A careful read of the post turns up very little actual information. There’s indignation over the story, indignation over us not giving them a heads up, and a st

A careful read of the post turns up very little actual information. There’s indignation over the story, indignation over us not giving them a heads up, and a statement that it’s impossible for data to be sent to CBS without Garrett’s knowledge. They also say “Any suggestion that we were complicit in transferring user data to any third party is incorrect.” We need more than that. Isn't it the accuser's job to prove that someone is guilty, rather than the defendant's job to prove his innocence? TechCrunch is still publishing this based on only a couple sources. I realize that it is hard to get even a couple sources, but what if even one of those sources is fake? Since we can't know anything about them, we have no way of validating what TechCrunch is saying.