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/ …
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
That is the most unuseful article I've ever read, so maybe there's a reason that didn't come up.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @outsh1ned
I'd love a nuanced discussion of insider threat. But yeah. That's not it. That said, civ libs making similarly unuseful VEP args now.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
I meant yours. It's literally a discussion of a count that was excluded for being irrelevant, from another irrelevant number.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @outsh1ned
Oh. Then it's a great way to prove the underlying number--which
@AmyZegart was using--is also bogus. That too subtle for you?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @AmyZegart
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?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
If she has a cite for 1.5m (does) and notes it as an estimate (does), then your complaint should be lack of a better estimate, not her use.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @outsh1ned @AmyZegart
FALSE. Boy, you don't do subtle. The CORRECT number for ALL, is the one I use. But it reveals that not all were wanted. Subtle, much?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Anyway, thanks for being a demonstration of the sloppy thinking that went into the number Amy used. Goodnight!
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.