
What Businessweek got wrong about Apple - coloneltcb
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/10/what-businessweek-got-wrong-about-apple/
======
Shank
> Finally, in response to questions we have received from other news
> organizations since Businessweek published its story, we are not under any
> kind of gag order or other confidentiality obligations.

They're really covering all of their bases here. I guess any human or set of
humans can make mistakes. That would include Bloomberg, but I'm utterly
perplexed as to which side could be so completely wrong right now.

------
sulam
This is very clear and doesn’t include any of the usual wiggle words corporate
entities use to create uncertainty about facts. I’m personally assessing it as
an accurate representation of Apple’s piece of this story.

------
minimaxir
This kind of harsh rebuttal is rare for Apple. The closest comparison was the
Letter about the San Bernardino shooter's phone and the request to build a
backdoor into iOS: [https://www.apple.com/customer-
letter/](https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/)

They did do something similar for the PRISM reporting:
[https://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-
privacy/](https://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/)

------
tlow
Here's my take: Apple is serious about security. They recognize beyond
utility, it has huge brand value. In the fake news era, it seems Apple decided
it was important enough to merit a response to set the record straight, no
doubt a tremendous amount of thought went into this response and the decision
to publish it.

------
dwighttk
Why is this marked dupe? Because the Bloomberg article is on the main page?
This seems pretty different.

~~~
dwighttk
ah, I see the other article now.

------
ohiovr
The FANGS are furious

------
saudioger
If this were true Apple likely couldn't say it was, so I'd take this with a
big grain of salt.

They have a lot to lose if the story is true; look at what happened to Super
Micro today.

Bloomberg, on the other hand, has no incentive to lie. At worst they were
misinformed by verified sources.

~~~
mcphage
> If this were true Apple likely couldn't say it was

Why not?

~~~
ceejayoz
They're probably referring to National Security Letters, which include a gag
order that prevents even disclosing the existence of the order/letter, or the
investigation it's a part of.

[https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-
letters](https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters)

~~~
okket
If there is a gag order, how can Apple then write such a statement? AFAIK you
can't legally force someone to lie. (At least not yet)

~~~
ceejayoz
If you _haven 't_ received an NSL, you can say you haven't received one. It's
a bit unclear if "we can't confirm or deny having gotten one" is, in effect,
disclosing that you _did_ get one as a result. Same issue with "warrant
canaries" \- I wouldn't want to be the first legal test case on one.

That said, I think if they'd gotten an NSL-style gag order, you'd wouldn't get
this _vehement_ a denial of the incident in question. I'm inclined to believe
Apple as a result.

~~~
dwighttk
if you've gotten an NSL, can you say "we are not under any kind of gag order
or other confidentiality obligations."

~~~
ceejayoz
From the FBI's (or whoever issued it) perspective, I believe they'd say you're
even required to do that, as saying otherwise implies the existence of the
order you're not allowed to disclose the existence of.

The EFF would say requiring you to say that is a violation of the First
Amendment as it's prior restraint.

The SEC might say it's illegally lying to shareholders.

In short: We don't really know.

~~~
dwighttk
I'm pretty sure the FBI (if they even would) would only say you are required
to do that when deposed, not in voluntary statements to the press...

