Ahh, I see an even shorter quote is required to assist in reading comprehension.
“ According to Eaton’s own release, Palantir’s role would include… most critically—“secure erasure of digital footprints””
Again, and I cannot stress this enough, that is from their own press release.
So you say “where are the receipts?”. And their press release explicitly says “we are bringing in this company to erase receipts”. To which you respond “where are the receipts”.
To echo your statement, do you see how this might appear as willful misunderstanding to an outside observer?
Are you referring to the press release linked in the article, because it doesn’t actually say those things.
Focussing further is just about the worst thing you can do - “secure erasure of digital footprints” is there a definition of what this is anywhere? Is there anything that suggests they were doing that on voting machines? Companies absolutely have a requirement to remove customer data on request in many jurisdictions - that would absolutely be covered by that statement. You’re take a very narrow statement (which, again, doesn’t appear to be in the linked press release) and blowing it up to meet the definition you want it to.
In referring to my above comments, you’ll note I never said they did do something, only that IF they did do it, they had the capabilities in place to do so without leaving a trace.
My issue is only with the top commenters phrase “bring receipts”.
The article author address this pretty thoroughly in why that’s not possible, referencing publicly available information.
The top commenter seemed to deliberately disregard that point
Ahh, I see an even shorter quote is required to assist in reading comprehension.
“ According to Eaton’s own release, Palantir’s role would include… most critically—“secure erasure of digital footprints””
Again, and I cannot stress this enough, that is from their own press release.
So you say “where are the receipts?”. And their press release explicitly says “we are bringing in this company to erase receipts”. To which you respond “where are the receipts”.
To echo your statement, do you see how this might appear as willful misunderstanding to an outside observer?
Are you referring to the press release linked in the article, because it doesn’t actually say those things.
Focussing further is just about the worst thing you can do - “secure erasure of digital footprints” is there a definition of what this is anywhere? Is there anything that suggests they were doing that on voting machines? Companies absolutely have a requirement to remove customer data on request in many jurisdictions - that would absolutely be covered by that statement. You’re take a very narrow statement (which, again, doesn’t appear to be in the linked press release) and blowing it up to meet the definition you want it to.
Capability of doing something isn’t proof of doing something.
I’m on team “something’s fucky” but it’s still not proof.
In referring to my above comments, you’ll note I never said they did do something, only that IF they did do it, they had the capabilities in place to do so without leaving a trace.
My issue is only with the top commenters phrase “bring receipts”.
The article author address this pretty thoroughly in why that’s not possible, referencing publicly available information.
The top commenter seemed to deliberately disregard that point
☝️