LOL, nice slant
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick2 Jul 13, 2006 9:18 PM EDT |
Amazing, isn't it, what some careful word choices can do. But you know what's really shocking? It's not the first time a Debian server has been compromised!! "The embarassing security breach is not the first for Debian. In November 2003 several of Debian's servers were similarly compromised and pulled offline. Troup was also one of the key developers investigating that incident." Sooo, this same incompetent hack Troup is still allowing hackers into Debian's computers. Itsa crime I tellya. BTW the reporter misspelled "embarrassing " |
| grouch Jul 13, 2006 9:29 PM EDT |
tuxchick2: That stuff is part of the reason I acquired my nick-name. Wasn't it you who pointed out that ZD will do just about anything for a click? A security breach is embarrassing if it happens due to incompetence, a silly mistake, or goes unnoticed. Even if all of those applied here, there was no denial of the breach and no stealthy investigation nor public grilling required to get those in charge to give information about the breach. Such "reporting" just burns me up. |
| TPuffin Jul 14, 2006 6:12 AM EDT |
Hey, grouch, I'm a little put off by your rant on the use of the word "admit." An admission does not require a prior denial, indeed it merely means to acknowledge the truth: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/admit I won't argue about the reporter's slant - I just want to make sure that when you slam ZD, it holds up well. :) |
| grouch Jul 14, 2006 6:15 AM EDT |
TPuffin: Fair enough. Which of those definitions do you think applies in this case? |
| TPuffin Jul 14, 2006 12:01 PM EDT |
grouch, In the first list of 7 definitions, I see number 6 or 7 applying here. In the second set of three, definition #3 fits. I take "admit" as something very close to "acknowledge," as in "I admit I use Infernal Exploder at work, since they won't let me install Firefox." Doesn't mean I'm guilty of anything, though there is obviously something wrong with the situation in general. |
| tuxchick2 Jul 14, 2006 12:53 PM EDT |
No need to obsess over the word "admit" when the tone of the whole article is obvious. Instead of saying "The embarassing security breach is not the first for Debian. In November 2003 several of Debian's servers were similarly compromised and pulled offline. Troup was also one of the key developers investigating that incident." they could have said "A rare security breach brought down one of the Debian project's less-important servers yesterday. Admins discovered the breach and quickly took steps to take the server offline and began an immediate investigation. "Their last-known security breach occurred several years ago, in 2003, and was handled in a similar rapid, comprehensive manner." http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security does not show any followups reporting that the breach was fixed and all services restored. Amazing what can be done with careful word selection and a snitty attitude. |
| grouch Jul 14, 2006 6:37 PM EDT |
(Sorry tuxchick2, I'm obsessed). TPuffin: >'In the first list of 7 definitions, I see number 6 or 7 applying here. In the second set of three, definition #3 fits. I take "admit" as something very close to "acknowledge," as in "I admit I use Infernal Exploder at work, since they won't let me install Firefox." Doesn't mean I'm guilty of anything, though there is obviously something wrong with the situation in general. ' From dictionary.reference.com: '6. To grant to be real, valid, or true; acknowledge: admit the truth. See Synonyms at acknowledge.' This implies a prior confrontation, conflict or concealment. Even in your own example, you imply a confrontation or conflict. No one interrogated Mr. Troup before he *reported* the breach. From dictionary.reference.com: '7. To grant as true or valid, as for the sake of argument; concede.' There is the implied confrontation, again. No one challenged the Debian developer about the breached server before his *report*. From dictionary.reference.com, second set of three: "3. To make acknowledgment." You acknowledge when you have been confronted. The email report by Troup was proffered, not requested. From dictionary.reference.com: "Main Entry: ad·mit Function: verb Inflected Forms: ad·mit·ted; ad·mit·ting transitive verb 1 : to concede as true or valid : make an admission of 2 : to allow to be entered or offered intransitive verb : to make acknowledgment —used with to " All applicable definitions of "admit" and "admitted" have the implication of uncovered wrong-doing, prior confrontation, or prior concealment. All have negative connotations, which is the effect I assert that the reporter deliberately intended to create. |
| TPuffin Jul 15, 2006 8:22 AM EDT |
grouch, When one device (A) on a network makes a request for an action or information to another device (B), and B acknowledges that it received the request, there was prior contact but not confrontation, argument, concealment, or wrong-doing. The example statement I posted earlier could easily have been part of an article or news posting, which would not have required prior contact with the reader to be valid. I do agree that "admitted" was definitely not the best verb to use in the original article, as it does imply (but not require) prior contact. But the confrontation/concealment/wrongdoing connotation is one I don't agree with. A similar verb which would be better from your standpoint but not mine would be "confirmed." One that would be better from my standpoint but not yours might be "revealed." As I said earlier, I fully agree that the reporter was obviously slanting the news in a negative fashion - I just have less of a problem with this one word than many of the others and thought you should spread the rant a little more evenly. I thought tuxchick's example made the point well. One man's opinion, of course. 8^) |
| grouch Jul 15, 2006 8:37 AM EDT |
TPuffin: I would only consider "confirmed" to be proper if Mr. Troup had been asked before he reported the problem. The public disclosure of the security breach originated with Mr. Troup without prompting, so far as I know. |
| TPuffin Jul 15, 2006 2:10 PM EDT |
grouch, That's exactly my point - it's still wrong on the important point of interaction between the two, but is not as negatively biased as "admitted." Whereas "revealed" can be negative in that it indicates something was hidden, but lacks the interaction aspect. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!