We now have senior NSA officials disputing the story.

https://www.macrumors.com/2018/10/10/nsa-senior-advisor-ques...

But I agree, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, just an idea.

It might very well be true however and it would raise flags for a lot of companies, not just Apple and Amazon, and it could very well be a 'reality check' for corporate America.

I happen to know a little bit about how the US does some of these things, moreover, a lot of it is public information, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if this story were essentially true and that there's a lot of lying involved.

But who knows, it's a really weird one.

It doesn't make sense for them to proactively deny it. If it was government propaganda, why would they attack the Bloomberg story. They could just say we can't confirm it, which would leave the door open to it being true. Denying it is counterproductive if it was a planted propaganda piece.

It is a fascinating story, anything is still possible, but the momentum is starting to swing against Bloomberg.

An American U2 "weather research" plane is shot down over the USSR.

The US strongly denied that the U2 was a spy plane and produced "weather research" U2s in NASA livery and a story about how the pilot's oxygen equipment malfunctioned.

...the USSR had failed to mention that the U2 pilot (Gary Powers) was alive and well, and that the definitely-a-spy-plane was recovered mostly intact. Oops!

How is this not propoganda?

It's not propaganda to inform the world that someone is infiltrating supply chain networks for the purposes of espionage. As if they are not aware already, it's a wake-up call.

If the story were utterly untrue, or it was a pernicious fabrication of information or misdirection, then it would be propaganda.

For example, some US military maneuvers in E. Asia are especially made public via mainstream media channels (even though they might be public anyhow, there's extra emphasis to make sure there's coverage) to make sure a message is sent. The popularization of a straight forward story in that case I don't think would really be propaganda.

i don't think that word means what you think it means

We've done the same thing here. When relations with the US and China were bad, the news coverage of china is very anti-china. When relations are good, the news coverage turns good ( like the generous, almost fawning, Deng news coverage in the 70s ).

Of course it's the most noticeable or obvious during war time, but propaganda is ever present during peace, it's just more subtle.

Having a story 'encouraged' in the press about hacking of supply chains for espionage is a pretty decent way of singling to all involved that the jig is up.

Ginning up anti-Chinese news over many cycles is more like propaganda, but what does that accomplish? Nothing really, unless nations are really at war and then the 'truth is the first casualty' of course.

I think the reason the press is softer on China lately is purely economic, businesses are linked, they pay ad dollars, and they can demand stuff be snuffed just like Harvey Weinstein could get stories canned via backroom arm twisting. Witness specifically the disappearance of all things Dalai Lama and Tibet, which was all the rage in Cali a decade ago and now nobody talks about it. Can't risk upsetting those Chinese dollars flowing into big projects.

The biggest difficulty in a democracy is that public opinion matters. If you do something that is widely unpopular, it means that it may cause problems for you. If you want to do something, for example put harsh trade barriers up against a country, then you want people to think, "They deserved it because they did X which is far worse".

So here's a completely fictional idea. I don't propose that this will actually happen, just that it's an example of why you might want to do this. Let's imagine that you don't like the fact that the Chinese are able to take a lot of electrical manufacturing away from the US. You know that the US can't compete because wages and working conditions have to be higher. Also, the Chinese have more control over their industry because they run a totalitarian regime.

So, you get this idea, "Let's say that we have to inspect all electrical parts outsourced to China because it is a threat to our security. We can add on a 30% tariff to cover the job." This does many things. It makes outsourcing to China very expensive and allows US manufacturers to compete. Even if companies continue to choose Chinese outsourcing, it allows you to hire a whole bunch of unskilled workers as "inspectors". Finally it creates a precedent that electronic outsourcing is "dangerous" and must be controlled by government inspections -- allowing you some sort of control over how US companies can choose to outsource. This is especially compelling if you, personally, think that you can use this to your advantage after you leave office and return to business.

So, you leak a whole bunch of information about how the Chinese suppliers are implanting spying devices into servers built by the largest and most successful US companies. And the sweet thing about it is that they probably are doing it occasionally, so all you have to do is to find a single example of it and then convince some reporters (who are journalists, not engineers) that it's happening more often and that the big businesses are engaging in a huge cover up. And because you are the government, you can round up some pretty impressive credentials (off the record, of course!) to back up your story.

Like I said, I don't think that's what's going on (and I'll fall off my chair laughing if the US government decides to do what I said), but it's a completely plausible idea. There is considerable value in manipulating public opinion in this manner (or, more likely, something a lot more subtle).

If it were true, I wouldn't be the least surprised.

But consider this - it might be absolutely fair.

For the same reason you cannot have 'free trade' between a 'state actor' and an 'open economy'. Can't work due to dumping, strategic investments, etc. etc..

So if China wants to play huge strategic games and control their economy, keep wages low, keep people utterly in the dark and under their control - for the purposes of taking away major industrial sectors to the US ... then it would be 100% fair game for the US to intervene. I don't even think they'd have to do it covertly.

I believe that there should be an x% tarrif from any nation that is not 'free market'. And then a y% tariff if they are externalizing things like pollution and human rights. After all, if China has only a 50% wage advantage due to overtly oppressed wages, then how can anyone compete? And then a z% tariff for currency manipulation.

'Tit for tat trade' is the best policy and I think that would be a great approach to China: when they enact pollution laws that are consistent with ours, then that tariff gets reduced. When they get rid of currency flow controls and allow money to cross the border as happens here, then no more %z tariff.

The truly bizarre thing about this scenario is that this is a surprise to anyone. Of course 'supply chains are infiltrated'. This is 100% happening, we know this, because 'we' i.e. Western powers do it. For gosh sakes. Given the super aggressive policies that China has going on right now - even trying to recruit and pressure ex-pat students, their 100% control of information etc. ... it should be of no surprise to anyone that they are up to this.

Even Canadian PM Trudeau, kind of the 'opposite of Trump' and actively trying to get along in China has recently banned some Chinese investment and activity by mobile phone manufacturers.

I think that any major company should probably be inspecting all hardware that comes in, and I don't doubt that this is going to be 'the new normal'.

I hope it's all just a bad story but my bet is that it leans towards the truth, and there is probably some funny business going on as well.