4 ms·

> 1- starting their email response with an (unjustified) ad hominem attack on the researchers I do not read this as an attack. I think it’s reasonable to ask i

> 1- starting their email response with an (unjustified) ad hominem attack on the researchers I do not read this as an attack. I think it’s reasonable to ask if their views are representative of their employer when they have not stated. They claim that proper disclosure wasn’t followed, and that the WaPo journalist was untruthful in their reporting. They’re defending themselves, not attacking their accusers. I find point two the most concerning. It feels like a case of deflection or whataboutism. Had they not called out Google specifically, it would feel less aggressive. Point three is … bizarre. The responses seem to come from someone incapable of handling stressful situations (not something I want in a CA), or someone trying to DARVO. The inability to properly to refute claims that should be easily disproved doesn’t logically imply a potentially global conspiracy. I expect a CA’s representatives to be calm and measured in their responses.

KingOfCoders 4y ago
Of course some people see things as attacks and some people see things as questions "And before I begin, you should probably clarify if your views are representing The University of Calgary’s views, The University of California at Berkeley’s views, or your commercial endeavor AppCensus’s views, or your views representing any customer, agency, etc…? If in fact these views are completely independent and personal, that is also helpful to note." when indeed he starts by introducing himself as "I'm Joel Reardon, a professor at the University of Calgary, who researches privacy in the mobile space." and that's it. If there is anything else there, she should just have said "I would be good if you disclosed that you are paid by a competitor/..../financial intereest" but insinuating that the poster has an agenda without providing any evidence (when the poster himself presented 34 sources for his post) looks like an ad hominem attack. When indeed she doesn't seem to introduce herself, explain her affiliations or shares.

KingOfCoders 4y ago

Of course some people see things as attacks and some people see things as questions "And before I begin, you should probably clarify if your views are representing The University of Calgary’s views, The University of California at Berkeley’s views, or your commercial endeavor AppCensus’s views, or your views representing any customer, agency, etc…? If in fact these views are completely independent and personal, that is also helpful to note." when indeed he starts by introducing himself as "I'm Joel Reardon, a professor at the University of Calgary, who researches privacy in the mobile space." and that's it. If there is anything else there, she should just have said "I would be good if you disclosed that you are paid by a competitor/..../financial intereest" but insinuating that the poster has an agenda without providing any evidence (when the poster himself presented 34 sources for his post) looks like an ad hominem attack. When indeed she doesn't seem to introduce herself, explain her affiliations or shares.