Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> I'm not denying that they complied with the order to enable IP logging.

What 'order'? All their report says is 'request'. If they had meant order, they would have said court order: in all the other cases in the transparency report, they specify if there was a court order.




Okay - fair.

How does that change the fact that saying "I tweeted it so it's true" is not a strong argument in a he-said-she-said debate?


I think it's a strong argument. It's not 'someone much later with fuzzy memories decided to interpret what they thought they heard', it's 'someone right there and then was so struck by what the revelation they just heard that they broadcast it to the world (and you can check that they did by looking at the Twitter timestamp)'.

Which do you trust more, a witness statement taken a minute after the crime, or made a year later?

That someone said something very revealing and immediately backtracked with an excuse "I didn't say what I said" is, on the other hand, deeply unconvincing.




Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: