It's unfair of me to cast aspersions against Greg that the general public wouldn't be in a position to back up; but I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone with knowledge of either him or the situation to not consider him an untrustworthy source (about this, or really anything).

I can say I have no reason to doubt anything that Jason says (although if this crazy accusation were true, logically, it would make sense for him to deny it).

The good news is that this is something that is verifiable. If there is in fact a backdoor in the code, someone should be able to find it.

> It's unfair of me to cast aspersions against Greg that the general public wouldn't be in a position to back up

Hasn't stopped you yetº. Why balk at the request to provide a little substantiation?

ºhttp://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2006352

I guess I'm balking because my answer to the question "is he a known liar?" is "yes, by anyone who knows him or has worked with him."

The problem with that statement is that from what I can see, no one who meets that criteria is commenting in this article. I am aware of no public record that he is a liar; but if someone asked if my Aunt Verna is crazy I would want to respond "oh yes, absolutely).

Because he can't substantiate without breaking confidences. It's fine to ask the question and fine to say you're not going to take him at his word, but let's leave it there.

After seeing the post I linked, I searched the Googles in vain to find a wisp of what he was referring to. It's perfectly fine to not break confidences, but you can't call someone "bat-shit insane" and then demurely say you won't cast aspersions on him; that horse has left the barn.

He didn't say he wouldn't; he acknowledged that it was unfair. It is. That doesn't make him wrong. Please can we drop it? You raised the point. We get it.