[criley]

If that was the case, then why are the CEO's putting their personal names on the line?

It's trivially simple for an expendable PR person or lawyer to go on the blog and make an "official" statement ghostwritten by the NSA/etc.

But that's not what happened. Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg posted using their accounts, and if it wasn't them, it was ghost written and borrowing their name and reputation (ie, they own it).

So, the CEO's are intentionally lying and intentionally attaching their names what could be the biggest lie they tell in some time.

Seems very stupid, why would they do that? Why not sacrifice a scapegoat? PR departments are full of useful scapegoats.

The Government forced them to reply personally to bolster credibility? But now we're back into the laughable conspiracy area again.

Or of course, they're telling the truth. For all we know, these companies reached out to each other, not the government, on the response.