+1 I don't get it, don't they get paid at NIST? Do they have moral values and ethics? Or it's okay to say "Hey NSA pressed us really hard to backdoor you all. So yes we did it, but we didn't really want to", they are not judged for their initial intentions, they are judged for their wrongdoings. The NSA could say that (was said many times actually) the data retention in the end of the day is to protect America against terrorism. Problem is no one believes them.

You seem to be assuming there's something NIST could have done about it. Based on what I've read, that doesn't seem to be the case. It seems like the NSA squeezed everyone else out so that they were the only ones calling the shots.

Apologies for turning to semantics, but I think the confusion is over what "confidence in" means. I think you mean something closer to "respect for". I'm not sure I agree, but I'm not well enough informed to argue the point. Generally, having confidence in something means that you think there's a high probability it will deliver good results, for whatever value "good results" has in that context (e.g. having confidence in a sports team is believing that they'll win). The purpose of NIST isn't to try to do the right thing, or to be competent, or any of that; it's to create good technologic standards. If you're skeptical that they can do that effectively job effectively, regardless of why, then you're not confident in them.

To clarify all that, I'm not arguing your point as I now understand it; I'm just suggesting why you've found some opposition to it as you stated it.