4 ms·

"Intel does not participate in anyone’s efforts to decrease security in technology." - This does look to me to be a pretty strong denial.

vinceguidry 13y ago
Not unless you don't believe giving the NSA a backdoor but no one else constitutes compromising security.
x0x0 13y ago
no, it isn't A strong denial: "Absolutely not" What he wrote (in part): First, let me be clear that Intel doesn’t participate in the NSA programs described in recent news reports. Intel does not participate in anyone’s efforts to decrease security in technology. We don’t provide methods for unauthorized access to our products….we don’t create back doors. if it takes you 44 words to say "Absolutely not" my money is on you lying.
- chc 13y ago
  I don't think that's really fair. "Absolutely not" isn't even a good response to the question, which was essentially "Can you comment on these issues?" And if he had said that, people would be objecting, "But he didn't specifically say what claims he was saying 'Absolutely not' to, so my money is on him lying." No matter what he had said and regardless of how true or false it had been, people would be reading in lies. He's too detailed, he's too vague, he's too forceful, too weak, too formal, too informal — once somebody is convinced you're a liar, there is very little you can say to change their mind.
nnq 13y ago
the funny bit is "does not participate in anyone’s efforts to decrease security in technology" ...the phrase is truly A GEM. Just to start with, how do you define "not decreasing security"? maybe as "preventing unauthorized access"? But oops, what does "unauthorized" mean and who is "authorized"? And "participate in anyone’s efforts"?! Won't even try to split the possible meanings of that! ...hopefully they do a better job at keeping their hardware backdoors (if they exist) off the "market" than they do at press releases. Nobody needs this for their dirty deeds anyway considering the current state of software security, and even a state agency would be stupid to use such capability even if they had it, for obvious reasons.

vinceguidry 13y ago

Not unless you don't believe giving the NSA a backdoor but no one else constitutes compromising security.

x0x0 13y ago

no, it isn't A strong denial: "Absolutely not" What he wrote (in part): First, let me be clear that Intel doesn’t participate in the NSA programs described in recent news reports. Intel does not participate in anyone’s efforts to decrease security in technology. We don’t provide methods for unauthorized access to our products….we don’t create back doors. if it takes you 44 words to say "Absolutely not" my money is on you lying.

chc 13y ago
I don't think that's really fair. "Absolutely not" isn't even a good response to the question, which was essentially "Can you comment on these issues?" And if he had said that, people would be objecting, "But he didn't specifically say what claims he was saying 'Absolutely not' to, so my money is on him lying." No matter what he had said and regardless of how true or false it had been, people would be reading in lies. He's too detailed, he's too vague, he's too forceful, too weak, too formal, too informal — once somebody is convinced you're a liar, there is very little you can say to change their mind.

nnq 13y ago

the funny bit is "does not participate in anyone’s efforts to decrease security in technology" ...the phrase is truly A GEM. Just to start with, how do you define "not decreasing security"? maybe as "preventing unauthorized access"? But oops, what does "unauthorized" mean and who is "authorized"? And "participate in anyone’s efforts"?! Won't even try to split the possible meanings of that! ...hopefully they do a better job at keeping their hardware backdoors (if they exist) off the "market" than they do at press releases. Nobody needs this for their dirty deeds anyway considering the current state of software security, and even a state agency would be stupid to use such capability even if they had it, for obvious reasons.