
Apple Further Refutes Bloomberg Report Suggesting Spies Tampered with Servers - okket
https://www.macrumors.com/2018/10/04/apple-further-refutes-chinese-spy-report/
======
eridius
It seems hard to believe that Bloomberg would publish this article if it's
completely untrue, but it's also hard to believe that Apple and Amazon would
both issue comprehensive denials of pretty much every single claim of the
article unless the article was in fact untrue.

At this point I'm leaning towards believing Apple and Amazon, because it seems
more likely that Bloomberg got it wrong than for Apple and Amazon to blatantly
lie about this. But I'm really curious why Bloomberg went ahead and published
this article if Apple and Amazon told them for months that it was wrong. What
was their source and why did they trust it so much?

~~~
fermienrico
The specificity of Bloomberg report (BMC controller at the right location,
details of the subcontractors, details about the people involved in sabotaging
the supply chain, the details about the chip's color and similarity to a
coupling cap, etc.) is also important to consider. They have put in a lot of
details however elementary it may seem to HN crowd.

Apple and Amazon has more at stake than Bloomberg but the incentives are
stronger for Apple and Amazon than for Bloomberg. For once, _why_ would
Bloomberg post a story that is completely false!? The details they've provided
suggests that it wasn't just a couple of people contacted them anonymously and
they decided to post a huge story about it. There are so many anonymous
individuals cited in the Bloomberg article. All stars align to indicate
something has _actually_ happened on these servers.

~~~
greglindahl
The NYT published many false stories about WMD in Iraq because they believed
their anonymous sources (edit: or rather sources granted anonymity) ... who
were making assertions far stronger than the raw intelligence supported.
Hopefully that's not happening with Bloomberg.

~~~
mlb_hn
You may be misunderstanding how anonymous sources work. The NYT knew who the
sources were, it's the public who did not (see
[https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/30/weekinreview/the-
public-e...](https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/30/weekinreview/the-public-
editor-weapons-of-mass-destruction-or-mass-distraction.html) for NYT's writeup
of some of their mistakes)

~~~
greglindahl
I read that article already, and I do understand how anonymous sources work.
It seems like Bloomberg may be making a similar mistake.

------
Paraesthetic
Of course they refute the evidence. It would make them look like their
'secure' servers weren't as secure as they thought they would be. Its
marketing 101

~~~
astrange
Believing in conspiracy theories degrades you as a person, puts your immortal
soul at risk, and what's worse, demeans the noble art of posting on internet
forums.

