Not mentioned in this piece on insider threats: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/05/nsa-cyberattack/526644/ … 1) 1/5 docs Snowden stole were blank https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/01/18/one-fifth-of-documents-edward-snowden-stole-were-blank/ …
Oh. Then it's a great way to prove the underlying number--which @AmyZegart was using--is also bogus. That too subtle for you?
-
-
If we're going to be alarmist abt stuff that 1) hasn't been published and 2) report ALSO provided evidence got destroyed, > focus on blanks.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Is subtlety the correct word? You can't, don't cite a more accurate count than she does. How's this 20% blank nobody cites become relevant?
-
The relevant number is the one the IC, not DIA uses. But IF you're going to adopt the dumb number DIA uses, you have to count all he touched
-
But, yeah, if you don't understand that, then subtle may be the correct word. Amy's number was bogus. She has to use either full or partial.
-
Yeah I'm sure it comes down to everyone else being dumb, not understanding, failing your nuance in every instance. Only explanation
-
You forgot sloppy thinking. You can choose 1) All (incl blanks) 2) what IC uses or 3) Some arbitrary subset of all that ignores collex
-
Amy chose the arbitrary number, the one with the least intellectually justifiable basis. Her choice. Also ignores destruction evidence.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.