I think I'd much sooner take EFF's word than the FBI's word, about the number.
I don't think you understand what's going on here. There is no official number from the FBI that the EFF is somehow contradicting. What you might be mistaking for that is the estimate from a much smaller time frame (2003-2006) from a report by the DOJ Office of the Inspector General. The EFF's estimate is based on that estimate (see footnote 34 of their report).
What I am saying with regards to that number is that the way they combined it with the IOB records they obtained is deceptive. Specifically I have a problem with them using the OIG number (which includes violations as minor as typos) to simply extrapolate a bigger number of the kinds of things reported to the IOB (the data they have) without really acknowledging the differences in the datasets or the wide variation in severity.
I think we can all agree there was rampant, epidemic lawbreaking in the Bush Administration
I don't disagree, but I think that accurately quantifying this with actual evidence is more important than just stating it or worse, exaggerating it for rhetorical effect.
(I have been mistaken for a Republican or Bush apologist more times than I care to recall. I am neither by any stretch. I just don't like politics in general.)
Massaging the exact number smacks of an effort to distract.
That's my point. The EFF is pushing a Big Number (which this article repeats four times) that obscures the more nuanced but less attention-grabbing truth.
I'm disappointed that my posting appears to anybody to be an attempt to distract, so to be absolutely clear: I think people should ignore the big number in favor of reading the report in full and additionally at least skimming the OIG report.
I don't think you understand what's going on here. There is no official number from the FBI that the EFF is somehow contradicting. What you might be mistaking for that is the estimate from a much smaller time frame (2003-2006) from a report by the DOJ Office of the Inspector General. The EFF's estimate is based on that estimate (see footnote 34 of their report).
What I am saying with regards to that number is that the way they combined it with the IOB records they obtained is deceptive. Specifically I have a problem with them using the OIG number (which includes violations as minor as typos) to simply extrapolate a bigger number of the kinds of things reported to the IOB (the data they have) without really acknowledging the differences in the datasets or the wide variation in severity.
I think we can all agree there was rampant, epidemic lawbreaking in the Bush Administration
I don't disagree, but I think that accurately quantifying this with actual evidence is more important than just stating it or worse, exaggerating it for rhetorical effect.
(I have been mistaken for a Republican or Bush apologist more times than I care to recall. I am neither by any stretch. I just don't like politics in general.)
Massaging the exact number smacks of an effort to distract.
That's my point. The EFF is pushing a Big Number (which this article repeats four times) that obscures the more nuanced but less attention-grabbing truth.
I'm disappointed that my posting appears to anybody to be an attempt to distract, so to be absolutely clear: I think people should ignore the big number in favor of reading the report in full and additionally at least skimming the OIG report.