Anyone see a game changer here?
ge at linuxbox.org
Sun Jan 24 05:20:45 UTC 2010
On 1/24/10 6:37 AM, Damian Menscher wrote:
> So... you're taking incomplete information hyped up by "tech"
> reporters operating based on leaks from people tangential to an
> investigation as fact, and deciding that if Google doesn't tell you
> the details of an ongoing criminal investigation that you'll assume
> they broke the law.
No. I write there's incomplete information, mention what possibly
happened, what alternatives exist, and ask for more data.
Yes, if Google did do it, I support the move.
Do you have new information to kill speculation, or should these "tech"
reporters keep at it?
More information about the NANOG