Anyone see a game changer here?

Sun Jan 24 05:49:18 UTC 2010

On 1/24/10 7:20 AM, Gadi Evron wrote:
> 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.

To illustrate, you quoted:

"While reporting is vague, Google has supposedly broken into a server in 
Taiwan (unless information of working through Taiwanese authorities, or 
that someone else has done this for Google, becomes available)."

The paragraph continues, with:
"If this happened, ..."

I hope this solves any misunderstanding.

	Gadi.