3 ms·
And I don't understand yours. You were concerned about other people other than Wes accessing the same data via the same flaw, Alex said that did not happen.
by eastonhockey19 11y ago
And I don't understand yours. You were concerned about other people other than Wes accessing the same data via the same flaw, Alex said that did not happen.
- dandelany 11y agoAlex said they "have no evidence" it happened, which is classic slippery legalese. From that phrase it is reasonable to infer either that they have evidence of absence, or absence of evidence, which are not the same thing.
- eastonhockey19 11y agoIt's standard wording for something like this even if they had 100% evidence of absence.
- dandelany 11y agoCorrect. It's the standard wording, whether or not they actually have evidence. Therefore we cannot assume, as you have earlier in this thread, that they do in fact have it.
- Dr_tldr 11y agoBut until Wes told them, they had no evidence that Wes was accessing the data! Or are you saying that they did have evidence, but chose to take a "wait and see" approach to someone gaining control of their entire platform?
- CRConrad 11y agoNo, he claimed _not to have any evidence_ that it did happen. "Quick, shut off the logging on those servers, so we don't have any record of who logged in on them!"