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.