[Arm-netbook] eoma68-project

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

hi wolfgang could you forward this for me, in reply to this message?
many thanks

http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-de/2016-July/008460.html

> There is no evidence that this includes a backdoor,
> but this is difficult to verify.
> Therefore, I write that this is a rumor (also known as FUD).

the logic here is totally wrong, marcus, so the conclusion is false.
if it cannot be verified it MUST be assumed to be treacherous.  it's
not a "maybe it is, maybe it isn't" and therefore we can dismiss it:
in the security arena, if it's ANY kind of "maybe" we have to assume
"YES".

this guideline actually comes from the Intelligence Community.  the
Intelligence Community's "worst nightmare" is *NOT KNOWING* if
something is insecure.  if you KNOW that something is insecure, you
can deal with it.  but if you DON'T KNOW, you must absolutely,
absolutely assume the worst case scenario.

the FSF's rules are very very clear: if the source is not available,
it cannot be trusted - period.  there's no way round that.  making
compromises along the lines of "we're not sure" is not in the
slightest bit a possibility that can be considered.

remember: Intel's own "spokeman" will be TOTALLY cut off from the
people who will have had the "gag order" slapped round their mouths
when the NSA came round and said, "hello, we don't want to make it
difficult for you to get Export Licenses for Intel Processors, but
we're gonna have to have that secret key on the backdoor processor.
oh, and if you ever talk about this conversation to anyone, you get a
one-way ticket to guantanamo bay".

i hope you don't mind me pointing this out, marcus, but i am actually
very surprised - and a little alarmed - to have to be explaining this
to someone on the FSF Europe's own mailing lists.

l.