In theory, Intel could be under some kind of directive or warrant to do this and it would be illegal for them to even disclose its existence, let alone protest against it.
If I had an application where it mattered, I would pick RDRAND over a software system that was not reviewed, built, verified, and continuously monitored by someone I trust. It's implausible that RDRAND on my hardware is implemented differently from the hundreds of thousands of other copies of the core, or differently from the way it was yesterday. I have no such confidence in /dev/random. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with FreeBSD's RNG;
it only means that it's harder to be sure I'm actually using it.
Not to accuse Intel, because I have no idea whether or not they have backdoors, but do you want them to say: "Yes, we intentionally sold faulty products that put all your customer data at risk, and you at risk of a lawsuit for not protecting your customers' data."
Makes me wonder, though... if the government forces intel to sell everyone defective products does that violate our 4th amendment rights? Do I, as an individual, have standing to sue the federal government because they intentionally weakened a product I purchased, potentially exposing me to other kinds of threats?
What about someone who has actually been victimized by an exploit of a backdoor that was ordered installed by the government? Would they have standing to sue for damages that resulted?
I only ask because I know "standing" has been an important issue in many of the cases related to these abuses. Most of the suits have failed because the plaintiffs were found to lack standing for one reason or another.
You can file a lawsuit saying your rights were violated (the ACLU has done it multiple times). You can also sue under The Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"). The Federal Government is not immune from rights violations.
