One Article Review
| Source |  Errata Security |
|---|---|
| Identifiant | 857082 |
| Date de publication | 2018-10-22 16:33:56 (vue: 2018-10-22 23:05:11) |
| Titre | Some notes for journalists about cybersecurity |
| Texte |  The recent Bloomberg article about Chinese hacking motherboards is a great opportunity to talk about problems with journalism.Journalism is about telling the truth, not a close approximation of the truth, but the true truth. They don't do a good job at this in cybersecurity.Take, for example, a recent incident where the Associated Press fired a reporter for photoshopping his shadow out of a photo. The AP took a scorched-earth approach, not simply firing the photographer, but removing all his photographs from their library.That's because there is a difference between truth and near truth.Now consider Bloomberg's story, such as a photograph of a tiny chip. Is that a photograph of the actual chip the Chinese inserted into the motherboard? Or is it another chip, representing the size of the real chip? Is it truth or near truth?Or consider the technical details in Bloomberg's story. They are garbled, as this discussion shows. Something like what Bloomberg describes is certainly plausible, something exactly what Bloomberg describes is impossible. Again there is the question of truth vs. near truth.There are other near truths involved. For example, we know that supply chains often replace high-quality expensive components with cheaper, lower-quality knockoffs. It's perfectly plausible that some of the incidents Bloomberg describes is that known issue, which they are then hyping as being hacker chips. This demonstrates how truth and near truth can be quite far apart, telling very different stories.Another example is a NYTimes story about a terrorist's use of encryption. As I've discussed before, the story has numerous "near truth" errors. The NYTimes story is based upon a transcript of an interrogation of the hacker. The French newspaper Le Monde published excerpts from that interrogation, with details that differ slightly from the NYTimes article.One the justifications journalists use is that near truth is easier for their readers to understand. First of all, that's not justification for false hoods. If the words mean something else, then it's false. It doesn't matter if its simpler. Secondly, I'm not sure they actually are easier to understand. It's still techy gobbledygook. In the Bloomberg article, if I as an expert can't figure out what actually happened, then I know that the average reader can't, either, no matter how much you've "simplified" the language.Stories can solve this by both giving the actual technical terms that experts can understand, then explain them. Yes, it eats up space, but if you care about the truth, it's necessary.In groundbreaking stories like Bloomberg's, the length is already enough that the average reader won't slog through it. Instead, it becomes a seed for lots of other coverage that explains the story. In such cases, you want to get the techy details, the actual truth, correct, so that we experts can stand behind the story and explain it. Otherwise, going for the simpler near truth means that all us experts simply question the veracity of the story.The companies mentioned in the Bloomberg story have called it an out |
| Envoyé | Oui |
| Condensat | about actual actually again all already another anything apart approach approximation are ars article associated average based because become becomes before behind being believing between bloomberg bmc both but called can care cases certainly chains cheaper chinese chip chips close companies components consider controllers correct coverage credit customers cyber cybersecurity david demonstrates describes despite destined details differ difference different discussed discussion documents doesn don done earth easier eats either else encryption enough errors exactly example excerpts expensive expert experts explain explains false far figure figuring fired firing first french from garbled get gets giving gobbledygook going good government great groundbreaking hack hacker hacking happened has have high his hoods horrible how however hyped hyping imply impossible incident incidents industry inserted instead intelligence interrogation involved issue issues its itself job journalism journalists justification justifications knockoffs know known language leaked least length library lie like lots lower mainstream matter mean means mention mentioned monde published more motherboard motherboards much near necessary newspaper not notes now numerous nytimes often once one opportunity organization other otherwise out outright own paper perfectly photo photograph photographer photographs photoshopping plausible point press priding problems quality question quite reader readers real recent record removing replace reporter reporting representing roughly sanger scorched secondly seed servers shadow shows simpler simplified simply sites size slightly slog smallness smudged snowden solve some something sometimes space specific stand stories story stuxnet subverted such supply sure take talk tech technica technical techniques techy telling terms terrorist than that them then these they things through tiny took transcript trouble true trust truth truthful truths understand upon use veracity very want went what when where which why wired won words work you |
| Tags | Hack |
| 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.