They didn’t simply fail to include a detail: they wrote in a misleading way when it would have been just as easy to write in a non-misleading way. Why not just say there was a list of 17,000 numbers that could be queried, and only 1,800 of the numbers are supported by RAS? [quote=“teapot, post:18, topic:15548”]
No you couldn’t. My commentary is in reply to you and the fact that you’re the ONLY one who’s raised any of this likely means that you’re the only person who is confused.
[/quote]
Right. Because everyone comments when something is unclear. And it’s certainly not possible that anyone else was completely misled by the article.
Or, since you’re the only one (so far) who has complained about my comments so far, by your definition you must also be the only one who I am boring.
Why did they include the WSJ’s figures, then?
Note that I acknowledged that 90% of the NSA queries weren’t supported by RAS. I was simply saying that it is misleading to suggest that the NSA surveillance involves querying 17,000 phone numbers per day without noting that they are the exact same phone numbers being checked every day. If you now want to say that your point is simply that 90% of the queries weren’t supported by RAS, congratulations: my first comment explicitly says exactly this.
