NLRB Withdraws Claims That Tim Cook's Anti-Leak Email Violated Labor Laws

[citysnaps]

Sure, but I would have blamed the illegal tariffs, not the lack of an illegal bribe. Why is this controversial? Are you arguing that a CEO has a responsibility to break the law if it will lower prices!?!?!

IIRC, Cook donated to trump's inauguration event. As did many others.

What United States law did Cook break? Be specific.

 

[BaldiMac]

No, I am telling you that secretly hiring an obscure foreign firm to write a hit piece, then using that hit piece as en excuse to wiretap and investigate a political rival, is a textbook example of abuse of state power by the ruling government. You're welcome to believe what you want, call it "a conspiracy theory", and come up with multiple excuses why this was a perfectly normal thing to do. It still wasn't.

Who said it was normal? Nothing about 45's foreign connections was normal. I just believe the simplest explanation is the most likely one.

Remind me again, what party was in power, controlling the White House, the American government, and the state security services?

You're jumping to the assumption that the FBI were politically motivated, instead of simply investigating specific counter-intelligence. Obama went out of his way to make sure that the investigation didn't influence the election.

 

[SnowCrocodile]

Who said it was normal? Nothing about 45's foreign connections was normal. I just believe the simplest explanation is the most likely one.

You have a different view on what the simplest explanation is.

Also, there was nothing normal about Hillary's solicititation of multimillion dollar "donations" from foreign actors while she was the Secretary of State, this reeked of a major conflict of interest. Yet, I don't recall FBI getting nearly as excited about her.

You're jumping to the assumption that the FBI were politically motivated, instead of simply investigating specific counter-intelligence.

Steele report was not "counter intelligence". It was a paid opinion piece by a foreign hired hand. If FBI were reacting to all such hit essays they would never have the time to do anything else. It typically requires real intelligence - provided by the state services responsible for obtaining it, and meeting fairly strict criteria of verification - before FBI gets to wiretap and investigate anyone.

Obama went out of his way to make sure that the investigation didn't influence the election.

That's actually a pretty good joke. Thank you.

 

[BaldiMac]

You have a different view on what the simplest explanation is.

Yep.

Also, there was nothing normal about Hillary's solicititation of multimillion dollar "donations" from foreign actors while she was the Secretary of State, this reeked of a major conflict of interest. Yet, I don't recall FBI getting nearly as excited about her.

Whataboutism is the favorite distraction of conspiracy theorists.

Steele report was not "counter intelligence".

I didn't say it was. The investigation relied on more evidence than Steele.

That's actually a pretty good joke. Thank you.

That another favorite distraction. Just dismiss inconvenient facts out of hand.

 

[surferfb]

No, I am telling you that secretly hiring an obscure foreign firm to write a hit piece, then using that hit piece as en excuse to wiretap and investigate a political rival, is a textbook example of abuse of state power by the ruling government. You're welcome to believe what you want, call it "a conspiracy theory", and come up with multiple excuses why this was a perfectly normal thing to do. It still wasn't.

But that is not what happened. At all. You’re parroting Trump’s retelling of events as if that is the honest truth. Like most things out of his mouth, it has no bearing on reality whatsoever.

First, Carter Page was originally investigated and subject to FISA warrants for being a Russian asset in 2014, well before he was hired by Trump.

Secondly, let’s be absolutely clear Trump wasn’t wiretapped. Two aides, Page and Paul Manafort were. We’ve already established Page was already thought to be a Russian asset, so what about Manafort? Trump’s campaign manager, who himself has deep ties to key Putin allies, and was working for Trump for free, was “only” doing things like giving confidential polling data to a Russian political consultant known to be an associate of high-ranking Russian intelligence officials and changing the Republican platform to water down language supporting aid to Ukraine. That kinda seems worthy of investigating to me.

Finally, the investigation started well before the Steele dossier. Here’s the Republican head of the FBI:

We started the investigations without the dossier. We were proceeding with the investigations before we ever received that information. Was the dossier material important to the [FISA] package? Of course, it was. As was every fact included in that package. Was it the majority of what was in the package? Absolutely not.

Before the investigators received dossier material, they had already gathered enough evidence from their own sources to make them seriously consider re-requesting FISA warrants on Carter Page, and because their own sources "'corroborated Steele's reporting' with respect to Page” (let’s be clear here, not the parts about Trump, the part about Page), the mutually independent corroborations gave the investigators more confidence to make that decision, and it was used in the FISA request as corroborating evidence.

 

[SnowCrocodile]

But that is not what happened. At all. You’re parroting Trump’s retelling of events as if that is the honest truth. Like most things out of his mouth, it has no bearing on reality whatsoever.

First, Carter Page was originally investigated and subject to FISA warrants for being a Russian asset in 2014, well before he was hired by Trump.

Secondly, let’s be absolutely clear Trump wasn’t wiretapped. Two aides, Page and Paul Manafort were. We’ve already established Page was already thought to be a Russian asset, so what about Manafort? Trump’s campaign manager, who himself has deep ties to key Putin allies, and was working for Trump for free, was “only” doing things like giving confidential polling data to a Russian political consultant known to be an associate of high-ranking Russian intelligence officials and changing the Republican platform to water down language supporting aid to Ukraine. That kinda seems worthy of investigating to me.

Finally, the investigation started well before the Steele dossier. Here’s the Republican head of the FBI:

We started the investigations without the dossier. We were proceeding with the investigations before we ever received that information. Was the dossier material important to the [FISA] package? Of course, it was. As was every fact included in that package. Was it the majority of what was in the package? Absolutely not.

Before the investigators received dossier material, they had already gathered enough evidence from their own sources to make them seriously consider re-requesting FISA warrants on Carter Page, and because their own sources "'corroborated Steele's reporting' with respect to Page” (let’s be clear here, not the parts about Trump, the part about Page), the mutually independent corroborations gave the investigators more confidence to make that decision, and it was used in the FISA request as corroborating evidence.

And yet their FISA warrant included specific references to the now-debunked dossier. Here's what CNN had to say - and that's hardly an unbiased source.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/politics/steele-dossier-reckoning

"Before the dossier, investigators already considered applying for a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to wiretap Page’s communications, but they weren’t sure if they could establish probable cause. The dossier’s explosive claims about Page’s alleged meetings during his recent trip to Moscow “pushed it over” the line, a lawyer involved in the case told the Justice Department watchdog.

The FBI included snippets of Steele’s reporting in the FISA application, along with other information, like details of Page’s previous interactions with Russian spies, and the fact that he suggested to an FBI informant that he had an “open checkbook” from the Kremlin. The secretive FISA court approved the warrant in October 2016, as well as three subsequent renewal requests, meaning Page was wiretapped for about one year."

The whole article is worth reading because, while it is clearly an attempt to extricate the Dems and FBI from some of the accusations, is clearly stating that (a) the dossier was instrumental in obtaining the wiretap warrant ("pushed it over the line") and (b) the dossier itself was a steaming pile of rubbish.

Note that I didn't even bother quoting any conservative sources as they are just as clearly biased the other way.

But even the biased pro-Dem publication has a few interesting things to say.

It is also worth noting that nothing like this was ever done to investigate either Hillary or Biden. And no, highlighting the blatant double standard is not "whataboutism".

Well, I'm off to a wedding. Have a good rest of your weekend.

 

[surferfb]

And yet their FISA warrant included specific references to the now-debunked dossier. Here's what CNN had to say - and that's hardly an unbiased source.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/politics/steele-dossier-reckoning

"Before the dossier, investigators already considered applying for a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to wiretap Page’s communications, but they weren’t sure if they could establish probable cause. The dossier’s explosive claims about Page’s alleged meetings during his recent trip to Moscow “pushed it over” the line, a lawyer involved in the case told the Justice Department watchdog.

The FBI included snippets of Steele’s reporting in the FISA application, along with other information, like details of Page’s previous interactions with Russian spies, and the fact that he suggested to an FBI informant that he had an “open checkbook” from the Kremlin. The secretive FISA court approved the warrant in October 2016, as well as three subsequent renewal requests, meaning Page was wiretapped for about one year."

The whole article is worth reading because, while it is clearly an attempt to extricate the Dems and FBI from some of the accusations, is clearly stating that (a) the dossier was instrumental in obtaining the wiretaps ("pushed it over") and (b) the dossier itself was a steaming pile of rubbish.

Note that I didn't even bother quoting any conservative sources as they are just as clearly biased the other way.

But even the biased pro-Dem publication has a few interesting things to say.

Well, I'm off to a wedding. Have a good rest of your weekend.

That literally what I wrote above. The investigation was already underway and bits of the dossier about Page (not Trump) were used in the warrant application. And from your link above: "Steele was right that Page attended high-level meetings with Russians during his trip, even though Page was denying it at the time." You don't think the fact that a foreign policy advisor for a major-party Presidential candidate, who was previously suspected of being a Russian asset, and then lied about not having meetings with a deputy Russian Prime Minister is worthy of investigation?

Finally, the FISA warrants of Page continued even after Trump was inaugurated. You know for a FISA warrant of an American you have to show the judges you are collecting valuable information or otherwise they get shut down? Investigators went back to the court at least four times and demonstrated that they were collecting valuable information from the wiretap of Page. So it wasn't some sort of Obama fishing expedition.

All that said, I hope you enjoy the wedding! A much better use of time than arguing with me on MacRumors.

 

[victorvictoria]

Oooh, Orange man bad because the media told me to.

Your syntax is not clear. the media told me to [sic] "Orange man bad?" The media didn't tell me "so." I listened to his own words and made my judgement based on that. Simple enough. He speaks simply enough that a 10 year old can understand.

 

[bgillander]

And yet their FISA warrant included specific references to the now-debunked dossier. Here's what CNN had to say - and that's hardly an unbiased source.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/politics/steele-dossier-reckoning

"Before the dossier, investigators already considered applying for a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to wiretap Page’s communications, but they weren’t sure if they could establish probable cause. The dossier’s explosive claims about Page’s alleged meetings during his recent trip to Moscow “pushed it over” the line, a lawyer involved in the case told the Justice Department watchdog.

The FBI included snippets of Steele’s reporting in the FISA application, along with other information, like details of Page’s previous interactions with Russian spies, and the fact that he suggested to an FBI informant that he had an “open checkbook” from the Kremlin. The secretive FISA court approved the warrant in October 2016, as well as three subsequent renewal requests, meaning Page was wiretapped for about one year."

The whole article is worth reading because, while it is clearly an attempt to extricate the Dems and FBI from some of the accusations, is clearly stating that (a) the dossier was instrumental in obtaining the wiretap warrant ("pushed it over the line") and (b) the dossier itself was a steaming pile of rubbish.

Note that I didn't even bother quoting any conservative sources as they are just as clearly biased the other way.

But even the biased pro-Dem publication has a few interesting things to say.

It is also worth noting that nothing like this was ever done to investigate either Hillary or Biden. And no, highlighting the blatant double standard is not "whataboutism".

Well, I'm off to a wedding. Have a good rest of your weekend.

I’ve got no horses in this race, but your replies are intriguing. If Clinton had had a press conference asking Russia or China to release any hacked Trump information like this, am I to assume you would find it suspicious if that was investigated?

 

[leicaman]

Cook's bribe. The Quisling surrender that keeps on giving.

 

[leicaman]

I’ve got no horses in this race, but your replies are intriguing. If Clinton had had a press conference asking Russia or China to release any hacked Trump information like this, am I to assume you would find it suspicious if that was investigated?

Don't bother pointing out the facts. These people don't care about facts, just repeating the lies.

 

[GraXXoR]

that was never going to go anywhere ... confidential information is confidential for a reason.

In the EU, companies are not allowed to class pay / compensation as a confidential matter. Because that obviously leads the company to reducing pay on a worker by worker basis and makes them unable to complain/discuss it.

When pay is in the open companies are obliged to pay fair market rates for their workers and the workers are able to fairly compare their compensation packages to those of their co-workers / peers.

 

[throAU]

Cook sent the email in 2021, stating that Apple was working to identify people who had leaked information, and that such people do not belong at Apple. Cook's email followed a leaked Apple meeting that included topics like pay equity and working from home.

I don't think there should be any problem with this.

If you work at a high tech company, intentionally leaking corporate secrets to the internet should be instant dismissal. The only realistic alternative is restricting your access to company information which will mean you can't do your job anyway.

You're potentially costing the company hundreds or thousands of millions of dollars and its not due to being slack or ignorant, if its intentional it is premeditated deliberate malice.

I say that whether the person is working for Apple, Microsoft, Google or anyone else.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

It is one thing to leak information about new products, but this is about discussions this is about the working conditions. That should be public.

 

[cicalinarrot]

"Scarlett accused the company of maintaining work rules that “prohibit employees from discussing wages, hours, or other terms or conditions of employment.” Gjovik’s filings alleged that an email Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook sent pledging to punish leakers, as well as a set of policies in Apple’s employee handbook, violated federal law."

From Bloomberg's original article about the case.
It wasn't just about this email but also other practices.
But, anyway, workers should be allowed to talk about their working conditions, always. Or, worst case scenario, you can be forced to work in inhumane conditions and unable to organize to change it because your company decided it's a secret. Conveniently.

and pay equity is not confidential? this is about confidential, not trade secrets.
when you sign a contract with any tech company (and I'm sure others) you sign that you do not share confidential information outside your work, simple as that.

Point is there are some rights you shouldn't be able to give up by signing a contract.
A company cannot make you sign a contract that makes you renounce to fundamental workers' right. Well, not in a country that cares about people and not just corporations.
Most extreme case of this, you can't sign a contract that makes you become a slave. We don't want people to lose some rights, no matter what.
In this case, we're talking about a kind of right (discussing and telling the world working conditions a company wants to impose) that if lost could make you lose all others.

Not sure why so many people here and in the US in general are ready to fight for corporations' "rights" to use their absolutely insane (and, in this case, unprecedented) amount of power to keep workers in line. Feels like sheeps saying wolves have the right to eat all of them.

 

[iMac The Knife]

The look on Cook's face in that photo is the same look on his face when he loses a penny down a sewer drain.