One Article Review
| Source |  Errata Security |
|---|---|
| Identifiant | 278205 |
| Date de publication | 2016-12-21 18:44:41 (vue: 2016-12-21 18:44:41) |
| Titre | "From Putin with Love" - a novel by the New York Times |
| Texte | In recent weeks, the New York Times has written many stories on Russia's hacking of the Trump election. This front page piece [*] alone takes up 9,000 words. Combined, the NYTimes coverage on this topic exceeds the length of a novel. Yet, for all this text, the number of verifiable facts also equals that of a novel, namely zero. There's no evidence this was anything other than an undirected, Anonymous-style op based on a phishing campaign.The question that drives usIt's not that Russia isn't involved, it's that the exact nature of their involvement is complicated. Just because the hackers live in Russia doesn't automatically mean their attacks are directed by the government.It's like the recent Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe and America. Despite ISIS claiming credit, and the perpetrators crediting ISIS, we are loathe to actually blame the attacks directly on ISIS. Overwhelmingly, it's individuals who finance and plan their attacks, with no ISIS organizational involvement other than inspiration.The same goes for Russian hacks. The Russian hacker community is complicated. There are lots of actors with various affiliations with the government. They are almost always nationalistic, almost always pro-Putin. There are many individuals and groups who act to the benefit of Putin/Russia with no direct affiliation with the government. Others do have ties with the government, but these are often informal relationships, sustained by patronage and corruption.Evidence tying Russian attacks to the Russian government is thus the most important question of all -- and it's one that the New York Times is failing to answer. The fewer facts they have, the more they fill the void with vast amounts of verbiage.Sustaining the narrativeHere's a trick when reading New York Times articles: when they switch to passive voice, they are covering up a lie. An example is this paragraph from the above story [*]:The Russians were also quicker to turn their attacks to political purposes. A 2007 cyberattack on Estonia, a former Soviet republic that had joined NATO, sent a message that Russia could paralyze the country without invading it. The next year cyberattacks were used during Russia's war with Georgia.Normally, editors would switch this to the active voice, or:The next year, Russia used cyberattacks in their war against Georgia.But that would be factually wrong. Yes, cyberattacks happened during the conflicts with Estonia and Georgia, but the evidence in both cases points to targets and tools going viral on social media and web forums. It was the people who conducted the attacks, not the government. Whether it was the government who encouraged the people is the big question -- to which we have no answer. Since the NYTimes has no evidence pointing to the Russian government, they switch to the passive voice, hoping you'll assume they meant the government was to blame.It's a clear demonstration that the NYTimes is pushing a narrative, rather than reporting just the facts allowing you to decide for yourself.Tropes and clichesThe NYTimes story is dominated by cliches or "tropes".One such trope is how hackers are always "sophisticated", which leads to the conclusion they must be state-sponsored, not simple like the Anonymous collective. Amusingly, the New York Times tries to give two conflicting "sophisticated" narratives at once. Their article [*] has a section titled "Honing Stealthy Tactics", which ends with describing the attacks as "brazen" |
| Envoyé | Oui |
| Condensat | 000 2007 :the @emptywheel @ggreenwald ability above act active actors actually administration advanced advancement affiliation affiliations afford after against aim all allowing almost alone also always america amount amounts amusingly announcing anonymous another answer anti any anything applied are article articles: artsy assume attack attacks aura authorized automatically bad based because beg behavior being benefit biases big bits blame bloggers boldness both brazen briefed briefing but call campaign can candidates care cases casual challenge cherry cia claiming claims clear cliches clichesthe collective combined come community complicated conclusion conclusionthe conducted conference conflicting conflicts contradiction corruption could country coverage covering credit credited crediting criticisms current cyberattack cyberattacks cybersecurity dccc decide defend defense delivers demand democrat demonstration describes describing deserve despite devolves direct directed directly discussion disorganized dissected distorted dnc dnc/dccc/podesta document documents doesn dominated dribbling drives dumped during editors effect election emails encouraged end ends equals estonia europe every everyone evidence exact exactly example exceeds expect experts facts factual factually failing fake fewer fiction field fill finance former forums foundation friend from front fsb full game georgia get give given glenn goes going government greenwald groups guccifer2 hacker hackers hacking hacks had happened has have headquarters here hiding holes honing hoping house how ideas imagines impact important individual individuals influence info informal information inspiration installed instead intelligence intention invading investigation involved involvement isis islamic isn issue itself joined journalism journalists just keeping key know knowledge known knows lead leads leak leaked leaking leaks leave length lie like little live loathe looks lots love lulzsec made magic major many marcy marked may mean means meant media message money monitoring more most motivated must mysteriousness namely narrative narrativehere narratives nationalistic nato nature new news next non normally not note: novel nuanced number nytimes obama officially officials officials are officialsin often once one opportunistic or:the organization organizational original other others otherwise out overwhelmingly page paragraph paralyze parks part passive patronage people people who perpetrators phishing photo picking piece pill place plan played pointing points political post press pro probably professional profit propaganda protecting purposes pushing putin putin/russia question questioned questions quicker quotes races rather reading real reality recent regime related relationships release released relies removing replaced reporters reporting republic request robust russia russian russians same secret secrets section see senators senior sent service set should simple simply since social society some something somewhere sophisticated sophistication soviet specific spent sponsored state statements stealthiness stealthy stock stop stories story stratfor style such support sure sustained sustaining switch systems tactics takes target targeted targets technology terms terrorist text than that them themselves there these they those thus ties time times titled too tools topic tornados trailer treasure trick tries trope tropes trove trump trump/anti turn twists two tying understand undirected undoubtedly unofficially upon use used usit various vast verbiage verifiable version victims viral voice void war washington web weeks weren what wheeler when whether which who why willingness withheld without word words working works worn would wrapped written wrong year yet york you yourself zero |
| Tags | Guideline |
| Stories | |
| Notes | |
| Move | 
|
L'article ne semble pas avoir été repris aprés sa publication.
L'article ne semble pas avoir été repris sur un précédent.