5 ms·

Not exactly. The CNN article doesn't say that, and The Verge's piece[1] on this puts it together pretty clearly. >Zatko was fired by Twitter in January and cla

Not exactly. The CNN article doesn't say that, and The Verge's piece[1] on this puts it together pretty clearly. >Zatko was fired by Twitter in January and claims that this was retaliation for his refusal to stay quiet about the company’s vulnerabilities. Last month, he filed a complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that accuses Twitter of deceiving shareholders and violating an agreement it made with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to uphold certain security standards. His complaints, totaling more than 200 pages, were obtained by CNN and The Washington Post and published in redacted form this morning. So, breaking it down more concisely: 1.) Fired in January 2.) Musk tries to buy Twitter in early April 3.) Complaint filed with SEC in July by Mudge ("way [after] EM entered the picture") 4.) WaPo published redacted, 200-page report today [1]https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/23/23317857/twitter-whistleblower-zatko-security-spam-safety https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/23/23317857/twitter-whistleb... Edit: This is not an endorsement of mud-slinging, just an attempt to make sure everyone knows what actually happened and when, at least as best we can discern at this point.

semiquaver 4y ago
From the complaint (pg 9): > Please note that Mudge began preparing these disclosures in > early March 2022, well before Mr. Musk expressed any > interest in acquiring Twitter, and has not communicated > these disclosures to anyone with a financial interest > in Twitter. Why debate what the timelines implied by various articles are when the primary source is available and makes a clear statement on this matter?
- jjulius 4y ago
  >Why debate what the timelines implied by various articles are when the primary source is available and makes a clear statement on this matter? Probably because most of us in the chain you're replying to didn't have the time to read an 84-page source document in the middle of a work day (note the time of our comments and how late to this particular chain you are), hoping that a nugget of information like that would be dropped pretty early on in it. Hence my edit at the end, which I had hoped would have made it clear that I was open to being corrected. But thank you so much for that snarky comment while you clarified things. You're so much better than us for finding that, how could we have ever been so daft? Forgive us?
  - semiquaver 4y ago
    I didn’t intend any snark, it was an honest question. Apologies for having offended you.
    - jjulius 4y ago
      Nah, I think it's my fault. I have realized this week that I'm dealing with a lot of tough shit and haven't been handling it well. I think I've taken to looking for arguments on HN (and other places) as an outlet and, in hindsight, I am pretty sure that was one of those moments. It's not fair to you, and I'm sorry. Hope ya have a great rest of the week. :)
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        Thank you for this comment. And much good luck with your situation.
        jjulius 4y ago
        :)
      - semiquaver 4y ago
        Props for being vulnerable and introspective, which is not always easy. Here’s hoping you overcome the things you are struggling with!
        jjulius 4y ago
        Cheers. :)

semiquaver 4y ago

From the complaint (pg 9): > Please note that Mudge began preparing these disclosures in > early March 2022, well before Mr. Musk expressed any > interest in acquiring Twitter, and has not communicated > these disclosures to anyone with a financial interest > in Twitter. Why debate what the timelines implied by various articles are when the primary source is available and makes a clear statement on this matter?

jjulius 4y ago
>Why debate what the timelines implied by various articles are when the primary source is available and makes a clear statement on this matter? Probably because most of us in the chain you're replying to didn't have the time to read an 84-page source document in the middle of a work day (note the time of our comments and how late to this particular chain you are), hoping that a nugget of information like that would be dropped pretty early on in it. Hence my edit at the end, which I had hoped would have made it clear that I was open to being corrected. But thank you so much for that snarky comment while you clarified things. You're so much better than us for finding that, how could we have ever been so daft? Forgive us?
- semiquaver 4y ago
  I didn’t intend any snark, it was an honest question. Apologies for having offended you.
  - jjulius 4y ago
    Nah, I think it's my fault. I have realized this week that I'm dealing with a lot of tough shit and haven't been handling it well. I think I've taken to looking for arguments on HN (and other places) as an outlet and, in hindsight, I am pretty sure that was one of those moments. It's not fair to you, and I'm sorry. Hope ya have a great rest of the week. :)
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      Thank you for this comment. And much good luck with your situation.
      - jjulius 4y ago
        :)
    - semiquaver 4y ago
      Props for being vulnerable and introspective, which is not always easy. Here’s hoping you overcome the things you are struggling with!
      - jjulius 4y ago
        Cheers. :)