News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The Big Hack: How China Used a Tiny Chip to Infiltrate Amazon and Apple. Parent comment

Re:The Big Hack: How China Used a Tiny Chip to Infiltrate Am... by tw1010 on Thursday October 04, 2018 @12:37PM (#18141429)
How does that actually work? How far down the chain of related facts to the national security incident are parties allowed/required to lie? If facts can be used to triangulate the secret, that can't be disclosed, right? Are incidents like this like a little fact-bomb which can be used to legally hide other institutional facts under its cover?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Big Hack: How China Used a Tiny Chip to Infiltrate Am... by adrr on Thursday October 04, 2018 @06:35PM (#18144290)
I assume it’s like national security letter. Only people in the company that has knowledge would be the ceo, general counsel, and people working directly to mitigate the issue. PR and corporate communication wouldn’t have any knowledge on the incident. I wonder how you collect insurance for these types of incidents if you can’t disclose them.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Big Hack: How China Used a Tiny Chip to Infiltrate Am... by dannyw on Thursday October 04, 2018 @12:57PM (#18141595)
There most likely are classified legal constructs that compel speech. You see that with the PRISM denials by Apple and Google.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Big Hack: How China Used a Tiny Chip to Infiltrate Am... by mindslight on Thursday October 04, 2018 @10:03PM (#18145186)
s/legal/extralegal/

"Secret law" is an oxymoron.

[ Parent | on HN ]