Well, it was focused mostly on his reputation, not on the code. If he had been involved in writing a back door, this is precisely the kind of response he'd write. It makes it personal, etc.
Someone who hadn't written a back door would simply say: "That is crazy, I had nothing to do with a back door and none exists to my knowledge. I welcome a thorough audit of the code".
The idea that it's preposterous that there would have been exploits is part of the knee-jerk reaction. If the FBI will try to infiltrate (and nearly entrap) muslim immigrants, why is it so farfetched that it would hire very bright cryptographers to infiltrate an open source community that is developing its own military grade crypto and giving it away free?
I'm not saying it's far-fetched. I think our government is crooked, and probably do make an effort to insure they have access to citizens encrypted communications.
But, let's be fair here: A well-respected developer involved in security projects has been declared untrustworthy. He has a right to be angry, and a right to defend himself. Just because the federal government does nasty things, doesn't mean we should just accept unbacked accusations about the integrity of someone, particularly when it seems the guy actually didn't have much to do with the code in question.
True, he does have the right to be angry, but unless he's an uncommonly egotistical person I find it hard to believe that he'd react quite that strongly to an allegation that was completely false, unless he was deliberately trying to leverage his perceived reputation and personal pride to allay suspicion.
Consider an FBI informant who has penetrated a terrorist cell. Suppose one of the actual terrorists suspects him and accuses him of being a traitor in front of the rest. What will he do to save his skin? He'll be indignant, he'll try to tug on any personal ties he has with the other members, he'll cite his reputation, he'll potentially attack the accuser.
Why? Because he feels that in order to be perceived as telling the truth he has to "leak" raw human emotion. He has to communicate that his rational mind is not in control b/c he feels that others will doubt him if they don't see that human emotion.
If he's innocent on the other hand, he'd laugh and say f* you and assume nobody would take it all that seriously, since he would not assume that anybody would listen to such a ludicrous allegation, and if he started to actually worry that the accusation was believable to others, he'd think quite rationally and demand that his accuser produce more evidence, since he has the information advantage about his own actions and could easily refute false charges.
Circular logic. You're saying someone would act this way in order to appear innocent. But, this is the way someone who is actually innocent, and angry at the accusation, would act. There is no one true way a human being, with actual emotions, responds to being accused, falsely or truthfully, of deceit.
Honestly, your explanation of why he sounds guilty to you reminds me of the paranoid ramblings of, well, paranoid people. Again, it's entirely possible the FBI (though this isn't their jurisdiction really) could be trying to subtly shape free software to their bidding, but this is a baseless, and pretty shaky, claim by someone that allegedly has a commercial incentive in stirring up this shitstorm. I think the accused has every right to be mad as hell about the accusation, especially if he did no such thing.
My logic isn't circular. The second part describes how someone who did nothing wrong typically acts. My point is that people are not very good liars and often fail to accurately act the part.
In any case, I have no clue whether he had anything to do with any backdoor, just trying to make the point that his response is not what I'd expect from someone who had nothing to do with it -- possible exceptions: If he's an unusually egotistical person or if he has significant financial interests which the perception that he was involved could disrupt.
"If he's an unusually egotistical person or if he has significant financial interests which the perception that he was involved could disrupt."
Or, if he is passionate about the software he is involved in building...which Open Source developers generally are. Reputation is the only currency that matters in the Open Source world, and someone has attempted to destroy this guys reputation. (Or any number of other reasons why someone might be bothered by such an accusation. Your assertion that there are only two "possible exceptions" is just ridiculous. Speaking in such certainties about the human brain and human emotions is simply nonsensical.)
Frankly, I think you're talking out of your ass here, with very little understanding of the people you're talking about, or the psychology you seem to believe you know so much about. Do you have no exposure at all to the Open Source community? That's the only way I can imagine you would consider reputation to be something a normal person doesn't have every right to care about and defend from accusations.
Honestly, this developer responded far more politely than I would have in similar circumstances.
