In reply to Ian Dunn.

> so I think the central issue is the length of time she waited.

Exactly. What I was saying, and I think probably everyone else who has issue with this is probably saying that 24 hours especially without confirmed receipt is not a reasonable time to wait before full disclosure. Given time zones, staffing levels, weekends, staff's personal lives and so many other things it's hard to imagine any reasonable way to justify her disclosure in only 24 hours unless a response was need to avoid loss of life or a terrorist attack.

Since I have no idea her motives I won't conjecture but I did read her responses to criticism and they all read like rationalization to avoid admitting she made an error in judgement. And thus far all that I've read in support of her actions has sidestepped acknowledging there was no excuse full disclosure in only 24 hours *and* before she even received an acknowledgement.

Had she waited a reasonable time for an acknowledgement and then given reasonable time for response (72 hours in both cases is reasonable to me) I think few if any would have criticized her. So while she may be following an accepted response in "full disclosure", her waiting only 24 hours effectively invalidates her claim to any moral high ground.