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/ …
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.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think we've established any disagreement over criticism of widely cited figures being widely cited is due to other humans being inferior.
-
Not inferior. Sloppy, uncritical thinking. That entire report is facially poor. Amy's written abt bad oversight. It's a great example.
-
I mean, heck, some key claims in report are undermined by publicly FOIAed documents. If HPSCI report can't withstand FOIA, not a good report
-
I could go on. Amy has written, very credibly, about bad oversight. That report is a stellar example. Hopefully she'll use it only as such.
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.