7 ms·
It was purely evasive. Half of what she wrote was statements that she can't answer that, can't speculate, doesn't know, or her lawyers advised her not to answer
by kuschku 4y ago
It was purely evasive. Half of what she wrote was statements that she can't answer that, can't speculate, doesn't know, or her lawyers advised her not to answer.
The other half of her text was her answering questions that were never asked.
At no point did she answer the questions that were asked.
She was repeatedly asked about the corporate structure and shared investors. The answers reached from claims that it'd be too much content to summarize in this forum, claims that lawywers advised against it, claims that answering truthfully would lead to tax obligations, to claims that she doesn't know and would have to speculate.
Instead, she spent lots of time explaining the remote-work arrangement in Canada (irrelevant), the upstream networks of their Phoenix datacenter (irrelevant) or the tax situation of employees/contractors working for their company (also irrelevant).
- zaphirplane 4y agoI didn’t read it all, the Canada and data center explanation was in response to questions about addressed in the audit and where the business is registered. There was a few strangeness but no smoking gun still maybe CA should be beyond reproach
- treis 4y agoLike not being run by a gigantic company who's primary revenue derives from tracking as much activity on the web as they can? Or not being a company who derives the majority its revenue from the company above? This whole controversy is like a flock of lambs asking a pride of lions to stop some mosquitoes from biting them.
- dcow 4y agoExactly. It's not like Apple would happily explain to you how their tax haven is setup if you but simply asked out of concern about whether they should be trusted to own everyone's phones and push the root CA list in the first place... ... ...
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago>It was purely evasive. Half of what she wrote was statements that she can't answer that, can't speculate, doesn't know, or her lawyers advised her not to answer. To be clear: if you don't know the answer, it's not evasive to say "I cannot answer that" or "I don't know the answer" or "giving an answer would be speculation on my part".
- KingOfCoders 4y agoYes but the OP was "I did and don’t feel like Rachel’s responses were sufficiently considered" - and it's hard to consider answers which are "I can't answer".
- dcow 4y agoThat's exactly my point. People asking the questions are awfully entitled to answers that fit their narrative or expectations of the events. Saying "that would be speculation and I'm not going to engage in speculation" is a direct answer, and a rather mature one at that. Nobody is entitled to somebody else's speculation. But in this thread it seems that answer wasn't appropriate. Again, my point is that Rachel did answer but everyone immediately dismissed her answers and her being passive aggressive when in reality she seemed to be acting in good faith and divulging as much as she could responsibly and factually.
- 1123581321 4y agoShe was evasive and dishonest, and omitted answers to the real questions that needed to be answered, and tried to cover for that by inventing concern for responsible disclosure inappropriate for the forum.
- zchrykng 4y agoAnyone responsible for running a CA with a root cert should be willing to answer any reasonable question that the public can dream up. The fact that they were unwilling to provide basic information is a huge red flag.