I know Bloomberg isn't going to, and shouldn't, give up its anonymous sources... but it feels like Bloomberg's going to have to provide a lot more specifics if these reporters (and Bloomberg itself) are going to maintain their credibility -- concrete facts Apple can directly confirm or deny, as opposed to leaving Apple to guess at what it could be.
E.g. if Apple contacted the FBI about this, then who at Apple did so (or at least what was their role), on what date, and what FBI office? Or how did Apple detect it in the first place, what happened next, etc. Even if sources can't provide technical details, they should certainly be able to provide names and dates.
> E.g. if Apple contacted the FBI about this, then who at Apple did so (or at least what was their role), on what date, and what FBI office?
I'm pretty sure there is an open line between Apple and the FBI for these exact risks. Else I don't see how these cases do not get investigated multiple times in parallel.
Lost of news reports result in strong, aggressive denials. Bloomberg assembled extensive evidence, with around 17 sources. Perhaps Apple needs to provide more evidence than just a denial (though it's hard to prove a negative).
So anyone can just claim anything now and it is up to the person being accused to prove their accuser wrong? We're just going to assume guilty until the accused can prove themselves innocent? That is not a world I want to live in.
I'm pretty sure US law would protect Bloomberg against any lawsuits unless Apple could prove that they definitely knew the story was false when they ran it. Short of that, nothing - not even massive journalistic failures - would make them liable.
They don't have to know it was false, only be reckless in trying to verify whether it was true or not (which would also be hard to prove, but not as hard).
No, they have to provide evidence. Evidence is what distinguishes legitimate assertions from 'just claims' in everything from science to law to reason and rationality in general. Bloomberg assembled extensive evidence.
E.g. if Apple contacted the FBI about this, then who at Apple did so (or at least what was their role), on what date, and what FBI office? Or how did Apple detect it in the first place, what happened next, etc. Even if sources can't provide technical details, they should certainly be able to provide names and dates.