3 ms·
...So what? This might be true, but it still means that an attorney (seemingly?) acting on behalf of Alphabet/Waymo seems to have requested the records. This d
by hugelgupf 10y ago
...So what?
This might be true, but it still means that an attorney (seemingly?) acting on behalf of Alphabet/Waymo seems to have requested the records. This doesn't seem to contradict the document they filed with the court.
- masklinn 10y ago> ...So what? So it seems Waymo literally just requested a duplicate of the author's own request, on which the author had based their previous reporting. Which doesn't require much effort to infer that Waymo was just checking if the author's previous reporting was actually truthful and possibly looking for some more details in the same document the author had previously brought to light in their reporting, and that was sufficient to finally launch their legal action.
- eli 10y agoMaking a duplicate request is also a good trick to get an answer faster since the agency already has the records prepared
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- DannyBee 10y ago"and that was sufficient to finally launch their legal action." Right,except nowhere does any of this actually prove or imply that. In fact, he asked waymo: "When I checked in with Waymo about this turn of events, the company said only that its Nevada records request was to investigate Otto’s lidar. It did not comment on my role in uncovering the information they needed." IE they refused to confirm the author's ego-driven search to prove he's actually important.
- emodendroket 10y agoWhat incentive do they have to say yes, if it was?