Chances are that the contractual arrangements that routinely exist between governments and contractors like Gemalto make "blameless post mortems" non-profitable. It's a tricky thing to do right, because you do want to have accountability in the contract.

Governments (rightly) want contractors like this as experts-on-tap in the technology under consideration. But what you really want is not exactly a provider of the technology, but rather an advisor or partner in the process of implementing your process. I don't think we know how to structure a non-nepotistic relationship of that kind.

That's usually why projects of this size have multiple parties involved aside from directly contracting with the vendor.

As much as it's easy to hate on the Big4 consulting companies, they exist for this reason among others (some of which have more to do with how to grease the skids with pork).

> The Soviet Socialist Republic of Estonia would have had access to some of the best, but not anymore.

wat

Estonia was a part of the Soviet Union, and the Soviets had some pretty good crypto by Cold War standards.

yeah, and we see now how "democratic" is Russia now, so your observations about Soviet Union crypto specialists and this topic about Estonia's E-systems is totally unrelated.

Sorry, but calling todays Estonia 'the soviet socialist republic' is just plain stupid.

I haven't heard that Germany is called former na%i state when refering to country.

Do you mean Nazi? At least in the US, it's legal to use that word.

Comment was blacklisted when written with z.

Probably too many 'offensive' keywords.

Sovuets also had ever decreasing desire to do anything civilian.