I'll take this as a sign she's learned something as soon as she applies the same standard to my privacy as her own. After all, some animals are more equal than others.
-Vurbal
Some thoughts:
- Fair point Vurbal, but it looks to me like at least a step (of many needed) to eventually do something. Congress operates on momentum, and whether one side can sustain it and the other side can dissipate it. So there's still lots more to do, but since this is sitting at "
www.feinstein.senate.gov/public", it's there to stay, as opposed to the extra smokescreens if it were some newspaper story that then later vanishes. So while nothing may happen yet, it needs this step *to* happen at all.
- "We have no way to determine who made the Internal Panetta Review documents available to the committee. Further, we don’t know whether the documents were provided intentionally by the CIA, unintentionally by the CIA, or intentionally by a whistle-blower."
I like DC because we get to analyze news from the IT angle. This statement looks like a "save someone's honor compromise". How do you not know where the documents came from, at least partially? From any of twelve angles - ip/other addresses, document signatures, maybe even upload logs? (It's a super ultra top secret database, and it doesn't stamp when someone uploads something into it?! So are we talking a security breach?! Nah, I'm going with my other theory here.)
- By reversing her position from "for" to "against" this stuff, other junior senators might decide to follow her lead. Even, if we had a "privacy candidate" in the 2016 election, even as a "1-topic-joke", it might raise the issue in people's minds.