Is it precedented for a news organization to double down like this in the case where a reporter just makes stuff up Stephen Glass style?
Because barring a Stephen Glass scenario, what's fascinating here is that no matter which side is right, this is evidence of some sort of mysterious power play.
Either Apple was hacked, they know, and are denying, which is evidence of them being under the thumb of U.S. national security.
Or, they were hacked and an internal team knows and Cook doesn't, which is evidence of U.S. national security having powerful influence inside of Apple.
Or, they weren't hacked, and Bloomberg is doubling down, which at this point would mean that someone has successfully hacked their journalistic verification processes to an extreme level.
In all three of those cases, it points to a level of attacker competence that I'm not normally inclined to believe in.
Because barring a Stephen Glass scenario, what's fascinating here is that no matter which side is right, this is evidence of some sort of mysterious power play.
Either Apple was hacked, they know, and are denying, which is evidence of them being under the thumb of U.S. national security.
Or, they were hacked and an internal team knows and Cook doesn't, which is evidence of U.S. national security having powerful influence inside of Apple.
Or, they weren't hacked, and Bloomberg is doubling down, which at this point would mean that someone has successfully hacked their journalistic verification processes to an extreme level.
In all three of those cases, it points to a level of attacker competence that I'm not normally inclined to believe in.