the next year? It could be for the same reason they severed ties with culprit SuperMicro: Distancing themselves from the debacle.
While Apple can credibly deny that it ever installed infected servers, that proves pretty much nothing since Bloomberg's sources never claimed that they did. To claim that they weren't a victim (which is all Bloomberg claimed) is not particularly credible.
And also, as I pointed out earlier: the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle between the overly simple, black and white: "Yes you did -- No I didn't" nonsense we have going on here.
"That couldn't ever happen" with our system is the claim of pretty much every security system -- until it happens. It wasn't long ago that science "proved" the "the Negro" was not human and man could not ever fly.
It will be interesting to see if they are able to bury this embarrassing story. It's possible since, in these times, truth seems to be whatever one wants it to be or what serves one's purpose the best.
Seems to me your head is deeply buried in the sand right now, such a shame, but to be expected for a Trumper...
"That couldn't ever happen" with our system is the claim of pretty much every security system -- until it happens. It wasn't long ago that science "proved" the "the Negro" was not human and man could not ever fly.
It will be interesting to see if they are able to bury this embarrassing story. It's possible since, in these times, truth seems to be whatever one wants it to be or what serves one's purpose the best.
Again with more of this claptrap nonsense? Nothing will convince you because you have the mind of a conspiracist. You should read up on what that implies about you more than what it implies about the world you live in.
Conspiracist? LOL... Actually, quite the opposite.
Bloomberg presented a wide range of detailed evidence of what happened and how. All we have on the other side is outrage and blanket denial.
I'll go with the facts as they are presented and unfold. We've heard part of this story but, since it is still under federal investigation there is likely more to unfold.
Sorry, but your personal insults won't change either the facts or my opinion.
Facts??? What facts? Bloomberg presented ZERO evidence and only THEORIES... They could EASILY have gotten their hands on one of the “supposed” servers that have been compromised in their claimed fashion to show to the world their article is credible, but they have ZERO evidence, as you seem to think they do. Wake up and stop being a blind troll!
We now have security experts and scientists / engineers providing DETAILED technical rebuttals as to why the Bloomberg story is nonsensical, but you are just refusing to listen to them, and instead are persisting to have your head in the sand! Eventually you’ll croak under there with no oxygen!
If Bloomberg really knew how a tiny chip could do everything they claim in the story, they should patent it and make billions of dollars by licensing the technology.
It's not Bloomberg making the claim. It's a whole bunch of high level Intelligence officials and industry insiders. Bloomberg merely reports what they say happened.
And what good is the claims of “industry insiders” when they cannot provide even a tiny SHRED of evidence to backup their claims to provide some credibility? This can be done without exposing their identities and keeping them anonymous.
"That couldn't ever happen" with our system is the claim of pretty much every security system -- until it happens. It wasn't long ago that science "proved" the "the Negro" was not human and man could not ever fly.
It will be interesting to see if they are able to bury this embarrassing story. It's possible since, in these times, truth seems to be whatever one wants it to be or what serves one's purpose the best.
Again with more of this claptrap nonsense? Nothing will convince you because you have the mind of a conspiracist. You should read up on what that implies about you more than what it implies about the world you live in.
Can you ban this troll please??? His spam-polluting garbage is getting tiresome and hijacking legitimate threads here...
So, disagreeing with an opinion ("Apple are the good guys!") makes me a troll? LOL...
By the way, you might first want to check your facts since pretty much everything you said was nonsense.
"That couldn't ever happen" with our system is the claim of pretty much every security system -- until it happens. It wasn't long ago that science "proved" the "the Negro" was not human and man could not ever fly.
It will be interesting to see if they are able to bury this embarrassing story. It's possible since, in these times, truth seems to be whatever one wants it to be or what serves one's purpose the best.
Again with more of this claptrap nonsense? Nothing will convince you because you have the mind of a conspiracist. You should read up on what that implies about you more than what it implies about the world you live in.
Conspiracist? LOL... Actually, quite the opposite.
Bloomberg presented a wide range of detailed evidence of what happened and how. All we have on the other side is outrage and blanket denial.
I'll go with the facts as they are presented and unfold. We've heard part of this story but, since it is still under federal investigation there is likely more to unfold.
Sorry, but your personal insults won't change either the facts or my opinion.
Bloomberg presented no proof at all. All they have are allegations and a strung-together theory that doesn't hold up. Logically, how are you asking for Apple and Amazon to prove a negative?
Denials from a company under SEC laws and regulations versus Bloomberg with no real accountability to speak of? Yeah, guess which I'm going with.
OK,,, That's fine. I'll go with U.S. Intelligence and the industry whistle blowers (including three from Apple) -- none of whom have any reason to lie or make up a story.
But more importantly, as I pointed out earlier, the informants pointed the finger primarily at Amazon and its AWS -- which Apple was using for its cloud services at the time (2014 & 2015). So: 1) How does Apple credibly deny that Amazon's servers were not affected? They can't.
2) Why did Apple move from Amazon to Google the next year? It could be for the same reason they severed ties with culprit SuperMicro: Distancing themselves from the debacle.
While Apple can credibly deny that it ever installed infected servers, that proves pretty much nothing since Bloomberg's sources never claimed that they did. To claim that they weren't a victim (which is all Bloomberg claimed) is not particularly credible.
And also, as I pointed out earlier: the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle between the overly simple, black and white: "Yes you did -- No I didn't" nonsense we have going on here.
Evidence? This is my standard of evidence. It is the same that Neil deGrasse Tyson discusses about UFOs. - As Tyson states; Eye witness testimony is weak compared with physical evidence. With the Apple server issue; show a server board with the chip which does the hack which can be examined. - Anonymous informants with just theories/speculation can be wrong. * An example; several informants in the early 2000s had theories that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The informants never produced any solid evidence of WMDs (including no photos). The US led invasion in the Iraq War found no evidence of WMDs in Iraq. * Theories by informants by itself does not = solid credible evidence.
tzeshan said: You have no idea what is evidence. Anonymous evidence is not evidence. After two thousand years of learning how to find truths, the western culture still fails to educate everyone what makes an evidence.
It can be evidence, but needs to be part of a circumstantial case, not used solely. i.e.: an anonymous Tweet shouldn't be the basis for the majority of the news (as it too often is these days).
GeorgeBMac said: OK,,, That's fine. I'll go with U.S. Intelligence and the industry whistle blowers (including three from Apple) -- none of whom have any reason to lie or make up a story. ...
And also, as I pointed out earlier: the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle between the overly simple, black and white: "Yes you did -- No I didn't" nonsense we have going on here.
Hmm, I hadn't heard US intelligence agencies said it was the case? (Not that I expect to get truth from US intelligence!). I'll agree with you that if the story was true, and the companies and government wanted to cover it up (for whatever reason), it would be unlikely we'd get to the bottom of it these days before the next squirrel shows up.
bb-15 said: Evidence? This is my standard of evidence. It is the same that Neil deGrasse Tyson discusses about UFOs.
- As Tyson states; Eye witness testimony is weak compared with physical evidence. With the Apple server issue; show a server board with the chip which does the hack which can be examined. - Anonymous informants with just theories/speculation can be wrong. * An example; several informants in the early 2000s had theories that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The informants never produced any solid evidence of WMDs (including no photos). The US led invasion in the Iraq War found no evidence of WMDs in Iraq. * Theories by informants by itself does not = solid credible evidence.
Aside from Tyson being an moron shill.... That's total baloney about eye witness vs physical evidence, aside from (sometimes) the ability to re-test and replicate physical evidence. Each have their strengths. For example, physical evidence can be misinterpreted (ex: maybe you have witness testimony in a court case that counters DNA evidence that was misinterpreted). The key is to build a circumstantial case that doesn't rely on a single piece of evidence.
re: WMDs - if my memory serves, they claimed to have more than theories. Propaganda isn't the same as mistaken theories.
"That couldn't ever happen" with our system is the claim of pretty much every security system -- until it happens. It wasn't long ago that science "proved" the "the Negro" was not human and man could not ever fly.
It will be interesting to see if they are able to bury this embarrassing story. It's possible since, in these times, truth seems to be whatever one wants it to be or what serves one's purpose the best.
Again with more of this claptrap nonsense? Nothing will convince you because you have the mind of a conspiracist. You should read up on what that implies about you more than what it implies about the world you live in.
Conspiracist? LOL... Actually, quite the opposite.
Bloomberg presented a wide range of detailed evidence of what happened and how. All we have on the other side is outrage and blanket denial.
I'll go with the facts as they are presented and unfold. We've heard part of this story but, since it is still under federal investigation there is likely more to unfold.
Sorry, but your personal insults won't change either the facts or my opinion.
Bloomberg presented no proof at all. All they have are allegations and a strung-together theory that doesn't hold up. Logically, how are you asking for Apple and Amazon to prove a negative?
Denials from a company under SEC laws and regulations versus Bloomberg with no real accountability to speak of? Yeah, guess which I'm going with.
OK,,, That's fine. I'll go with U.S. Intelligence and the industry whistle blowers (including three from Apple) -- none of whom have any reason to lie or make up a story.
But more importantly, as I pointed out earlier, the informants pointed the finger primarily at Amazon and its AWS -- which Apple was using for its cloud services at the time (2014 & 2015). So: 1) How does Apple credibly deny that Amazon's servers were not affected? They can't.
2) Why did Apple move from Amazon to Google the next year? It could be for the same reason they severed ties with culprit SuperMicro: Distancing themselves from the debacle.
While Apple can credibly deny that it ever installed infected servers, that proves pretty much nothing since Bloomberg's sources never claimed that they did. To claim that they weren't a victim (which is all Bloomberg claimed) is not particularly credible.
And also, as I pointed out earlier: the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle between the overly simple, black and white: "Yes you did -- No I didn't" nonsense we have going on here.
Evidence? This is my standard of evidence. It is the same that Neil deGrasse Tyson discusses about UFOs. - As Tyson states; Eye witness testimony is weak compared with physical evidence. With the Apple server issue; show a server board with the chip which does the hack which can be examined. - Anonymous informants with just theories/speculation can be wrong. * An example; several informants in the early 2000s had theories that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The informants never produced any solid evidence of WMDs (including no photos). The US led invasion in the Iraq War found no evidence of WMDs in Iraq. * Theories by informants by itself does not = solid credible evidence.
I agree...
But then I have no more reason to believe Apple than I do Bloomberg.
But, for me, right now, the weight of the evidence points in Bloomberg's favor -- they have 17 credible witnesses ranging from intelligence officials to industry insiders who have no reason to lie or make up a story.
But even Apple's denial adds to that evidence against them: Apple claims that they never found any evidence of tampering in one of their servers. That's nice.
But, Bloomberg never said they did. Instead, they point to servers used by Amazon's AWS -- which Apple used to store iCloud data during the period when the attack occurred (2014 & 2015). Of course Apple didn't find any affected servers -- they can't search Amazon's hardware! So how can they claim that iCloud data was never on an affected Amazon server? Answer: They can't and they didn't.
And the idea that iCloud data sat on affected AWS servers is reinforced by the fact that, the next year (2016) Apple suddenly and inexplicably moved their data from Amazon's AWS servers to their arch rival: Google. One could claim that was pure coincidence. One could claim that. But, if they knew that Amazon's servers had been compromised, it would make sense for them to distance themselves from that debacle -- the same as they did by severing their connections to SuperMicro.
Nope, you're correct that we have no definitive proof (ether way). But, I'll go with Bloomberg on this one. The evidence seems to be on their side.
Hmm, I hadn't heard US intelligence agencies said it was the case? (Not that I expect to get truth from US intelligence!). I'll agree with you that if the story was true, and the companies and government wanted to cover it up (for whatever reason), it would be unlikely we'd get to the bottom of it these days before the next squirrel shows up.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. It wasn't U.S. Intelligence agencies. It was officials from those agencies.
From the article: "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"
"That couldn't ever happen" with our system is the claim of pretty much every security system -- until it happens. It wasn't long ago that science "proved" the "the Negro" was not human and man could not ever fly.
It will be interesting to see if they are able to bury this embarrassing story. It's possible since, in these times, truth seems to be whatever one wants it to be or what serves one's purpose the best.
Seems to me your head is deeply buried in the sand right now, such a shame, but to be expected for a Trumper...
"That couldn't ever happen" with our system is the claim of pretty much every security system -- until it happens. It wasn't long ago that science "proved" the "the Negro" was not human and man could not ever fly.
It will be interesting to see if they are able to bury this embarrassing story. It's possible since, in these times, truth seems to be whatever one wants it to be or what serves one's purpose the best.
Again with more of this claptrap nonsense? Nothing will convince you because you have the mind of a conspiracist. You should read up on what that implies about you more than what it implies about the world you live in.
Conspiracist? LOL... Actually, quite the opposite.
Bloomberg presented a wide range of detailed evidence of what happened and how. All we have on the other side is outrage and blanket denial.
I'll go with the facts as they are presented and unfold. We've heard part of this story but, since it is still under federal investigation there is likely more to unfold.
Sorry, but your personal insults won't change either the facts or my opinion.
Facts??? What facts? Bloomberg presented ZERO evidence and only THEORIES... They could EASILY have gotten their hands on one of the “supposed” servers that have been compromised in their claimed fashion to show to the world their article is credible, but they have ZERO evidence, as you seem to think they do. Wake up and stop being a blind troll!
We now have security experts and scientists / engineers providing DETAILED technical rebuttals as to why the Bloomberg story is nonsensical, but you are just refusing to listen to them, and instead are persisting to have your head in the sand! Eventually you’ll croak under there with no oxygen!
If Bloomberg really knew how a tiny chip could do everything they claim in the story, they should patent it and make billions of dollars by licensing the technology.
It's not Bloomberg making the claim. It's a whole bunch of high level Intelligence officials and industry insiders. Bloomberg merely reports what they say happened.
And what good is the claims of “industry insiders” when they cannot provide even a tiny SHRED of evidence to backup their claims to provide some credibility? This can be done without exposing their identities and keeping them anonymous.
"That couldn't ever happen" with our system is the claim of pretty much every security system -- until it happens. It wasn't long ago that science "proved" the "the Negro" was not human and man could not ever fly.
It will be interesting to see if they are able to bury this embarrassing story. It's possible since, in these times, truth seems to be whatever one wants it to be or what serves one's purpose the best.
Again with more of this claptrap nonsense? Nothing will convince you because you have the mind of a conspiracist. You should read up on what that implies about you more than what it implies about the world you live in.
Can you ban this troll please??? His spam-polluting garbage is getting tiresome and hijacking legitimate threads here...
So, disagreeing with an opinion ("Apple are the good guys!") makes me a troll? LOL...
By the way, you might first want to check your facts since pretty much everything you said was nonsense.
You are only focusing on Apple here, even though MULTIPLE other companies have been named by Bloomberg, thus reinforcing your position as a troll as you're only trying to stir the pot with the Apple users... And NOTHING I said was nonsense as you fallaciously imply, as my statements were backed up by interviews conducted with people that are now coming out against Bloomberg's BS story, as you would know if your head wasn't stuck in the sand and actually took the time to read instead of blather cluelessly...
"That couldn't ever happen" with our system is the claim of pretty much every security system -- until it happens. It wasn't long ago that science "proved" the "the Negro" was not human and man could not ever fly.
It will be interesting to see if they are able to bury this embarrassing story. It's possible since, in these times, truth seems to be whatever one wants it to be or what serves one's purpose the best.
Again with more of this claptrap nonsense? Nothing will convince you because you have the mind of a conspiracist. You should read up on what that implies about you more than what it implies about the world you live in.
Conspiracist? LOL... Actually, quite the opposite.
Bloomberg presented a wide range of detailed evidence of what happened and how. All we have on the other side is outrage and blanket denial.
I'll go with the facts as they are presented and unfold. We've heard part of this story but, since it is still under federal investigation there is likely more to unfold.
Sorry, but your personal insults won't change either the facts or my opinion.
Bloomberg presented no proof at all. All they have are allegations and a strung-together theory that doesn't hold up. Logically, how are you asking for Apple and Amazon to prove a negative?
Denials from a company under SEC laws and regulations versus Bloomberg with no real accountability to speak of? Yeah, guess which I'm going with.
OK,,, That's fine. I'll go with U.S. Intelligence and the industry whistle blowers (including three from Apple) -- none of whom have any reason to lie or make up a story.
But more importantly, as I pointed out earlier, the informants pointed the finger primarily at Amazon and its AWS -- which Apple was using for its cloud services at the time (2014 & 2015). So: 1) How does Apple credibly deny that Amazon's servers were not affected? They can't.
2) Why did Apple move from Amazon to Google the next year? It could be for the same reason they severed ties with culprit SuperMicro: Distancing themselves from the debacle.
While Apple can credibly deny that it ever installed infected servers, that proves pretty much nothing since Bloomberg's sources never claimed that they did. To claim that they weren't a victim (which is all Bloomberg claimed) is not particularly credible.
And also, as I pointed out earlier: the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle between the overly simple, black and white: "Yes you did -- No I didn't" nonsense we have going on here.
You are obviously one of those government-loving people who chose to believe an organization who lies openly EVERY SINGLE DAY, over facts...
- Apple has not denied Amazon's servers were not affected, Amazon made this denial directly - You have ZERO evidence that Apple moved away from Amazon (not in its entirety) servers to Google, this is your stupid tinfoil conspiracy working overtime - Apple is not the only company who is vehemently denying the installation, let alone the existence, of compromised hardware; you are again being a troll by targeting only Apple in your arguments on an Apple forum thus attempting to stir the pot with those who either defend Apple, or are more knowledgeable than you to what happens at Apple, thus making you a troll
"That couldn't ever happen" with our system is the claim of pretty much every security system -- until it happens. It wasn't long ago that science "proved" the "the Negro" was not human and man could not ever fly.
It will be interesting to see if they are able to bury this embarrassing story. It's possible since, in these times, truth seems to be whatever one wants it to be or what serves one's purpose the best.
Again with more of this claptrap nonsense? Nothing will convince you because you have the mind of a conspiracist. You should read up on what that implies about you more than what it implies about the world you live in.
Conspiracist? LOL... Actually, quite the opposite.
Bloomberg presented a wide range of detailed evidence of what happened and how. All we have on the other side is outrage and blanket denial.
I'll go with the facts as they are presented and unfold. We've heard part of this story but, since it is still under federal investigation there is likely more to unfold.
Sorry, but your personal insults won't change either the facts or my opinion.
Bloomberg presented no proof at all. All they have are allegations and a strung-together theory that doesn't hold up. Logically, how are you asking for Apple and Amazon to prove a negative?
Denials from a company under SEC laws and regulations versus Bloomberg with no real accountability to speak of? Yeah, guess which I'm going with.
OK,,, That's fine. I'll go with U.S. Intelligence and the industry whistle blowers (including three from Apple) -- none of whom have any reason to lie or make up a story.
But more importantly, as I pointed out earlier, the informants pointed the finger primarily at Amazon and its AWS -- which Apple was using for its cloud services at the time (2014 & 2015). So: 1) How does Apple credibly deny that Amazon's servers were not affected? They can't.
2) Why did Apple move from Amazon to Google the next year? It could be for the same reason they severed ties with culprit SuperMicro: Distancing themselves from the debacle.
While Apple can credibly deny that it ever installed infected servers, that proves pretty much nothing since Bloomberg's sources never claimed that they did. To claim that they weren't a victim (which is all Bloomberg claimed) is not particularly credible.
And also, as I pointed out earlier: the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle between the overly simple, black and white: "Yes you did -- No I didn't" nonsense we have going on here.
Evidence? This is my standard of evidence. It is the same that Neil deGrasse Tyson discusses about UFOs. - As Tyson states; Eye witness testimony is weak compared with physical evidence. With the Apple server issue; show a server board with the chip which does the hack which can be examined. - Anonymous informants with just theories/speculation can be wrong. * An example; several informants in the early 2000s had theories that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The informants never produced any solid evidence of WMDs (including no photos). The US led invasion in the Iraq War found no evidence of WMDs in Iraq. * Theories by informants by itself does not = solid credible evidence.
I agree...
But then I have no more reason to believe Apple than I do Bloomberg.
But, for me, right now, the weight of the evidence points in Bloomberg's favor -- they have 17 credible witnesses ranging from intelligence officials to industry insiders who have no reason to lie or make up a story.
But even Apple's denial adds to that evidence against them: Apple claims that they never found any evidence of tampering in one of their servers. That's nice.
But, Bloomberg never said they did. Instead, they point to servers used by Amazon's AWS -- which Apple used to store iCloud data during the period when the attack occurred (2014 & 2015). Of course Apple didn't find any affected servers -- they can't search Amazon's hardware! So how can they claim that iCloud data was never on an affected Amazon server? Answer: They can't and they didn't.
And the idea that iCloud data sat on affected AWS servers is reinforced by the fact that, the next year (2016) Apple suddenly and inexplicably moved their data from Amazon's AWS servers to their arch rival: Google. One could claim that was pure coincidence. One could claim that. But, if they knew that Amazon's servers had been compromised, it would make sense for them to distance themselves from that debacle -- the same as they did by severing their connections to SuperMicro.
Nope, you're correct that we have no definitive proof (ether way). But, I'll go with Bloomberg on this one. The evidence seems to be on their side.
You moron, "credible witnesses" that only bring conjecture and accusations with ZERO physical evidence (not even a photograph) even though they claim THOUSANDS of servers were impacted, is not evidence at all. Only tinfoil conspiracy theorist like you would take something like this and run with it as proven fact and evidence!
And now you even distort facts to support your tinfoil conclusions... Bloomberg DID claim Apple's in-house data centres were compromised with servers from SuperMicro, and not just the iCloud data they stored with third-party service providers like AWS and Google! Not only are you a trolling tinfoil conspiracy theorist, you're a blunt liar! And a dumb one at that, since you're now basing your going with Bloomberg on nothing but, literally, hot air and meaningless "proof".
tzeshan said: You have no idea what is evidence. Anonymous evidence is not evidence. After two thousand years of learning how to find truths, the western culture still fails to educate everyone what makes an evidence.
It can be evidence, but needs to be part of a circumstantial case, not used solely. i.e.: an anonymous Tweet shouldn't be the basis for the majority of the news (as it too often is these days).
GeorgeBMac said: OK,,, That's fine. I'll go with U.S. Intelligence and the industry whistle blowers (including three from Apple) -- none of whom have any reason to lie or make up a story. ...
And also, as I pointed out earlier: the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle between the overly simple, black and white: "Yes you did -- No I didn't" nonsense we have going on here.
Hmm, I hadn't heard US intelligence agencies said it was the case? (Not that I expect to get truth from US intelligence!). I'll agree with you that if the story was true, and the companies and government wanted to cover it up (for whatever reason), it would be unlikely we'd get to the bottom of it these days before the next squirrel shows up.
bb-15 said: Evidence? This is my standard of evidence. It is the same that Neil deGrasse Tyson discusses about UFOs.
- As Tyson states; Eye witness testimony is weak compared with physical evidence. With the Apple server issue; show a server board with the chip which does the hack which can be examined. - Anonymous informants with just theories/speculation can be wrong. * An example; several informants in the early 2000s had theories that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The informants never produced any solid evidence of WMDs (including no photos). The US led invasion in the Iraq War found no evidence of WMDs in Iraq. * Theories by informants by itself does not = solid credible evidence.
Aside from Tyson being an moron shill.... That's total baloney about eye witness vs physical evidence, aside from (sometimes) the ability to re-test and replicate physical evidence. Each have their strengths. For example, physical evidence can be misinterpreted (ex: maybe you have witness testimony in a court case that counters DNA evidence that was misinterpreted). The key is to build a circumstantial case that doesn't rely on a single piece of evidence.
re: WMDs - if my memory serves, they claimed to have more than theories. Propaganda isn't the same as mistaken theories.
I wouldn't bother with this troll, he's not only a tinfoil nut job, but he's now twisting, cherry picking facts, and down right lying to try and prop up his baseless FUD.
The quicker the admins here ban this idiot the better off the forums will be!
I fully endorse that Bloomberg should provide verifiable evidence in order to claim the news is a fact same as giving verifiable evidence that there is God. Otherwise, people will continue to deny the hack and continue to deny the God. On the contrary, Bloomberg should retract the article and Christianity should forget the Bible.
GeorgeBMac said: Apple claims that they never found any evidence of tampering in one of their servers. That's nice.
But, Bloomberg never said they did. Instead, they point to servers used by Amazon's AWS -- which Apple used to store iCloud data during the period when the attack occurred (2014 & 2015). Of course Apple didn't find any affected servers -- they can't search Amazon's hardware! So how can they claim that iCloud data was never on an affected Amazon server? Answer: They can't and they didn't.
And the idea that iCloud data sat on affected AWS servers is reinforced by the fact that, the next year (2016) Apple suddenly and inexplicably moved their data from Amazon's AWS servers to their arch rival: Google.
That's interesting... I can't recall the exact timing, but a couple of higher end web-hosting services switched from AWS to Google somewhere back about that far.
magman1979 said: even though they claim THOUSANDS of servers were impacted, is not evidence at all. Only tinfoil conspiracy theorist like you would take something like this and run with it as proven fact and evidence!
And now you even distort facts to support your tinfoil conclusions... Bloomberg DID claim Apple's in-house data centres were compromised with servers from SuperMicro, and not just the iCloud data they stored with third-party service providers like AWS and Google!
Yeah, that was the part that initially gave me the baloney vibe. They wouldn't build such a thing into thousands of machines distributed everywhere, but just into certain ones destined for certain clients. Otherwise, they'd be too easily discovered. And, I thought it was about Apple's data centers and not just AWS, so if that's the case then I agree it wouldn't just be Apple releasing a trickily-worded statement to get around it.
magman1979 said: I wouldn't bother with this troll, he's not only a tinfoil nut job, but he's now twisting, cherry picking facts, and down right lying to try and prop up his baseless FUD.
The quicker the admins here ban this idiot the better off the forums will be!
I appreciate the advice, but aren't you getting just a bit too worked up over this? I've been in many conversations with GeorgeBMac since I joined A.I. on several topics. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree and get in heated conversations. But, this reaction seems a bit over the top.
"That couldn't ever happen" with our system is the claim of pretty much every security system -- until it happens. It wasn't long ago that science "proved" the "the Negro" was not human and man could not ever fly.
It will be interesting to see if they are able to bury this embarrassing story. It's possible since, in these times, truth seems to be whatever one wants it to be or what serves one's purpose the best.
Seems to me your head is deeply buried in the sand right now, such a shame, but to be expected for a Trumper...
"That couldn't ever happen" with our system is the claim of pretty much every security system -- until it happens. It wasn't long ago that science "proved" the "the Negro" was not human and man could not ever fly.
It will be interesting to see if they are able to bury this embarrassing story. It's possible since, in these times, truth seems to be whatever one wants it to be or what serves one's purpose the best.
Again with more of this claptrap nonsense? Nothing will convince you because you have the mind of a conspiracist. You should read up on what that implies about you more than what it implies about the world you live in.
Conspiracist? LOL... Actually, quite the opposite.
Bloomberg presented a wide range of detailed evidence of what happened and how. All we have on the other side is outrage and blanket denial.
I'll go with the facts as they are presented and unfold. We've heard part of this story but, since it is still under federal investigation there is likely more to unfold.
Sorry, but your personal insults won't change either the facts or my opinion.
Facts??? What facts? Bloomberg presented ZERO evidence and only THEORIES... They could EASILY have gotten their hands on one of the “supposed” servers that have been compromised in their claimed fashion to show to the world their article is credible, but they have ZERO evidence, as you seem to think they do. Wake up and stop being a blind troll!
We now have security experts and scientists / engineers providing DETAILED technical rebuttals as to why the Bloomberg story is nonsensical, but you are just refusing to listen to them, and instead are persisting to have your head in the sand! Eventually you’ll croak under there with no oxygen!
If Bloomberg really knew how a tiny chip could do everything they claim in the story, they should patent it and make billions of dollars by licensing the technology.
It's not Bloomberg making the claim. It's a whole bunch of high level Intelligence officials and industry insiders. Bloomberg merely reports what they say happened.
And what good is the claims of “industry insiders” when they cannot provide even a tiny SHRED of evidence to backup their claims to provide some credibility? This can be done without exposing their identities and keeping them anonymous.
"That couldn't ever happen" with our system is the claim of pretty much every security system -- until it happens. It wasn't long ago that science "proved" the "the Negro" was not human and man could not ever fly.
It will be interesting to see if they are able to bury this embarrassing story. It's possible since, in these times, truth seems to be whatever one wants it to be or what serves one's purpose the best.
Again with more of this claptrap nonsense? Nothing will convince you because you have the mind of a conspiracist. You should read up on what that implies about you more than what it implies about the world you live in.
Can you ban this troll please??? His spam-polluting garbage is getting tiresome and hijacking legitimate threads here...
So, disagreeing with an opinion ("Apple are the good guys!") makes me a troll? LOL...
By the way, you might first want to check your facts since pretty much everything you said was nonsense.
You are only focusing on Apple here, even though MULTIPLE other companies have been named by Bloomberg, thus reinforcing your position as a troll as you're only trying to stir the pot with the Apple users... And NOTHING I said was nonsense as you fallaciously imply, as my statements were backed up by interviews conducted with people that are now coming out against Bloomberg's BS story, as you would know if your head wasn't stuck in the sand and actually took the time to read instead of blather cluelessly...
"That couldn't ever happen" with our system is the claim of pretty much every security system -- until it happens. It wasn't long ago that science "proved" the "the Negro" was not human and man could not ever fly.
It will be interesting to see if they are able to bury this embarrassing story. It's possible since, in these times, truth seems to be whatever one wants it to be or what serves one's purpose the best.
Again with more of this claptrap nonsense? Nothing will convince you because you have the mind of a conspiracist. You should read up on what that implies about you more than what it implies about the world you live in.
Conspiracist? LOL... Actually, quite the opposite.
Bloomberg presented a wide range of detailed evidence of what happened and how. All we have on the other side is outrage and blanket denial.
I'll go with the facts as they are presented and unfold. We've heard part of this story but, since it is still under federal investigation there is likely more to unfold.
Sorry, but your personal insults won't change either the facts or my opinion.
Bloomberg presented no proof at all. All they have are allegations and a strung-together theory that doesn't hold up. Logically, how are you asking for Apple and Amazon to prove a negative?
Denials from a company under SEC laws and regulations versus Bloomberg with no real accountability to speak of? Yeah, guess which I'm going with.
OK,,, That's fine. I'll go with U.S. Intelligence and the industry whistle blowers (including three from Apple) -- none of whom have any reason to lie or make up a story.
But more importantly, as I pointed out earlier, the informants pointed the finger primarily at Amazon and its AWS -- which Apple was using for its cloud services at the time (2014 & 2015). So: 1) How does Apple credibly deny that Amazon's servers were not affected? They can't.
2) Why did Apple move from Amazon to Google the next year? It could be for the same reason they severed ties with culprit SuperMicro: Distancing themselves from the debacle.
While Apple can credibly deny that it ever installed infected servers, that proves pretty much nothing since Bloomberg's sources never claimed that they did. To claim that they weren't a victim (which is all Bloomberg claimed) is not particularly credible.
And also, as I pointed out earlier: the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle between the overly simple, black and white: "Yes you did -- No I didn't" nonsense we have going on here.
You are obviously one of those government-loving people who chose to believe an organization who lies openly EVERY SINGLE DAY, over facts...
- Apple has not denied Amazon's servers were not affected, Amazon made this denial directly - You have ZERO evidence that Apple moved away from Amazon (not in its entirety) servers to Google, this is your stupid tinfoil conspiracy working overtime - Apple is not the only company who is vehemently denying the installation, let alone the existence, of compromised hardware; you are again being a troll by targeting only Apple in your arguments on an Apple forum thus attempting to stir the pot with those who either defend Apple, or are more knowledgeable than you to what happens at Apple, thus making you a troll
"That couldn't ever happen" with our system is the claim of pretty much every security system -- until it happens. It wasn't long ago that science "proved" the "the Negro" was not human and man could not ever fly.
It will be interesting to see if they are able to bury this embarrassing story. It's possible since, in these times, truth seems to be whatever one wants it to be or what serves one's purpose the best.
Again with more of this claptrap nonsense? Nothing will convince you because you have the mind of a conspiracist. You should read up on what that implies about you more than what it implies about the world you live in.
Conspiracist? LOL... Actually, quite the opposite.
Bloomberg presented a wide range of detailed evidence of what happened and how. All we have on the other side is outrage and blanket denial.
I'll go with the facts as they are presented and unfold. We've heard part of this story but, since it is still under federal investigation there is likely more to unfold.
Sorry, but your personal insults won't change either the facts or my opinion.
Bloomberg presented no proof at all. All they have are allegations and a strung-together theory that doesn't hold up. Logically, how are you asking for Apple and Amazon to prove a negative?
Denials from a company under SEC laws and regulations versus Bloomberg with no real accountability to speak of? Yeah, guess which I'm going with.
OK,,, That's fine. I'll go with U.S. Intelligence and the industry whistle blowers (including three from Apple) -- none of whom have any reason to lie or make up a story.
But more importantly, as I pointed out earlier, the informants pointed the finger primarily at Amazon and its AWS -- which Apple was using for its cloud services at the time (2014 & 2015). So: 1) How does Apple credibly deny that Amazon's servers were not affected? They can't.
2) Why did Apple move from Amazon to Google the next year? It could be for the same reason they severed ties with culprit SuperMicro: Distancing themselves from the debacle.
While Apple can credibly deny that it ever installed infected servers, that proves pretty much nothing since Bloomberg's sources never claimed that they did. To claim that they weren't a victim (which is all Bloomberg claimed) is not particularly credible.
And also, as I pointed out earlier: the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle between the overly simple, black and white: "Yes you did -- No I didn't" nonsense we have going on here.
Evidence? This is my standard of evidence. It is the same that Neil deGrasse Tyson discusses about UFOs. - As Tyson states; Eye witness testimony is weak compared with physical evidence. With the Apple server issue; show a server board with the chip which does the hack which can be examined. - Anonymous informants with just theories/speculation can be wrong. * An example; several informants in the early 2000s had theories that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The informants never produced any solid evidence of WMDs (including no photos). The US led invasion in the Iraq War found no evidence of WMDs in Iraq. * Theories by informants by itself does not = solid credible evidence.
I agree...
But then I have no more reason to believe Apple than I do Bloomberg.
But, for me, right now, the weight of the evidence points in Bloomberg's favor -- they have 17 credible witnesses ranging from intelligence officials to industry insiders who have no reason to lie or make up a story.
But even Apple's denial adds to that evidence against them: Apple claims that they never found any evidence of tampering in one of their servers. That's nice.
But, Bloomberg never said they did. Instead, they point to servers used by Amazon's AWS -- which Apple used to store iCloud data during the period when the attack occurred (2014 & 2015). Of course Apple didn't find any affected servers -- they can't search Amazon's hardware! So how can they claim that iCloud data was never on an affected Amazon server? Answer: They can't and they didn't.
And the idea that iCloud data sat on affected AWS servers is reinforced by the fact that, the next year (2016) Apple suddenly and inexplicably moved their data from Amazon's AWS servers to their arch rival: Google. One could claim that was pure coincidence. One could claim that. But, if they knew that Amazon's servers had been compromised, it would make sense for them to distance themselves from that debacle -- the same as they did by severing their connections to SuperMicro.
Nope, you're correct that we have no definitive proof (ether way). But, I'll go with Bloomberg on this one. The evidence seems to be on their side.
You moron, "credible witnesses" that only bring conjecture and accusations with ZERO physical evidence (not even a photograph) even though they claim THOUSANDS of servers were impacted, is not evidence at all. Only tinfoil conspiracy theorist like you would take something like this and run with it as proven fact and evidence!
And now you even distort facts to support your tinfoil conclusions... Bloomberg DID claim Apple's in-house data centres were compromised with servers from SuperMicro, and not just the iCloud data they stored with third-party service providers like AWS and Google! Not only are you a trolling tinfoil conspiracy theorist, you're a blunt liar! And a dumb one at that, since you're now basing your going with Bloomberg on nothing but, literally, hot air and meaningless "proof".
tzeshan said: You have no idea what is evidence. Anonymous evidence is not evidence. After two thousand years of learning how to find truths, the western culture still fails to educate everyone what makes an evidence.
It can be evidence, but needs to be part of a circumstantial case, not used solely. i.e.: an anonymous Tweet shouldn't be the basis for the majority of the news (as it too often is these days).
GeorgeBMac said: OK,,, That's fine. I'll go with U.S. Intelligence and the industry whistle blowers (including three from Apple) -- none of whom have any reason to lie or make up a story. ...
And also, as I pointed out earlier: the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle between the overly simple, black and white: "Yes you did -- No I didn't" nonsense we have going on here.
Hmm, I hadn't heard US intelligence agencies said it was the case? (Not that I expect to get truth from US intelligence!). I'll agree with you that if the story was true, and the companies and government wanted to cover it up (for whatever reason), it would be unlikely we'd get to the bottom of it these days before the next squirrel shows up.
bb-15 said: Evidence? This is my standard of evidence. It is the same that Neil deGrasse Tyson discusses about UFOs.
- As Tyson states; Eye witness testimony is weak compared with physical evidence. With the Apple server issue; show a server board with the chip which does the hack which can be examined. - Anonymous informants with just theories/speculation can be wrong. * An example; several informants in the early 2000s had theories that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The informants never produced any solid evidence of WMDs (including no photos). The US led invasion in the Iraq War found no evidence of WMDs in Iraq. * Theories by informants by itself does not = solid credible evidence.
Aside from Tyson being an moron shill.... That's total baloney about eye witness vs physical evidence, aside from (sometimes) the ability to re-test and replicate physical evidence. Each have their strengths. For example, physical evidence can be misinterpreted (ex: maybe you have witness testimony in a court case that counters DNA evidence that was misinterpreted). The key is to build a circumstantial case that doesn't rely on a single piece of evidence.
re: WMDs - if my memory serves, they claimed to have more than theories. Propaganda isn't the same as mistaken theories.
I wouldn't bother with this troll, he's not only a tinfoil nut job, but he's now twisting, cherry picking facts, and down right lying to try and prop up his baseless FUD.
The quicker the admins here ban this idiot the better off the forums will be!
It sounds like YOU are the real troll here....
Insults, unsubstantiated allegations, outright lies... And, as always with trolls, personal insults and attacks.
I fully endorse that Bloomberg should provide verifiable evidence in order to claim the news is a fact same as giving verifiable evidence that there is God. Otherwise, people will continue to deny the hack and continue to deny the God. On the contrary, Bloomberg should retract the article and Christianity should forget the Bible.
You bring up not only an interesting point but a critical one that goes far beyond this relatively minor issue:
Should we trust the mainstream (non-political) media like we trust the bible -- on blind faith without tangible, legal evidence?
That question is becoming increasingly common and it's raised every time we hear the cry "Fake News!". And, it is typically raised when news source reports something unfavorable to something or somebody.
I would contend that we the people must insist on journalistic integrity (Telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth) while realizing that these same news sources can make mistakes and that they are often dealing with conflicting and incomplete data.
But, as this story illustrates, sometimes we need to take it on faith: This hack (if it occurred) happened 4-5 years ago or more and physical evidence of it is long since gone. At the same time, "because of the sensitive, and in some cases classified, nature of the information" we cannot expect the news service to expose its sources. A good journalist will never ever expose his confidential sources. It would destroy his ability to report honestly and accurately.
So, what do we do when a reputable, trustworthy news source reports something we have to take on faith but that somebody denies? (Just as Nixon denied Watergate)
I think increasingly, as we see in these comments, we too often fragment into partisan cliques and vehemently defend one side and attack the other. But, obviously, that only doesn't help -- it makes it worse.
In the end, I think, we need to be use critical thinking and evaluate each situation honestly and with open minds. But that's hard. It takes work that many are not willing to do in this sound-bite news as entertainment world we live in today. It's easier and more fun to just attack the other side.
In the end, I think, we need to be use critical thinking and evaluate each situation honestly and with open minds. But that's hard. It takes work that many are not willing to do in this sound-bite news as entertainment world we live in today. It's easier and more fun to just attack the other side.
Agreed. And it looks like most people who are critically evaluating the unambiguous denials from Apple, Amazon, and Super Micro, the comments from government officials, and third party evaluation of the claims on one hand and the Business Week/Bloomberg piece on the other, are deciding that the former are, collectively, more credible. If there is truth to this then Amazon and Apple took something that would have been a big deal and inflated it into someone potentially catastrophic. Based on Apple's reaction (including statements directly from Tim Cook), I believe the BW/B article was completely off-base.
Think about it this way: if the article was 100% correct, was Apple (allegedly) did was pretty reasonable and their main failing was not disclosing that it happened. But if they were under orders from the government to say nothing, they wouldn't be facing more than a temporary PR hit. In this case, Apple wouldn't amplify the story by insisting on a retraction. I would have expected something more along the lines of "we continually test hardware provided from our suppliers and ensure that compromised systems never enter production" and "we monitor the security practice of business partners like AWS and Google Cloud and hold them to the highest standards of data privacy; we have asked AWS for a detailed analysis of the events alleged in this article."
In the end, I think, we need to be use critical thinking and evaluate each situation honestly and with open minds. But that's hard. It takes work that many are not willing to do in this sound-bite news as entertainment world we live in today. It's easier and more fun to just attack the other side.
Agreed. And it looks like most people who are critically evaluating the unambiguous denials from Apple, Amazon, and Super Micro, the comments from government officials, and third party evaluation of the claims on one hand and the Business Week/Bloomberg piece on the other, are deciding that the former are, collectively, more credible. If there is truth to this then Amazon and Apple took something that would have been a big deal and inflated it into someone potentially catastrophic. Based on Apple's reaction (including statements directly from Tim Cook), I believe the BW/B article was completely off-base.
Think about it this way: if the article was 100% correct, was Apple (allegedly) did was pretty reasonable and their main failing was not disclosing that it happened. But if they were under orders from the government to say nothing, they wouldn't be facing more than a temporary PR hit. In this case, Apple wouldn't amplify the story by insisting on a retraction. I would have expected something more along the lines of "we continually test hardware provided from our suppliers and ensure that compromised systems never enter production" and "we monitor the security practice of business partners like AWS and Google Cloud and hold them to the highest standards of data privacy; we have asked AWS for a detailed analysis of the events alleged in this article."
I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
And, the point that people here are missing is that the article never actually said that Apple's servers were affected. It did specifically say that Amazon's AWS servers were -- which Apple (and others) were using for iCloud data at the time. So, that would make Apple's statement correct: They never found any on Apple's servers. But it would also make Bloomberg correct in saying that Apple was another victim. But, in the end, we don't know either way for sure.
And I agree that Tim's statement was best left unsaid. He should have stopped at the simple denial and let the whole thing die. After all, this happened almost 5 years ago. And,even assuming that there were affected servers, they are likely long gone.
GeorgeBMac said: You bring up not only an interesting point but a critical one that goes far beyond this relatively minor issue:
Should we trust the mainstream (non-political) media like we trust the bible -- on blind faith without tangible, legal evidence? ... In the end, I think, we need to be use critical thinking and evaluate each situation honestly and with open minds. But that's hard. It takes work that many are not willing to do in this sound-bite news as entertainment world we live in today. It's easier and more fun to just attack the other side.
Good post... BUT, as someone who is also a Christian apologist, I'd like to point out that one shouldn't take the Bible like that either, and the problematic use of the term 'faith' here. While 'faith' is often misused in this manner, a closer match to a Biblical definition of faith would be the word, trust. An analogy I often use is getting on a jet to fly across the country. i.e.: there is some unknown involved... it might crash, etc. But, you have enough trust of the 'airline industry' on the whole, that you buy the ticket and jump on board.
re: fake news - I agree it is being used as a political hammer, but there is also a lot of truth in the fact that way, way too much of our news these days is either opinion, out-of-context, distortion, propaganda, or outright fake. It is really starting to get out of control.
Comments
1) How does Apple credibly deny that Amazon's servers were not affected? They can't.
While Apple can credibly deny that it ever installed infected servers, that proves pretty much nothing since Bloomberg's sources never claimed that they did. To claim that they weren't a victim (which is all Bloomberg claimed) is not particularly credible.
- As Tyson states; Eye witness testimony is weak compared with physical evidence.
With the Apple server issue; show a server board with the chip which does the hack which can be examined.
- Anonymous informants with just theories/speculation can be wrong.
* An example; several informants in the early 2000s had theories that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The informants never produced any solid evidence of WMDs (including no photos).
The US led invasion in the Iraq War found no evidence of WMDs in Iraq.
* Theories by informants by itself does not = solid credible evidence.
Hmm, I hadn't heard US intelligence agencies said it was the case? (Not that I expect to get truth from US intelligence!). I'll agree with you that if the story was true, and the companies and government wanted to cover it up (for whatever reason), it would be unlikely we'd get to the bottom of it these days before the next squirrel shows up.
Aside from Tyson being an moron shill....
That's total baloney about eye witness vs physical evidence, aside from (sometimes) the ability to re-test and replicate physical evidence. Each have their strengths. For example, physical evidence can be misinterpreted (ex: maybe you have witness testimony in a court case that counters DNA evidence that was misinterpreted). The key is to build a circumstantial case that doesn't rely on a single piece of evidence.
re: WMDs - if my memory serves, they claimed to have more than theories. Propaganda isn't the same as mistaken theories.
Apple claims that they never found any evidence of tampering in one of their servers. That's nice.
"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"
You are obviously one of those government-loving people who chose to believe an organization who lies openly EVERY SINGLE DAY, over facts...
- Apple has not denied Amazon's servers were not affected, Amazon made this denial directly
- You have ZERO evidence that Apple moved away from Amazon (not in its entirety) servers to Google, this is your stupid tinfoil conspiracy working overtime
- Apple is not the only company who is vehemently denying the installation, let alone the existence, of compromised hardware; you are again being a troll by targeting only Apple in your arguments on an Apple forum thus attempting to stir the pot with those who either defend Apple, or are more knowledgeable than you to what happens at Apple, thus making you a troll
You moron, "credible witnesses" that only bring conjecture and accusations with ZERO physical evidence (not even a photograph) even though they claim THOUSANDS of servers were impacted, is not evidence at all. Only tinfoil conspiracy theorist like you would take something like this and run with it as proven fact and evidence!
And now you even distort facts to support your tinfoil conclusions... Bloomberg DID claim Apple's in-house data centres were compromised with servers from SuperMicro, and not just the iCloud data they stored with third-party service providers like AWS and Google! Not only are you a trolling tinfoil conspiracy theorist, you're a blunt liar! And a dumb one at that, since you're now basing your going with Bloomberg on nothing but, literally, hot air and meaningless "proof".
I wouldn't bother with this troll, he's not only a tinfoil nut job, but he's now twisting, cherry picking facts, and down right lying to try and prop up his baseless FUD.
The quicker the admins here ban this idiot the better off the forums will be!
Yeah, that was the part that initially gave me the baloney vibe. They wouldn't build such a thing into thousands of machines distributed everywhere, but just into certain ones destined for certain clients. Otherwise, they'd be too easily discovered. And, I thought it was about Apple's data centers and not just AWS, so if that's the case then I agree it wouldn't just be Apple releasing a trickily-worded statement to get around it.
I appreciate the advice, but aren't you getting just a bit too worked up over this? I've been in many conversations with GeorgeBMac since I joined A.I. on several topics. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree and get in heated conversations. But, this reaction seems a bit over the top.
Think about it this way: if the article was 100% correct, was Apple (allegedly) did was pretty reasonable and their main failing was not disclosing that it happened. But if they were under orders from the government to say nothing, they wouldn't be facing more than a temporary PR hit. In this case, Apple wouldn't amplify the story by insisting on a retraction. I would have expected something more along the lines of "we continually test hardware provided from our suppliers and ensure that compromised systems never enter production" and "we monitor the security practice of business partners like AWS and Google Cloud and hold them to the highest standards of data privacy; we have asked AWS for a detailed analysis of the events alleged in this article."
re: fake news - I agree it is being used as a political hammer, but there is also a lot of truth in the fact that way, way too much of our news these days is either opinion, out-of-context, distortion, propaganda, or outright fake. It is really starting to get out of control.