3 ms·

Which is very hard when given an exploding timeline of a few days to respond… Honestly I felt like some of her responses were crafted with input form people wit

by dcow 4y ago

Which is very hard when given an exploding timeline of a few days to respond… Honestly I felt like some of her responses were crafted with input form people with legal training and that’s exactly what turned people off because everyone knows lawyers can’t be trusted rite.

kuschku 4y ago
The CA forum is designed to be a forum of trust, on eye level. The fact that her responses read like a letter written by a bad lawyer already violates that trust. She's saying as little as possible, admitting nothing, and constantly trying to evade claims on a technicality.
- dcow 4y ago
  I guess to me that behavior also makes sense if one has nothing to hide and is unfairly being asked for a bunch of info that isn’t appropriate or relevant to provide because of absurd unsubstantiated claims that they are in bed with malware authors by a journalist who seemingly has an agenda.
  - kuschku 4y ago
    > unfairly being asked for a bunch of info that isn’t appropriate or relevant That's true in a court of law, but here the goal is to convince others that you're trustworthy.
  - CrazyStat 4y ago
    >absurd unsubstantiated claims Interesting way to describe a situation in which company A had the same owners as malware company B and also integrated a never-before-seen unobfuscated copy of company B's malware into company A's app. The claims are neither absurd nor unsubstantiated.
    - dcow 4y ago
      Neither company A nor company B have anything to do with company C, the CA.
      - CrazyStat 4y ago
        company A is the CA.
        dcow 4y ago
        That's not actually true, if you read Rachel's explanation.
        CrazyStat 4y ago
        What is not actually true? Rachel admits that TrustCor (company A) and Measurement Systems (Company B) had the same investors: > Unknown until recently by any employee officers of TrustCor we and Measurement Systems S de RL had in common a group of investors who represented funds (groups of companies and other funds), not individuals. She argues it doesn't matter because those people don't own TrustCor anymore, but can't or won't provide any details about the supposed ownership transfer. Rachel also admits that the supposedly secure email app owned by TrustCor (which lies about being E2EE) had Measurement Systems' malware built into it, which she blames on a rogue employee: > Prior to my original reply, we had already completed an investigation related to this activity. Our software revision control system revealed immediately when the software was introduced and which developer introduced it. [...] Also as I previously stated, "Whether or not the SDK was added for a developer’s own financial gain or otherwise is beyond us and we don’t care to speculate." Our investigation found the developer in question properly signed our standard "Confidentiality Obligation and Invention Agreement” that requires any developer to obtain a corporate license to any 3rd party software or intellectual property the developer chooses to include. We confirmed through corporate records and email searches that no such agreement was ever obtained by the company or company counsel. Also, none was included inside the software/check-in to revision control. We also confirmed no approval for including this third-party software was ever obtained from Wylie (technically the manager of the developers at that time). Technically that individual developer violated our Confidentiality Obligation and Invention Agreement. So, which part of what I said is not actually true?

by dcow 4y ago

kuschku 4y ago

The CA forum is designed to be a forum of trust, on eye level. The fact that her responses read like a letter written by a bad lawyer already violates that trust. She's saying as little as possible, admitting nothing, and constantly trying to evade claims on a technicality.

dcow 4y ago
I guess to me that behavior also makes sense if one has nothing to hide and is unfairly being asked for a bunch of info that isn’t appropriate or relevant to provide because of absurd unsubstantiated claims that they are in bed with malware authors by a journalist who seemingly has an agenda.
- kuschku 4y ago
  > unfairly being asked for a bunch of info that isn’t appropriate or relevant That's true in a court of law, but here the goal is to convince others that you're trustworthy.
- CrazyStat 4y ago
  >absurd unsubstantiated claims Interesting way to describe a situation in which company A had the same owners as malware company B and also integrated a never-before-seen unobfuscated copy of company B's malware into company A's app. The claims are neither absurd nor unsubstantiated.
  - dcow 4y ago
    Neither company A nor company B have anything to do with company C, the CA.
    - CrazyStat 4y ago
      company A is the CA.
      - dcow 4y ago
        That's not actually true, if you read Rachel's explanation.
        CrazyStat 4y ago
        What is not actually true? Rachel admits that TrustCor (company A) and Measurement Systems (Company B) had the same investors: > Unknown until recently by any employee officers of TrustCor we and Measurement Systems S de RL had in common a group of investors who represented funds (groups of companies and other funds), not individuals. She argues it doesn't matter because those people don't own TrustCor anymore, but can't or won't provide any details about the supposed ownership transfer. Rachel also admits that the supposedly secure email app owned by TrustCor (which lies about being E2EE) had Measurement Systems' malware built into it, which she blames on a rogue employee: > Prior to my original reply, we had already completed an investigation related to this activity. Our software revision control system revealed immediately when the software was introduced and which developer introduced it. [...] Also as I previously stated, "Whether or not the SDK was added for a developer’s own financial gain or otherwise is beyond us and we don’t care to speculate." Our investigation found the developer in question properly signed our standard "Confidentiality Obligation and Invention Agreement” that requires any developer to obtain a corporate license to any 3rd party software or intellectual property the developer chooses to include. We confirmed through corporate records and email searches that no such agreement was ever obtained by the company or company counsel. Also, none was included inside the software/check-in to revision control. We also confirmed no approval for including this third-party software was ever obtained from Wylie (technically the manager of the developers at that time). Technically that individual developer violated our Confidentiality Obligation and Invention Agreement. So, which part of what I said is not actually true?