3 ms·

I'm nearly certain the parent commenter was being sarcastic.

• zer00eyz 8y ago
  The original analogy was good - the commenter diminishes it by trying to portray the NSA person responsible as a different actor. This is the same person who has burned the community before. That old adage about fooling someone once applies here, and for good reason.
  • mindslight 8y ago
    Focusing responsibility on the individual NSA agent is a red herring - the entire organization is the hostile party. Would you judge the situation differently if it were a different operative pushing Speck? The asset themselves probably isn't even privy to the actual existence of a backdoor, due to compartmentalization and for the sake of their own sincerity. They're more akin to the waiter. A waiter that doesn't want to think too hard about whether your food was spit in, as their job depends on not knowing. How are you doing today? smile
    • setquk 8y ago
      This is my entire original point. Literally being associated with the organisation taints the product if it is 100% legitimate or not.