Super Micro found no evidence of iCloud spy chips after audit

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 36
    wood1208 said:
    Law should allow to sue established media companies to deliver,promote incorrect or misguided or fake news. This way, they will be careful of making sure the information is correct and what they put out for public consumption. Everyone will be careful and not hurt others.
    The law does allow, it is call libel laws. Grant it if SM can show their business was hurt over this and Bloomberg can not prove it was in fact true they can be held libel for what happen. The tough part will showing Bloomberg knowing knew it was wrong or should have known. Most likely this will be settle out of court, unless Bloomberg want to stand their ground and go down in flames if in fact they were wrong, which the evidence is now closer to 100% they were wrong than be right.
    watto_cobraSpamSandwich
  • Reply 22 of 36
    adamcadamc Posts: 582member
    wood1208 said:
    Law should allow to sue established media companies to deliver,promote incorrect or misguided or fake news. This way, they will be careful of making sure the information is correct and what they put out for public consumption. Everyone will be careful and not hurt others.
    And also tech analysts at WS and AI for insinuating that AAPL’s profitably is affected by announcement made by Apple’s suppliers of revenue missed. 
  • Reply 23 of 36
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    I have to wonder how many people posting here actually read the article.
    From the sounds of it, not many.   Most seem to be parroting what they read ABOUT the article -- or using the currently popular "Fake News" to describe an article they don't like.
    Yup, I read the article, thanks for asking. I think most people did. It wasn’t exactly an in-depth read. It read like one of Dan Brown’s rejected plots. Those that didn’t probably chose not to because they didn’t want to give Bloomberg the click. And I think that many people started and then stopped part way through when they realised that it sounded a lot like an exercise in “what ifs” rather than something backed up by anything tangible. 

    And the thing that still strikes me about the Bloomberg article is this lack of evidence, after a year of investigating that turned out to be little more than trying to trick the companies into admitting something. 

    Still, the conspiracy theorists have a new nefarious plot to salivate over. Apparently, this whole thing was a scheme cooked up by Apple, Amazon and Super Micro to discredit Bloomberg while weeding out employees who’re talking to the press. 

    I agree, however, that this is too important to dismiss out of hand, so Bloomberg needs to produce the evidence or retract. And I think the companies accused should keep this alive until Bloomberg does one or the other. 

    edited December 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 36
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    Rayz2016 said:
    I have to wonder how many people posting here actually read the article.
    From the sounds of it, not many.   Most seem to be parroting what they read ABOUT the article -- or using the currently popular "Fake News" to describe an article they don't like.
    Yup, I read the article, thanks for asking. I think most people did. It wasn’t exactly an in-depth read. It read like one of Dan Brown’s rejected plots. Those that didn’t probably chose not to because they didn’t want to give Bloomberg the click. And I think that many people started and then stopped part way through when they realised that it sounded a lot like an exercise in “what ifs” rather than something backed up by anything tangible. 

    And the thing that still strikes me about the Bloomberg article is this lack of evidence, after a year of investigating that turned out to be little more than trying to trick the companies into admitting something. 

    Still, the conspiracy theorists have a new nefarious plot to salivate over. Apparently, this whole thing was a scheme cooked up by Apple, Amazon and Super Micro to discredit Bloomberg while weeding out employees who’re talking to the press. 

    I agree, however, that this is too important to dismiss out of hand, so Bloomberg needs to produce the evidence or retract. And I think the companies accused should keep this alive until Bloomberg does one or the other. 

    Doubtful that most of the commenters actually read the story since their comments are simply cries of "Fake News" and "no smocking gun" and other nonsense.  I hear the same cries about CNN from FauxNews loyalists. 
    Perhaps you should have read it a little closer -- rather than let your hate of Bloomberg color your thinking.
  • Reply 25 of 36
    I think there is more to this than meet the eye... Apple comments about "We turned the company upside down. Email searches, datacenter records, financial records, shipment records,"... none of those items, NOT A SINGLE ONE has to do with someone planting a chip on a server being sent to Apple!  It come down to an actual board level chip and circuit audit... which is HARD to do but very possible IF you have all of the documentation and schematics. Being that Apple didn't design the server board, they can't audit the board, so the best Apple, Amazon and Google can do is "HOPE LIKE HELL" that this isn't real. 

    If this feasable, sure it is! Easily, NOPE!

    I'm not saying it did happen, I'm just saying it is possible and we must accept that also, just as much as accepting that it's not. 
  • Reply 26 of 36
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 1,016member
    netling said:
    I think there is more to this than meet the eye... Apple comments about "We turned the company upside down. Email searches, datacenter records, financial records, shipment records,"... none of those items, NOT A SINGLE ONE has to do with someone planting a chip on a server being sent to Apple!  It come down to an actual board level chip and circuit audit... which is HARD to do but very possible IF you have all of the documentation and schematics. Being that Apple didn't design the server board, they can't audit the board, so the best Apple, Amazon and Google can do is "HOPE LIKE HELL" that this isn't real. 

    If this feasable, sure it is! Easily, NOPE!

    I'm not saying it did happen, I'm just saying it is possible and we must accept that also, just as much as accepting that it's not. 
    Apple's ostensibly exhaustive search wouldn't have been for evidence that there were spy chips on its servers. It would have been for evidence that Apple had found such chips back in 2015.

    Bloomberg claimed that Apple had found such chips, not just that Apple had servers with such chips on them. Bloomberg also suggested that Apple's decision to stop doing business with Supermicro might have been in response to finding such chips. So the kind of search Apple describes would have made sense. It was looking for evidence that someone inside Apple knew about these chips.
  • Reply 27 of 36
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    Rayz2016 said:
    I have to wonder how many people posting here actually read the article.
    From the sounds of it, not many.   Most seem to be parroting what they read ABOUT the article -- or using the currently popular "Fake News" to describe an article they don't like.
    Yup, I read the article, thanks for asking. I think most people did. It wasn’t exactly an in-depth read. It read like one of Dan Brown’s rejected plots. Those that didn’t probably chose not to because they didn’t want to give Bloomberg the click. And I think that many people started and then stopped part way through when they realised that it sounded a lot like an exercise in “what ifs” rather than something backed up by anything tangible. 

    And the thing that still strikes me about the Bloomberg article is this lack of evidence, after a year of investigating that turned out to be little more than trying to trick the companies into admitting something. 

    Still, the conspiracy theorists have a new nefarious plot to salivate over. Apparently, this whole thing was a scheme cooked up by Apple, Amazon and Super Micro to discredit Bloomberg while weeding out employees who’re talking to the press. 

    I agree, however, that this is too important to dismiss out of hand, so Bloomberg needs to produce the evidence or retract. And I think the companies accused should keep this alive until Bloomberg does one or the other. 

    Doubtful that most of the commenters actually read the story since their comments are simply cries of "Fake News" and "no smocking gun" and other nonsense.  I hear the same cries about CNN from FauxNews loyalists. 
    Perhaps you should have read it a little closer -- rather than let your hate of Bloomberg color your thinking.
    Or perhaps you should base your views on solid evidence, rather than simply wishing something to be true because Apple won't give you the phone you want or the PC you spec for them at the price you're willing to pay.
    edited December 2018
  • Reply 28 of 36
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    Rayz2016 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    I have to wonder how many people posting here actually read the article.
    From the sounds of it, not many.   Most seem to be parroting what they read ABOUT the article -- or using the currently popular "Fake News" to describe an article they don't like.
    Yup, I read the article, thanks for asking. I think most people did. It wasn’t exactly an in-depth read. It read like one of Dan Brown’s rejected plots. Those that didn’t probably chose not to because they didn’t want to give Bloomberg the click. And I think that many people started and then stopped part way through when they realised that it sounded a lot like an exercise in “what ifs” rather than something backed up by anything tangible. 

    And the thing that still strikes me about the Bloomberg article is this lack of evidence, after a year of investigating that turned out to be little more than trying to trick the companies into admitting something. 

    Still, the conspiracy theorists have a new nefarious plot to salivate over. Apparently, this whole thing was a scheme cooked up by Apple, Amazon and Super Micro to discredit Bloomberg while weeding out employees who’re talking to the press. 

    I agree, however, that this is too important to dismiss out of hand, so Bloomberg needs to produce the evidence or retract. And I think the companies accused should keep this alive until Bloomberg does one or the other. 

    Doubtful that most of the commenters actually read the story since their comments are simply cries of "Fake News" and "no smocking gun" and other nonsense.  I hear the same cries about CNN from FauxNews loyalists. 
    Perhaps you should have read it a little closer -- rather than let your hate of Bloomberg color your thinking.
    Or perhaps you should base your views on solid evidence, rather than simply wishing something to be true because Apple won't give you the phone you want or the PC you spec for them at the price you're willing to pay.
    I did.   I base it on the evidence that Bloomberg presented in their story -- as well as other ancilliary evidence that supports it.   You can ignore that evidence if it is inconvenient.  
  • Reply 29 of 36
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    carnegie said:
    netling said:
    I think there is more to this than meet the eye... Apple comments about "We turned the company upside down. Email searches, datacenter records, financial records, shipment records,"... none of those items, NOT A SINGLE ONE has to do with someone planting a chip on a server being sent to Apple!  It come down to an actual board level chip and circuit audit... which is HARD to do but very possible IF you have all of the documentation and schematics. Being that Apple didn't design the server board, they can't audit the board, so the best Apple, Amazon and Google can do is "HOPE LIKE HELL" that this isn't real. 

    If this feasable, sure it is! Easily, NOPE!

    I'm not saying it did happen, I'm just saying it is possible and we must accept that also, just as much as accepting that it's not. 
    Apple's ostensibly exhaustive search wouldn't have been for evidence that there were spy chips on its servers. It would have been for evidence that Apple had found such chips back in 2015.

    Bloomberg claimed that Apple had found such chips, not just that Apple had servers with such chips on them. Bloomberg also suggested that Apple's decision to stop doing business with Supermicro might have been in response to finding such chips. So the kind of search Apple describes would have made sense. It was looking for evidence that someone inside Apple knew about these chips.
    Really?  Please show me that quote.
  • Reply 30 of 36
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    netling said:
    I think there is more to this than meet the eye... Apple comments about "We turned the company upside down. Email searches, datacenter records, financial records, shipment records,"... none of those items, NOT A SINGLE ONE has to do with someone planting a chip on a server being sent to Apple!  It come down to an actual board level chip and circuit audit... which is HARD to do but very possible IF you have all of the documentation and schematics. Being that Apple didn't design the server board, they can't audit the board, so the best Apple, Amazon and Google can do is "HOPE LIKE HELL" that this isn't real. 

    If this feasable, sure it is! Easily, NOPE!

    I'm not saying it did happen, I'm just saying it is possible and we must accept that also, just as much as accepting that it's not. 
    The silly thing is:   Bloomberg never claimed that it happened on an Apple server.  They did however report claims made by former intelligence personnel that it likely happened on a few servers that Apple was using years ago.  Specifically, when Amazon was hosting Apple's iCloud on their AWS (Amazon Web Services) servers.

    But, that isn't the end of the story:  Apparently, AWS still tends to keep bad company.   Today BBC published an article revealing that AWS has possible links to Russian intelligence -- while the U.S. defense department wants to put all their data (troop locations, etc...) on those servers! (Project JEDI):
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46489689

    Is that "FakeNews" too?  
    It may or may not be correct.   But there is enough evidence to make it a concern.




  • Reply 31 of 36
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 1,016member
    carnegie said:
    netling said:
    I think there is more to this than meet the eye... Apple comments about "We turned the company upside down. Email searches, datacenter records, financial records, shipment records,"... none of those items, NOT A SINGLE ONE has to do with someone planting a chip on a server being sent to Apple!  It come down to an actual board level chip and circuit audit... which is HARD to do but very possible IF you have all of the documentation and schematics. Being that Apple didn't design the server board, they can't audit the board, so the best Apple, Amazon and Google can do is "HOPE LIKE HELL" that this isn't real. 

    If this feasable, sure it is! Easily, NOPE!

    I'm not saying it did happen, I'm just saying it is possible and we must accept that also, just as much as accepting that it's not. 
    Apple's ostensibly exhaustive search wouldn't have been for evidence that there were spy chips on its servers. It would have been for evidence that Apple had found such chips back in 2015.

    Bloomberg claimed that Apple had found such chips, not just that Apple had servers with such chips on them. Bloomberg also suggested that Apple's decision to stop doing business with Supermicro might have been in response to finding such chips. So the kind of search Apple describes would have made sense. It was looking for evidence that someone inside Apple knew about these chips.
    Really?  Please show me that quote.
    From Bloomberg:

    One official says investigators found that it eventually affected almost 30 companies, including a major bank, government contractors, and the world’s most valuable company, Apple Inc. Apple was an important Supermicro customer and had planned to order more than 30,000 of its servers in two years for a new global network of data centers. Three senior insiders at Apple say that in the summer of 2015, it, too, found malicious chips on Supermicro motherboards. Apple severed ties with Supermicro the following year, for what it described as unrelated reasons.


  • Reply 32 of 36
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    carnegie said:
    carnegie said:
    netling said:
    I think there is more to this than meet the eye... Apple comments about "We turned the company upside down. Email searches, datacenter records, financial records, shipment records,"... none of those items, NOT A SINGLE ONE has to do with someone planting a chip on a server being sent to Apple!  It come down to an actual board level chip and circuit audit... which is HARD to do but very possible IF you have all of the documentation and schematics. Being that Apple didn't design the server board, they can't audit the board, so the best Apple, Amazon and Google can do is "HOPE LIKE HELL" that this isn't real. 

    If this feasable, sure it is! Easily, NOPE!

    I'm not saying it did happen, I'm just saying it is possible and we must accept that also, just as much as accepting that it's not. 
    Apple's ostensibly exhaustive search wouldn't have been for evidence that there were spy chips on its servers. It would have been for evidence that Apple had found such chips back in 2015.

    Bloomberg claimed that Apple had found such chips, not just that Apple had servers with such chips on them. Bloomberg also suggested that Apple's decision to stop doing business with Supermicro might have been in response to finding such chips. So the kind of search Apple describes would have made sense. It was looking for evidence that someone inside Apple knew about these chips.
    Really?  Please show me that quote.
    From Bloomberg:

    One official says investigators found that it eventually affected almost 30 companies, including a major bank, government contractors, and the world’s most valuable company, Apple Inc. Apple was an important Supermicro customer and had planned to order more than 30,000 of its servers in two years for a new global network of data centers. Three senior insiders at Apple say that in the summer of 2015, it, too, found malicious chips on Supermicro motherboards. Apple severed ties with Supermicro the following year, for what it described as unrelated reasons.

     
    Your quote refutes your statement.   They never took delivery of those servers.  But it does support Bloomberg's article:  "Three senior insiders at Apple say that in the summer of 2015, it, too, found malicious chips on Supermicro motherboards".   (It doesn't say "Apple servers")

    Basically, the article said that the servers in question were used by Amazon's AWS -- which, at the time, was used by Apple.   Apple migrated off of AWS and eventually to their own servers shortly after the issue came to light.
  • Reply 33 of 36
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 1,016member
    carnegie said:
    carnegie said:
    netling said:
    I think there is more to this than meet the eye... Apple comments about "We turned the company upside down. Email searches, datacenter records, financial records, shipment records,"... none of those items, NOT A SINGLE ONE has to do with someone planting a chip on a server being sent to Apple!  It come down to an actual board level chip and circuit audit... which is HARD to do but very possible IF you have all of the documentation and schematics. Being that Apple didn't design the server board, they can't audit the board, so the best Apple, Amazon and Google can do is "HOPE LIKE HELL" that this isn't real. 

    If this feasable, sure it is! Easily, NOPE!

    I'm not saying it did happen, I'm just saying it is possible and we must accept that also, just as much as accepting that it's not. 
    Apple's ostensibly exhaustive search wouldn't have been for evidence that there were spy chips on its servers. It would have been for evidence that Apple had found such chips back in 2015.

    Bloomberg claimed that Apple had found such chips, not just that Apple had servers with such chips on them. Bloomberg also suggested that Apple's decision to stop doing business with Supermicro might have been in response to finding such chips. So the kind of search Apple describes would have made sense. It was looking for evidence that someone inside Apple knew about these chips.
    Really?  Please show me that quote.
    From Bloomberg:

    One official says investigators found that it eventually affected almost 30 companies, including a major bank, government contractors, and the world’s most valuable company, Apple Inc. Apple was an important Supermicro customer and had planned to order more than 30,000 of its servers in two years for a new global network of data centers. Three senior insiders at Apple say that in the summer of 2015, it, too, found malicious chips on Supermicro motherboards. Apple severed ties with Supermicro the following year, for what it described as unrelated reasons.

     
    Your quote refutes your statement.   They never took delivery of those servers.  But it does support Bloomberg's article:  "Three senior insiders at Apple say that in the summer of 2015, it, too, found malicious chips on Supermicro motherboards".   (It doesn't say "Apple servers")

    Basically, the article said that the servers in question were used by Amazon's AWS -- which, at the time, was used by Apple.   Apple migrated off of AWS and eventually to their own servers shortly after the issue came to light.
    That quote doesn't refute my statement. My statement about Apple finding chips was based on that very passage from the Bloomberg article.

    I said "Bloomberg claimed that Apple found such chips," and that's what the Bloomberg article claims. Where those chips were found - whether on Amazon's AWS which Apple used, or on "Apple servers" (whatever you mean by that), or on Supermicro motherboards - wasn't relevant to the point I was making. Bloomberg claimed that Apple found spy chips, and that is what Apple was looking for evidence of when it did an exhaustive search of company records. It wasn't looking for evidence of spy chips, it was looking for evidence that it had previously found spy chips.
    beowulfschmidt
  • Reply 34 of 36
    Rayz2016 said:
    Just waiting for the usual suspects to roll up with “logic” proving it’s all true. 
    The spy chips are oviously hidden by a cloaking chip.
  • Reply 35 of 36
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    carnegie said:
    carnegie said:
    carnegie said:
    netling said:
    I think there is more to this than meet the eye... Apple comments about "We turned the company upside down. Email searches, datacenter records, financial records, shipment records,"... none of those items, NOT A SINGLE ONE has to do with someone planting a chip on a server being sent to Apple!  It come down to an actual board level chip and circuit audit... which is HARD to do but very possible IF you have all of the documentation and schematics. Being that Apple didn't design the server board, they can't audit the board, so the best Apple, Amazon and Google can do is "HOPE LIKE HELL" that this isn't real. 

    If this feasable, sure it is! Easily, NOPE!

    I'm not saying it did happen, I'm just saying it is possible and we must accept that also, just as much as accepting that it's not. 
    Apple's ostensibly exhaustive search wouldn't have been for evidence that there were spy chips on its servers. It would have been for evidence that Apple had found such chips back in 2015.

    Bloomberg claimed that Apple had found such chips, not just that Apple had servers with such chips on them. Bloomberg also suggested that Apple's decision to stop doing business with Supermicro might have been in response to finding such chips. So the kind of search Apple describes would have made sense. It was looking for evidence that someone inside Apple knew about these chips.
    Really?  Please show me that quote.
    From Bloomberg:

    One official says investigators found that it eventually affected almost 30 companies, including a major bank, government contractors, and the world’s most valuable company, Apple Inc. Apple was an important Supermicro customer and had planned to order more than 30,000 of its servers in two years for a new global network of data centers. Three senior insiders at Apple say that in the summer of 2015, it, too, found malicious chips on Supermicro motherboards. Apple severed ties with Supermicro the following year, for what it described as unrelated reasons.

     
    Your quote refutes your statement.   They never took delivery of those servers.  But it does support Bloomberg's article:  "Three senior insiders at Apple say that in the summer of 2015, it, too, found malicious chips on Supermicro motherboards".   (It doesn't say "Apple servers")

    Basically, the article said that the servers in question were used by Amazon's AWS -- which, at the time, was used by Apple.   Apple migrated off of AWS and eventually to their own servers shortly after the issue came to light.
    That quote doesn't refute my statement. My statement about Apple finding chips was based on that very passage from the Bloomberg article.

    I said "Bloomberg claimed that Apple found such chips," and that's what the Bloomberg article claims. Where those chips were found - whether on Amazon's AWS which Apple used, or on "Apple servers" (whatever you mean by that), or on Supermicro motherboards - wasn't relevant to the point I was making. Bloomberg claimed that Apple found spy chips, and that is what Apple was looking for evidence of when it did an exhaustive search of company records. It wasn't looking for evidence of spy chips, it was looking for evidence that it had previously found spy chips.
    Oh, ok... 
    But, just for clarity, your original entire quote implied (at least to me) that they had found them on Apple servers.  Specifically:  "Bloomberg claimed that Apple had found such chips, not just that Apple had servers with such chips on them."

    The word "just" changes that completely.  It effectively reverses the meaning from Apple didn't have them in their servers to Apple DID have them in their servers.

    But, that's just semantics.  
    It sounds like we agree:  Bloomberg never claimed that these corrupted boards (even if they existed) were found in Apple's own servers.
  • Reply 36 of 36
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 1,016member
    carnegie said:
    carnegie said:
    carnegie said:
    netling said:
    I think there is more to this than meet the eye... Apple comments about "We turned the company upside down. Email searches, datacenter records, financial records, shipment records,"... none of those items, NOT A SINGLE ONE has to do with someone planting a chip on a server being sent to Apple!  It come down to an actual board level chip and circuit audit... which is HARD to do but very possible IF you have all of the documentation and schematics. Being that Apple didn't design the server board, they can't audit the board, so the best Apple, Amazon and Google can do is "HOPE LIKE HELL" that this isn't real. 

    If this feasable, sure it is! Easily, NOPE!

    I'm not saying it did happen, I'm just saying it is possible and we must accept that also, just as much as accepting that it's not. 
    Apple's ostensibly exhaustive search wouldn't have been for evidence that there were spy chips on its servers. It would have been for evidence that Apple had found such chips back in 2015.

    Bloomberg claimed that Apple had found such chips, not just that Apple had servers with such chips on them. Bloomberg also suggested that Apple's decision to stop doing business with Supermicro might have been in response to finding such chips. So the kind of search Apple describes would have made sense. It was looking for evidence that someone inside Apple knew about these chips.
    Really?  Please show me that quote.
    From Bloomberg:

    One official says investigators found that it eventually affected almost 30 companies, including a major bank, government contractors, and the world’s most valuable company, Apple Inc. Apple was an important Supermicro customer and had planned to order more than 30,000 of its servers in two years for a new global network of data centers. Three senior insiders at Apple say that in the summer of 2015, it, too, found malicious chips on Supermicro motherboards. Apple severed ties with Supermicro the following year, for what it described as unrelated reasons.

     
    Your quote refutes your statement.   They never took delivery of those servers.  But it does support Bloomberg's article:  "Three senior insiders at Apple say that in the summer of 2015, it, too, found malicious chips on Supermicro motherboards".   (It doesn't say "Apple servers")

    Basically, the article said that the servers in question were used by Amazon's AWS -- which, at the time, was used by Apple.   Apple migrated off of AWS and eventually to their own servers shortly after the issue came to light.
    That quote doesn't refute my statement. My statement about Apple finding chips was based on that very passage from the Bloomberg article.

    I said "Bloomberg claimed that Apple found such chips," and that's what the Bloomberg article claims. Where those chips were found - whether on Amazon's AWS which Apple used, or on "Apple servers" (whatever you mean by that), or on Supermicro motherboards - wasn't relevant to the point I was making. Bloomberg claimed that Apple found spy chips, and that is what Apple was looking for evidence of when it did an exhaustive search of company records. It wasn't looking for evidence of spy chips, it was looking for evidence that it had previously found spy chips.
    Oh, ok... 
    But, just for clarity, your original entire quote implied (at least to me) that they had found them on Apple servers.  Specifically:  "Bloomberg claimed that Apple had found such chips, not just that Apple had servers with such chips on them."

    The word "just" changes that completely.  It effectively reverses the meaning from Apple didn't have them in their servers to Apple DID have them in their servers.

    But, that's just semantics.  
    It sounds like we agree:  Bloomberg never claimed that these corrupted boards (even if they existed) were found in Apple's own servers.
    Your inference there is reasonable. I shouldn't have included the word just in that sentence, it does change what I seem to be saying some.

    I was responding to another post and in doing so accepting part of a premise of that post (about a chip which was planted on a server being sent to Apple), rather than intentionally making an assertion (to the effect that Bloomberg had claimed that Apple had found such chip on an Apple server) of my own. My point was that Apple wouldn't have been looking for evidence of a chip, it would have been looking for evidence that it had previously found a chip. But I see where the "just" muddies the specifics of my point.
    GeorgeBMac
Sign In or Register to comment.