> 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.
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.
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/
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.
> Bloomberg, on the other hand, has no incentive to lie.
They have an incentive to publish a shocking story. Surely that could drive them to ignore direct statements from Apple refuting the details in favor of the story they've pieced together from their sources.
It seems, at least, the author should have put some of these on the record comments from Apple in the story if they were merely "misinformed by verified sources." It would take a little punch out of the story though.
Well, if you can figure out who's lying, be sure to buy some SMCI tomorrow morning. Or not, depending on what you come up with. That's where I'm at right now, anyway, using my "buy the beaten-down stock that got beaten too a little too hard" strategy (see also: Equifax, United Airlines). Wait until we all decide that it wasn't as bad as we thought it was going to be, profit.
Problem is the difference between SMCI and, say, United. With United, we knew the accusations were true, there were videos. But my strategy was to just hold until it all blew over, and it did. Profit. But with SMCI, I don't know if it's true or not, and if it IS true, then unlike United they truly are screwed and it will not be blowing over any time soon.
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.
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.
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.
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.