4 ms·

> The odds would be extremely low That's why I have trouble believing this story really happened. Simpler explanation would be that money simply changed hands

• eesmith 8y ago
  You think it's easier to believe that The Sunday Mirror paid someone at Heathrow to deliver a USB stick than it is to believe that lots of people at Heathrow are using USB sticks and one of them dropped it? And you think The Sunday Mirror lied to the Information Commissioner’s Office about the data provenance? That is, lied that it was found by a member of the public in Kilburn, and/or lied that it was viewed by that same member of the public on a public library computer before handing it over to The Sunday Mirror? I don't. I don't see why you do. I don't see why we should regard your interpretation as "simpler". Especially when (according to the linked-to report), Heathrow Airport Limited's own investigation could figured out who lost the stick, concluded that the USB stick was likely lost during commute-time transit, and showed that there were serious information security problems at Heathrow, with 'limited data protecting training in place' and no technical methods in place to keep data from being transferred to unencrypted or unauthorized sticks? The report disagrees with your doubt, saying "The Commissioner has made the above findings of fact on the balance of probabilities." How do you end up with a different balance? What scenario are you thinking of?