[FrustratedMonky]

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]

> 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]

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.

[HardCodedBias]

Of course it can do both. They are synergistic.

[coldtea]

>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.

[bigmadshoe]

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

[patgarner]

That's what they're saying, but the timing...

[motbus3]

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