You are certainly already aware of the report of the Bloomberg about the alleged microchip implanted by a Chinese company in data centers gives Apple, Amazon and about 30 other US companies, which would provide Beijing with a way to spy on US technology companies. The story has had a profound impact on the computer world, engaging in politics and international affairs, and ended up in the United States Senate.
Now, Tim cook in person came to the public to rule on the case and strongly deny any possibility of Apple being spied on by the Chinese government. Ma's CEO even asked that the Bloomberg portrayed by the report what, incidentally, an unprecedented attitude in the company: Apple never asked (publicly, at least) to a newspaper vehicle to portray a story about it, even with the most negative stories.
In interview with BuzzFeed NewsCook stated:
There is no truth in their report about Apple. They need to do the right thing and publish a retraction.
The CEO said he had been involved in Apple's response to the story from the beginning and had even been in touch with Apple reporters. Bloomberg Bruce Sewell, then the company's chief legal officer, investigating all information brought by the vehicle's team and answering all the questions raised by them. ?Every time they came to us, the story changed, and every time we investigated and found nothing,? said Cook, who added:
We turned the company upside down. Email searches, records of data centersfrom the finance department, dispatches. We actually apply forensic science when scouring the entire company to dig deep and every time we come to the same conclusion: it didn't happen. There is no truth to that.
Cook regretted that the report was published without supporting evidence and that the report Bloomberg Apple has never even shown Apple specific details about the malicious chips that were allegedly used to spy on the company. About the possibility that the whole story published by the group happened without his knowledge, the CEO was categorical: ?virtually zero?.
One company that validated Cook's comments was Kaspersky Lab, the Russian cybersecurity expert and maker of the famous antivirus software. A few days ago she published a statement questioning the validity of the Bloomberg, highlighting the loss of market value of Super Micro (the maker of the alleged spy chips) and citing the ?vehement denials of Apple and Amazon?; In the end, the Russians said the allegations should be seen "backwards".
THE BloombergIn turn, he kept his foot steady on his position. In a statement to BuzzFeed News, the group stated:
The report of Bloomberg Businessweek It is the result of over a year of research, during which we conducted more than 100 interviews. 17 individual sources, including government officials and people within the companies, confirmed the manipulation of hardware and other elements of the attacks. We have also published 3 full company statements as well as a statement from the Chinese Foreign Ministry. We hold our ground and rely on our reporters and sources.
This creates a huge impasse between US companies (including Apple), the US government, China and Bloomberg that, for good and ill, one of the most respected journalistic groups in the United States, with very high sources in the most diverse spheres of governments and companies in the world. The fact that, if proven true, the report will have very drastic consequences for all involved and for the US-China relationship itself, which is no longer at its best.
For now, other companies are taking the body out of the situation. THE Bloomberg cited only Apple and Amazon among the 30 alleged spies, but the BuzzFeed News contacted the executive of another company (not named, but on the list Fortune 50) who may be in the group and got the following answer:
Please leave us out of it. We weren't mentioned and I don't want us to be. I don't know that shit is happening here.
In other words, the huge controversy. And, to be solved, there is only one possibility: that the Bloomberg open your archives and disclose your sources, which is a practice that goes against journalistic ethics even if it is legally required to do so. A lot of water is still going to flow under this bridge, so let's be aware of the next chapters of this story.