No. This isn't private information. The code is open source and his public employment and presentations are not private. There's a very reasonable mechanism to develop intent, and the arrow of time points in the right direction (would anyone care if he went from Mozilla to NSA? Not likely). The potential for a mole in something as critical as Firefox is non-trivial.

A leak isn't a threat, but a false-flag operation is very much in the cards.

Its a legitimate question, in light of recent events particularly for something as privacy vital as a browser.

A major reason to post this is to make get ex-NSA employees fired, make them persona non grata and risky for companies to hire. It's partly political.

On one hand, I see what you're saying here. I would far rather live in a world where hiring and firing decisions came from quality of code produced, and quality of interactions with colleagues, than just about any other metric.

On the other hand, the tech community has already legitimized social shaming as a method for getting people out of jobs cf. Brendan Eich, and if this is what we're using to make these sorts of decisions, then I can totally get behind the idea of working at the NSA equating to something shameful.

But what's shameful next month?

So. Like most nerds, all I'd really like to see is some consistency.

> the tech community has already legitimized social shaming as a method for getting people out of jobs cf. Brendan Eich

We shouldn't treat dumb shit like that as any kind of binding precedent. Just because the "tech community" has gone on silly witch hunts before doesn't justify any and all future witch hunts.

good. NSA employees may be singularly unconscious to not know who they are working for, but at some point they have to start taking personal responsibility for their actions. if the 'free market' punishes them, then good i say.

So if someone leaves the NSA because they disagree with the actions of the NSA, they should still be "punished" by the free market? That seems... counterproductive.

Hmm, this seems rather callous considering. It seems to me it is rather presumptuous to attempt to get someone fired because of their history -- unless you have evidence that this person is doing the things that you say. In this case it seems that he is legitimate.

I am not saying do not treat them with suspicion and scrutiny.