Is there anything in print which elucidates Reid’s views from this time? Because I think this is probably a good position to take at this point.
Because, over the past five or so years, I can see that:
- Content on devices/servers is not only not owned by us, it is not even as dependably impervious as print is and may be changed by a first party.
- Devices/servers are insecure. Any “secure” devices are simply devices with unknown insecurities.
- Given that, “first party” may be substituted by “third party” without knowledge or consent. At any time.
Question is, why? Is there a rogue state which would benefit from throwing doubt on someone known for speaking against one of their agents?
I kind of have to be impressed that you don’t even need an established conspiracy to do any of this. Merely a few prompts here and there and division practically sows itself.
It would be easy to believe that archive.org or the original servers are impervious, but I know from direct experience (as recently as this last weekend) that is not a valid or supportable position to take. And I would like a better authority than archive.org, not because I don’t trust them (I do), but some independent verification would be super nice in a case like this.
Did it happen here? I don’t know. Five years ago I categorically would not have believed Reid. Now I’m actually entertaining the notion that if it could happen, I can almost see how it could happen and how little effort it might take. Not sure I believe her, but it’s odd that she owns some of it and apologized for it, but not the rest of it. Why not all of it? Unless it isn’t all hers?
Also, is there anyone else which this could happen to?
(Also I guess print has another solid point in its favor.)
