But if this data requires the level of security because it's vulnerable to being damaged and tanking the entire Plan because this data can prove in court that the election was stolen...
...then perhaps Lindell shouldn't be holding a contest with it. And should just, you know, put it into the court system.
If he's seriously holding what he says he's holding, then I want it in the places where it's going to make a difference. Now. Not serving as the centerpiece to some closed-door symposium challenge. Not being made available to any rando Lindell feels is worthy of messing around in the system to fact-check it.
well think of it from his perspective. He has 37TB of packet data....he got it from random dude that needs to remain anonymous as this person must have security clearance well beyond "going public with 37TB" Mike needs a way to verify the data without....."I paid some dude to make it show what i wanted". He is questioning himself at this point. He is doing it right. If he goes to court and it comes out then that he was had....well that would be a disaster.
And i don't think the data will be damaged. He won't just use the original copy. Court will be in due time....and i am worried about the security of people having this data off site. A lot of data can be pulled from a packet capture...that is where security can be an issue for the machines that got caught up in the capture.
All that might be true.
But if this data requires the level of security because it's vulnerable to being damaged and tanking the entire Plan because this data can prove in court that the election was stolen...
...then perhaps Lindell shouldn't be holding a contest with it. And should just, you know, put it into the court system.
If he's seriously holding what he says he's holding, then I want it in the places where it's going to make a difference. Now. Not serving as the centerpiece to some closed-door symposium challenge. Not being made available to any rando Lindell feels is worthy of messing around in the system to fact-check it.
well think of it from his perspective. He has 37TB of packet data....he got it from random dude that needs to remain anonymous as this person must have security clearance well beyond "going public with 37TB" Mike needs a way to verify the data without....."I paid some dude to make it show what i wanted". He is questioning himself at this point. He is doing it right. If he goes to court and it comes out then that he was had....well that would be a disaster.
And i don't think the data will be damaged. He won't just use the original copy. Court will be in due time....and i am worried about the security of people having this data off site. A lot of data can be pulled from a packet capture...that is where security can be an issue for the machines that got caught up in the capture.