"Even Schneier does this coming up with all sorts of reasons for why he thinks what has happened has happened as if he has some truly unique inside information on what is going on and why"
Did we read the same article? Schneier doesn't come across as if he's implying that 'he has some truly unique inside information.'
Some quotes: "I have to admit this story has me puzzled." .. "My initial assumption was .. but .. I'm not sure anymore." .. "I have a hard time believing" .. "Another possibility" .. "This leaves one last possible explanation" .. "I didn't mean to say that intimidation wasn't the government's motive. I believe it was, and that it was poorly thought intimidation".
This comes across as a set of hypotheses about what's happened, and attempts to evaluate their likelihood and appropriateness based on available (public) information. Not based on inside information.
You raised a good point on how I phrased what I said which was incorrect. I guess I meant to say "has no unique inside information so this is of only entertainment and discussion value" as opposed to "as if he has some truly unique inside information". This is the type of stuff that gets repeated in news stories because to a reporter Schneier has something quotable to say.
My point is that he is speculating and would be taken seriously because of who he is which to me at least is somewhat dangerous.
Sometimes people speculate but they have more first hand knowledge of the workings of something (someone who used to be high level at the NSA or a member of congress that was on some intelligence committee or PG talking about other incubators etc.
Comments
"Even Schneier does this coming up with all sorts of reasons for why he thinks what has happened has happened as if he has some truly unique inside information on what is going on and why"
Did we read the same article? Schneier doesn't come across as if he's implying that 'he has some truly unique inside information.'
Some quotes: "I have to admit this story has me puzzled." .. "My initial assumption was .. but .. I'm not sure anymore." .. "I have a hard time believing" .. "Another possibility" .. "This leaves one last possible explanation" .. "I didn't mean to say that intimidation wasn't the government's motive. I believe it was, and that it was poorly thought intimidation".
This comes across as a set of hypotheses about what's happened, and attempts to evaluate their likelihood and appropriateness based on available (public) information. Not based on inside information.
You raised a good point on how I phrased what I said which was incorrect. I guess I meant to say "has no unique inside information so this is of only entertainment and discussion value" as opposed to "as if he has some truly unique inside information". This is the type of stuff that gets repeated in news stories because to a reporter Schneier has something quotable to say.
My point is that he is speculating and would be taken seriously because of who he is which to me at least is somewhat dangerous.
Sometimes people speculate but they have more first hand knowledge of the workings of something (someone who used to be high level at the NSA or a member of congress that was on some intelligence committee or PG talking about other incubators etc.