3 ms·
And when the VP of Engineering writes > some of these security alerts...were likely triggered in error one can conclude that they do not know that any of the
by nescioquid 5y ago
And when the VP of Engineering writes
> some of these security alerts...were likely triggered in error
one can conclude that they do not know that any of the alerts were triggered in error (else he would have said as much). Some of the VP's statements were likely triggered by the legal department, though I don't know that any actually were. It doesn't exactly shed light on anything.
- LevGoldstein 5y agoOr more likely, there were probably some legitimate alerts that would have gone out at the same time as per normal operations, and they do not want to conflate these with the ones sent in error.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- nescioquid 5y agoNone, some, all; always, sometimes, never. > some of these security alerts...were likely triggered in error Our VP made no statement about the totality. Draw what conclusions you may from the equivocal register of this public-relations statement, but he is relegating his statement to those alerts which, by his own words, he cannot say to a certainty whether or not they were triggered in error. I presume that this statement is calculated to exclude all those alerts that they can know were legitimate. If you want to expand the scope of the statement, then the only implication would be that they cannot discern the legitimate from the illegitimate alerts. The only purpose of my comment was to draw attention to the apparent equivocation, that is, the art of misleading without lying. If they can't tell right from wrong (alerts), so much the more damning.