In OpenSSL it was for FIPS. For Dual EC and Juniper it was the default in all devices.
You plant a thousand flowers and hope that some will bloom. Some did bloom.
Conversation
And I can see how that could fit together, but you're talking about it as if it's certain and as if you know Salter was involved in orchestrating it. So, she knew about it and agreed to take the fall for whatever happened since it was her name being attached to it this way?
2
I’ve been down every road and at the end of every road there is evidence of a crime.
Did a crime occur? I think so.
Did Margaret Salter commit it? I don’t know. Her name is on one of the (metaphorical) guns used to commit the crime.
My goal is to surface this. End story.
2
3
> Did Margaret Salter commit it? I don’t know. Her name is on one of the (metaphorical) guns used to commit the crime.
And I agree with you on that. It doesn't look good for her. It feels seriously wrong sending a mob after her based on what's known about it though. That's all.
1
1
“Sending a mob after her” sounds seriously dramatic. But let’s exit the soap opera and be clear what will happen.
In six months Salter will still be healthy and fine and almost certainly gainfully employed at Amazon in a job which has (I’m told) a 1.2m/yr salary.
1
2
I’m not saying this because I begrudge her an incredibly generous salary. I’m saying this because, now that you’ve conceded the serious nature of the *potential* ethical transgression, I want you to be realistic about what is happening here.
1
1
If I’m wrong and something happens to her extremely lucrative and gainful employment, I’m happy to pay you $500 cash but only conditioned on the fact that you also agree to pay the same if she suffers no employment consequences at all.
1
I don't think she's going to suffer employment consequences but rather will receive misguided death threats, etc. based on something she quite possibly didn't do and is unlikely to have actually proposed / orchestrated if she did. She was the public face of it, sure.
2
I don't think Amazon cares either way. It could be public that she did do this with actual hard evidence for it and it wouldn't mean they wouldn't hire her. They probably prefer employees willing to do unethical things for them. I'm not complaining cause I think she'll be fired.
1
1
So this person probably did bad things, by your argument. There will be no meaningful consequences regarding the actual position of trust. But some rando might hypothetically do something bad so we must not publicly discuss it.
2
1
No, but rather, I think you should have some real evidence that someone had the intent to do something malicious before personally singling them out to a large audience as a perpetrator in a probable (but hardly certain) conspiracy.
I will never be able to be able to provide that kind of evidence, because it’s classified.
Following this line of argumentation leads to only one possible conclusion: we hire anyone to this position of trust regardless of whatever circumstantial evidence exists against them.
1
2
But of course once you stare directly at the implications of this argument you realize how untenable it is.
1
And if they did do it, it's not like this person tortured people or put them in concentration camps. Rather, they quite possibly played a role in a convoluted backdoor that seems like it was more likely to harm the US government than anyone else. It would have been their job.
1
This whole idea that I took aim at US companies in a complicated bank shot that I was hoping would actually bounce off and hit foreign targets without negatively implicating the initial targets is brilliant.
Except that when it doesn’t work you hurt US companies.
1
Show replies