Thread by @ClimateAudit

@ProfMJCleveland @Pimpernell13 @15poundstogo @themarketswork Microsoft Azure appears to have very scrupulous guarantee of privacy to its customers and warrants that the guarantee extends to its subcontractors
azure.microsoft.com/en-us/overview…

@ProfMJCleveland @Pimpernell13 @15poundstogo @themarketswork If Joffe's stories were based on data acquired by Neustar as subcontractor to Azure Government under strict confidentiality, seems to me that his claims that he was legally entitled to tell stories to FBI, CIA, OIG, Senate Armed Services, NYT, Mother Jones, etc are questionable

@ProfMJCleveland @Pimpernell13 @15poundstogo @themarketswork second, without knowing identity of vendor, it's hard to know what issues arose. For example, identification of Danchenko (or Joffe) raised all sorts of questions and issues that couldnt be even thought of until they were identified.

@ProfMJCleveland @Pimpernell13 @15poundstogo @themarketswork some of the questions arising from Danchenko and Joffe only became clarified with further work into their background. But long before Danchenko was identified, the problem of PSS identity was posed.

@ProfMJCleveland @Pimpernell13 @15poundstogo @themarketswork Similarly, I'm posing issue of identity of vendor to whom Neustar was subcontractor as an outstanding issue - for which there is no obvious or compelling reason why vendor identity should be secret. Entirely likely that identity of vendor will reveal issues that I can't forecast

@ProfMJCleveland @Pimpernell13 @15poundstogo @themarketswork also, if vendor is Microsoft Azure Government, I cannot imagine that their executives would be very happy with Joffe acting as a cowboy with their data, especially if Joffe's conduct shows an important security defect in their setup.