[phamilton]

I'd also like the exact wording of their claim. "There is no evidence of misuse or account compromise" is what I would expect them to say, as "There was no misuse or account compromise" likely opens them up to legal repercussions if that isn't 100% accurate.

[IncRnd]

Exactly. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

[emn13]

Well, depending on how hard you look and what the false negative rate is like, bayesian reasoning would like to differ.

You know what I love about the internet? You think something like this, and you just know somebody's looked into it in some details :D - https://cocosci.princeton.edu/papers/absentData.pdf

[IncRnd]

Inference isn't evidence. Inference is drawn from evidence and is an educated guess. A guess is not evidence. You fell for the clickbait headline of a pdf.

[solveit]

Evidence isn't absolute proof and there are degrees of evidence. See: Weak evidence, strong evidence.

[IncRnd]

The idiom that I mentioned is still true, whether you discuss circumstantial or direct evidence. Lack of Evidence isn't Evidence of Lack.

[solveit]

Lack of evidence is always weak evidence for evidence of lack, and pretty strong evidence if you've looked hard enough. If you've trawled through loch Ness with a fine toothed comb for decades and haven't seen Nessie, well then that's pretty good evidence for lack of monster.