This is an important and underappreciated point, but notice that he’s not saying “I could do my job 96% as well—or even 80% as well—with nothing but public knowledge”.
I strongly disagree with your interpretation. The person quoting him is saying that. Maybe the person quoting him is trying to trick the reader, but I haven’t been able to track down the context.
He’s definitely NOT describing how well he could do his job.
Imagine trying to play checkers when you couldn’t see 13 squares (20.3% of the board), or solving a chess quiz when the contents of 2 squares (3.125%) (chosen by a malicious intelligence) are unknown.
The thing about non-public information is that it is selected for value- but it is selected for value to the opponents of the people keeping it secret. If you aren’t the enemy of the people who are concealing information, there’s a good chance that the information they are concealing isn’t interesting to you.
This is an important and underappreciated point, but notice that he’s not saying “I could do my job 96% as well—or even 80% as well—with nothing but public knowledge”.
I strongly disagree with your interpretation. The person quoting him is saying that. Maybe the person quoting him is trying to trick the reader, but I haven’t been able to track down the context.
He’s definitely NOT describing how well he could do his job.
Imagine trying to play checkers when you couldn’t see 13 squares (20.3% of the board), or solving a chess quiz when the contents of 2 squares (3.125%) (chosen by a malicious intelligence) are unknown.
The thing about non-public information is that it is selected for value- but it is selected for value to the opponents of the people keeping it secret. If you aren’t the enemy of the people who are concealing information, there’s a good chance that the information they are concealing isn’t interesting to you.