4 ms·

It's a big allegation. This email didn't strike me as an overly emotional response. It was a very firm refutation from a respected member of the community abo

by frisco 16y ago

It's a big allegation. This email didn't strike me as an overly emotional response. It was a very firm refutation from a respected member of the community about a hefty accusation.

chubs 16y ago
I think his refutation was quite calm, solid, and respectable.
- grandalf 16y ago
  Well, it was focused mostly on his reputation, not on the code. If he had been involved in writing a back door, this is precisely the kind of response he'd write. It makes it personal, etc. Someone who hadn't written a back door would simply say: "That is crazy, I had nothing to do with a back door and none exists to my knowledge. I welcome a thorough audit of the code".
  - SwellJoe 16y ago
    "That is crazy, I had nothing to do with a back door and none exists to my knowledge. I welcome a thorough audit of the code". That's pretty much exactly what he said, in more verbose form.
    - grandalf 16y ago
      The idea that it's preposterous that there would have been exploits is part of the knee-jerk reaction. If the FBI will try to infiltrate (and nearly entrap) muslim immigrants, why is it so farfetched that it would hire very bright cryptographers to infiltrate an open source community that is developing its own military grade crypto and giving it away free?
      - SwellJoe 16y ago
        I'm not saying it's far-fetched. I think our government is crooked, and probably do make an effort to insure they have access to citizens encrypted communications. But, let's be fair here: A well-respected developer involved in security projects has been declared untrustworthy. He has a right to be angry, and a right to defend himself. Just because the federal government does nasty things, doesn't mean we should just accept unbacked accusations about the integrity of someone, particularly when it seems the guy actually didn't have much to do with the code in question.
        grandalf 16y ago
        True, he does have the right to be angry, but unless he's an uncommonly egotistical person I find it hard to believe that he'd react quite that strongly to an allegation that was completely false, unless he was deliberately trying to leverage his perceived reputation and personal pride to allay suspicion. Consider an FBI informant who has penetrated a terrorist cell. Suppose one of the actual terrorists suspects him and accuses him of being a traitor in front of the rest. What will he do to save his skin? He'll be indignant, he'll try to tug on any personal ties he has with the other members, he'll cite his reputation, he'll potentially attack the accuser. Why? Because he feels that in order to be perceived as telling the truth he has to "leak" raw human emotion. He has to communicate that his rational mind is not in control b/c he feels that others will doubt him if they don't see that human emotion. If he's innocent on the other hand, he'd laugh and say f* you and assume nobody would take it all that seriously, since he would not assume that anybody would listen to such a ludicrous allegation, and if he started to actually worry that the accusation was believable to others, he'd think quite rationally and demand that his accuser produce more evidence, since he has the information advantage about his own actions and could easily refute false charges.
        SwellJoe 16y ago
        Circular logic. You're saying someone would act this way in order to appear innocent. But, this is the way someone who is actually innocent, and angry at the accusation, would act. There is no one true way a human being, with actual emotions, responds to being accused, falsely or truthfully, of deceit. Honestly, your explanation of why he sounds guilty to you reminds me of the paranoid ramblings of, well, paranoid people. Again, it's entirely possible the FBI (though this isn't their jurisdiction really) could be trying to subtly shape free software to their bidding, but this is a baseless, and pretty shaky, claim by someone that allegedly has a commercial incentive in stirring up this shitstorm. I think the accused has every right to be mad as hell about the accusation, especially if he did no such thing.
    - btilly 16y ago
      He also said, "I was not heavily involved in the code in question. Look at the commit logs."

by frisco 16y ago

It's a big allegation. This email didn't strike me as an overly emotional response. It was a very firm refutation from a respected member of the community about a hefty accusation.

chubs 16y ago

I think his refutation was quite calm, solid, and respectable.

grandalf 16y ago
Well, it was focused mostly on his reputation, not on the code. If he had been involved in writing a back door, this is precisely the kind of response he'd write. It makes it personal, etc. Someone who hadn't written a back door would simply say: "That is crazy, I had nothing to do with a back door and none exists to my knowledge. I welcome a thorough audit of the code".
- SwellJoe 16y ago
  "That is crazy, I had nothing to do with a back door and none exists to my knowledge. I welcome a thorough audit of the code". That's pretty much exactly what he said, in more verbose form.
  - grandalf 16y ago
    The idea that it's preposterous that there would have been exploits is part of the knee-jerk reaction. If the FBI will try to infiltrate (and nearly entrap) muslim immigrants, why is it so farfetched that it would hire very bright cryptographers to infiltrate an open source community that is developing its own military grade crypto and giving it away free?
    - SwellJoe 16y ago
      I'm not saying it's far-fetched. I think our government is crooked, and probably do make an effort to insure they have access to citizens encrypted communications. But, let's be fair here: A well-respected developer involved in security projects has been declared untrustworthy. He has a right to be angry, and a right to defend himself. Just because the federal government does nasty things, doesn't mean we should just accept unbacked accusations about the integrity of someone, particularly when it seems the guy actually didn't have much to do with the code in question.
      - grandalf 16y ago
        True, he does have the right to be angry, but unless he's an uncommonly egotistical person I find it hard to believe that he'd react quite that strongly to an allegation that was completely false, unless he was deliberately trying to leverage his perceived reputation and personal pride to allay suspicion. Consider an FBI informant who has penetrated a terrorist cell. Suppose one of the actual terrorists suspects him and accuses him of being a traitor in front of the rest. What will he do to save his skin? He'll be indignant, he'll try to tug on any personal ties he has with the other members, he'll cite his reputation, he'll potentially attack the accuser. Why? Because he feels that in order to be perceived as telling the truth he has to "leak" raw human emotion. He has to communicate that his rational mind is not in control b/c he feels that others will doubt him if they don't see that human emotion. If he's innocent on the other hand, he'd laugh and say f* you and assume nobody would take it all that seriously, since he would not assume that anybody would listen to such a ludicrous allegation, and if he started to actually worry that the accusation was believable to others, he'd think quite rationally and demand that his accuser produce more evidence, since he has the information advantage about his own actions and could easily refute false charges.
        SwellJoe 16y ago
        Circular logic. You're saying someone would act this way in order to appear innocent. But, this is the way someone who is actually innocent, and angry at the accusation, would act. There is no one true way a human being, with actual emotions, responds to being accused, falsely or truthfully, of deceit. Honestly, your explanation of why he sounds guilty to you reminds me of the paranoid ramblings of, well, paranoid people. Again, it's entirely possible the FBI (though this isn't their jurisdiction really) could be trying to subtly shape free software to their bidding, but this is a baseless, and pretty shaky, claim by someone that allegedly has a commercial incentive in stirring up this shitstorm. I think the accused has every right to be mad as hell about the accusation, especially if he did no such thing.
  - btilly 16y ago
    He also said, "I was not heavily involved in the code in question. Look at the commit logs."