This was under duress that government was going to use emergency act to force them anyway.

I kind of wish they had forced the governments hand and made them do it. Just to show the public how much interference is going on.

They say it wasn't related. Like every thing that has happened across tech/media, the company is forced to do something, then issues statement about 'how it wasn't related to the obvious thing the government just did'.

▲

bix6 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Katie Sweeten, a former liaison for the Justice Department to the Department of Defense, said she’s not sure how the Pentagon can both declare a company to be a supply chain risk and compel that same company to work with the military.

Makes perfect sense!!

▲

coldtea 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Regardless of any specifics, I don't see any contradiction.

If a company is deemed a "supply chain risk" it makes perfect sense to compel it to work with the military, assuming the latter will compel them to fix the issues that make them such a risk.

	▲	hluska 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I’m not sure what definition of supply chain risk they’re working off of. For NATO to consider an organization to be a supply chain risk, it implies that usual controls (security clearances and the like) wouldn’t be sufficient to guarantee the integrity and security of the supply chain. If that’s the operating definition, I see the contradiction- it’s arguing that a company cannot be trusted to voluntarily work within supply chains but can be trusted enough to be compelled. If they’re operating under a different definition of supply chain risk, I don’t have a clue.
	▲	FrustratedMonky 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The "supply chain risk" option is to remove that company from the supply chain all together. The 'risk' is because the company is compromised by a foreign entity. It is not about disciplining them to get better. 1. So one option is about forcing them to produce something. You must build this for us. 2 The other option is saying they are compromised so stop using them all together. We will not use what you build for us at all because we don't trust it. So . Contradictory.

▲

HardCodedBias 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Of course it can do both. They are synergistic.

▲

coldtea 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>This was under duress that government was going to use emergency act to force them anyway.

Or, more likely, adding the "core safety promise" was just them playing hard to the government to get a better deal, and the government showed them they can play the same game.

▲

6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

bigmadshoe 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is an unrelated change to the government’s demands.

	▲	patgarner 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's what they're saying, but the timing...

▲

motbus3 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They have been caught lying multiple times, about this, about the system capabilities, about their objectives.