4 ms·
> He also said that the company was led by executives willing to cover up the platform’s security issues, including by discouraging Zatko from informing its boa
by fmajid 4y ago
> He also said that the company was led by executives willing to cover up the platform’s security issues, including by discouraging Zatko from informing its board of directors about them. (Hahn, the Twitter spokesperson, told me that Zatko’s portrayal of the company was “riddled with inconsistencies and inaccuracies, and lacks important context.”)
I'm guessing the missing context is that Twitter's board itself did not want to know (plausible deniability), otherwise they would also become liable for breach of fiduciary duty.
- joe_the_user 4y agoTwitter's board itself did not want to know (plausible deniability) Oh seems plausible and I'd guess Mudge would expect that. And I'd also guess that when making a complaint, you gotta pretend that going through channels is the proper thing only few bad apples will try to stop, IE that everyone involved here isn't implicitly in on the scheme. And I doubt Twitter would raise this explicitly the "lacking context", to say the least.