[simion314]

>Not so much. If the US military found a hardware backdoor, would they want to publicly tell their enemy that their strategy is effective? Not only this, but if they tell their enemies which ones they find, by doing so they also tell them which ones they haven't found.

This thinking can be used to start real wars then, we know X has illegal weapons, trust us we have proof but we can't show it, sure years later after lots of deaths and bilions spent on war you find that it was all propaganda.

[bArray]

> This thinking can be used to start real wars then, we know

> X has illegal weapons, trust us we have proof but we can't

> show it, sure years later after lots of deaths and bilions

> spent on war you find that it was all propaganda.

That's not what I was talking about. What I discussing is security, you always need to assume the worst to build good defenses and information leakage only serves to help those who aim to break your security.

Going to war is another thing altogether. Having overly good defenses have little consequence (beyond primary resources such as time and money). The consequence of fighting a war without good reason can be extremely bad in every sense. That's why wars need to have consequences for those who incorrectly start them.

[simion314]

>That's not what I was talking about. What I discussing is security, you always need to assume the worst to build good defenses and information leakage only serves to help those who aim to break your security.

Assuming is not the same as accusing, I am OK if you say that for national security all sensitive hardware needs to pass some criteria, what I do not agree is "we know X has backdorrs,weapons but we can't show it to you because we don't want them to know what we know"