Hackers in the news - biased reporting?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| salparadise Dec 01, 2006 11:14 PM EDT |
CNN is carrying a story today about the leader of a group of "White Hat" hackers getting busted for "hacking in to US Gov' computers and causing trouble". These quotes from the story... A Romanian man has been indicted on charges of hacking into more than 150 U.S. government computers, causing disruptions that cost NASA, the Energy Department and the Navy nearly $1.5 million. The U.S. government alleged Faur was the leader of a hacking group called "WhiteHat Team," whose main goal was to break into U.S. government computers because they are some of the securest machines in the world. The compromised computers were used to collect, store and analyze scientific data -- including data from spacecraft in orbit and deep space -- and to evaluate new technologies. After the hacking, scientists and engineers had to manually communicate with spacecraft and the computer systems had to be rebuilt. The last quote is the one that caught my eye. Had to communicate with the spacecraft manually? What the hell does that mean? They stood on top of a really tall ladder and shouted? They used carrier pigeons? The computer systems had to be rebuilt? What, physically? Surely this is propaganda? An attempt to make anyone who does more than surf and do email into a suspect? Link to original story, http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/12/01/hacker.charged.ap/index.h... |
| dinotrac Dec 01, 2006 11:21 PM EDT |
>Surely this is propaganda? OK, so what's got your hackles up? A reporter who isn't sufficiently technical reports on what he or she is told? I've used (and heard others used) the term rebuilding when I've had to wipe and reinstall a machine. As to manual communication, I suspect that it has more to do with humans controlling the communication (locating the spacecraft, perhaps?) than shouting from the rooftops. At worst the article is imprecise. Propaganda requires an intent to deceive. |
| salparadise Dec 02, 2006 2:41 AM EDT |
Hmmmm. I do think if you write for CNN that "being misinformed" or "insufficiently technical" is a lame excuse. It's hardly a journalistic backwater. You wouldn't put up with going to a hospital, being mistreated and having the Doctor shrug and say "I don't know much about your particular problem". Why do we put up with it from journalists? "As to manual communication, I suspect that it has more to do with humans controlling the communication (locating the spacecraft, perhaps?) than shouting from the rooftops." Agreed. I couldn't resist the opportunity for a little silliness. |
| dinotrac Dec 02, 2006 5:46 AM EDT |
>Why do we put up with it from journalists? Beats the heck out of me. I see it time and time again. "Journalists" who don't know what they're writing about or who don't care. Journalists who see their jobs as a way to "make a difference" -- ie, further and agenda -- rather than inform the public. Journalists (and editors) who can't spell, wouldn't know good english if they saw it, etc. And then, best of all, when you call them on their foibles, they want to conduct town halls that boil down to, "The public just doesn't understand what journalism is all about." |
| Scott_Ruecker Dec 02, 2006 6:52 AM EDT |
You guys just don't know what journalism is all about.. :-D You both make some valid points, it makes me sad that ineptitude in journalism is a known hazard that you do not have to deal with in other professions. |
| jimf Dec 02, 2006 7:19 AM EDT |
> it makes me sad that ineptitude in journalism is a known hazard that you do not have to deal with in other professions. Not so sure about that. It sounds all too much like Congress. |
| dinotrac Dec 02, 2006 8:07 AM EDT |
>Not so sure about that. It sounds all too much like Congress. Well, maybe after campaign finance reform they can tackle eptitude. |
| rijelkentaurus Dec 02, 2006 8:55 AM EDT |
>Well, maybe after campaign finance reform they can tackle eptitude. Satan called and said it's still balmy down south. |
| mvermeer Dec 02, 2006 9:01 AM EDT |
> ...they can tackle eptitude. Ah, you mean like outlawing it? Great idea! |
| salparadise Dec 02, 2006 1:43 PM EDT |
Well, maybe after campaign finance reform they can tackle eptitude. That's the first time I've ever heard that word used in it's positive form. Oh, the irony! |
| jimf Dec 02, 2006 1:52 PM EDT |
> after campaign finance reform I suspect that one will be just for show. |
| dcparris Dec 02, 2006 3:27 PM EDT |
I thought they already reformed campaign financing to allow all kinds of backroom deals. I figured the next reform would finally allow corporations to pay for congressional vacations. |
| dinotrac Dec 02, 2006 6:18 PM EDT |
Rev - I think that's pretty close to right! I actually wish they would undo all campaign finance reforms. Extortion, bribery and fraud laws would not go away because they have nothing to do with campaign reform. The thing about campaign reform is that it always seems to be done in a way that locks the power of incumbents down even more tightly than it was before. Face it -- if you are challenging an incumbent, you need heavy guns because incumbents have a million little advantages. Campaign finance reform seems always to take away as many of those guns as it can. I think that's why we've seen the rash of very wealthy candidates who get elected -- you can't reform their cash supply away. The Constitution won't permit it. |
| mvermeer Dec 03, 2006 9:36 AM EDT |
> Face it -- if you are challenging an incumbent, you need heavy guns because incumbents have a million little advantages. And one potential disadvantage: their record ;-) > Campaign finance reform seems always to take away as many of those guns as it can. I think that's why we've seen the rash of very wealthy candidates who get elected -- you can't reform their cash supply away. Perhaps you don't have to. I sort of like rich candidates: at least they're not bribable. On the other hand they are pre-selected by their wealth, belonging to a not very representative sub-culture, which colours their perspectives. I like the system here in some European countries where there is a public service broadcaster with a charter obligation to give candidates equal exposure, e.g., in public debate. Sometimes this gets silly, when minuscule parties (in a proportional system) get lots of exposure, but on the whole it is OK. Puncturing, rather than banning, the big-gun advantage. |
| dinotrac Dec 03, 2006 12:46 PM EDT |
> like the system here in some European countries where there is a public service broadcaster with a charter obligation to give candidates equal exposure, We used to have rules that performed a similar function on regular broadcast stations. Wasn't perfect, but I'm really getting wistful these days. At any rate, wouldn't bother me if all the campaign finance reform were flushed down the toilet and replaced with some reasonable scheme of guaranteed access to public exposure. |
| tuxchick Dec 03, 2006 2:40 PM EDT |
You must be remembering the olden days, when the FCC took its charter of protecting the public interest seriously. Man, that was a long time ago. Remember when ownership of media outlets was strictly limited, so TV and radio stations and newspapers actually had local ownership? And a certain amount of public interest stuff was required? Memories.... |
| dinotrac Dec 03, 2006 4:51 PM EDT |
>You must be remembering the olden days, when the FCC took its charter of protecting the public interest seriously I am indeed. Of course, in the FCC's defense (grrrr), the landscape has changed radically with the advent of cable (which lies outside its purview), the internet, etc., which place substantial competitive pressure on broadcast stations without the same legal obligations. |
| tuxchick Dec 03, 2006 4:56 PM EDT |
Yeah, well, I'll never forgive them for freaking out over the millisecond-exposure of Janet Jackson's boob, when Dennis Franz' nekked bum was displayed in all its glory on NYPD Blue without comment. My vision has never recovered. The (thankfully) forner chairman, Son of Colin Powell, admitted in an interview that they let themselves be pushed around by citizen complaints. Even when "thousands of complaints" translated to "two pissed off dorks" who kept hitting the send key on the same email. So there was no real policy, just appeasing whoever seemed the grumpiest. |
| dinotrac Dec 03, 2006 5:23 PM EDT |
>Yeah, well, I'll never forgive them for freaking out over the millisecond-exposure of Janet Jackson's boob, when Dennis Franz' nekked bum was displayed in all its glory on NYPD Blue without comment. Two thoughts on that: 1. Different time and different personnel, 2. Different audience. Face it, NYPD Blue was pitched to an adult audience, shown outside of the so-called "family hour", and preceded by one of those "Viewer discretion is advised" warnings that let kids know something cool will happen. I didn't mind the slapdown on the Super Bowl half-time show, but the boob was the least offensive part of the whole deal. At least it's an attractive boob. Let's not forget that it came out, so to speak, as part of what was pretty much a stylized rape scene in the midst of a very lacivious production in what is heavily promoted as a family event. If only they would take the same attitude towards the commercial. |
| Scott_Ruecker Dec 03, 2006 7:29 PM EDT |
Janet Jackson's boob finally made all the way to our forums. The Four Horsemen should be here any time now... /runs for his life |
| tuxchick Dec 03, 2006 7:35 PM EDT |
Oo family event! Violence on the field and hottie cheerleaders on the sidelines for trophies. Luv them family values. I didn't see the event itself, I haven't watched a Super Bowl since I was a wee un with weird notions like it shouldn't be a Valentine's Day event. You watch- it's destined to become the Memorial Day Classic. All the uproar was over The Hooter Itself, not the context, so I didn't know there was more to it. |
| jimf Dec 03, 2006 7:41 PM EDT |
> >You must be remembering the olden days, when the FCC took its charter of protecting the public interest seriously Hey, there was a time when people actually 'trusted' government and our 'leaders', but that's only a memory. |
| jimf Dec 03, 2006 7:44 PM EDT |
> Oo family event! Violence on the field and hottie cheerleaders on the sidelines for trophies. Luv them family values. Yeah, the The Hooter Itself was pretty inoffensive. |
| Scott_Ruecker Dec 03, 2006 8:13 PM EDT |
Quoting:Yeah, the The Hooter Itself was pretty inoffensive. Someone please attempt to convince me of a time when hooters/boobs were offensive to anyone, outside of the context of modern day media. It was only in modern times that a woman's body became indecent. We all have mom's right? We all breast fed right? At their worst they should remind us of that. Its the idea that boobs can be offensive that I find offensive. :-) |
| jimf Dec 03, 2006 8:21 PM EDT |
> Its the idea that boobs can be offensive that I find offensive. :-) I agree. This also causes a very unhealthy obsession with many American men. One certainly hopes that women are more than the sum of their boobs ;-) |
| salparadise Dec 03, 2006 9:38 PM EDT |
Context is everything. Exposed in a stylised rape as part of a dance in front of several million people is out of context. I saw the still images on the net after the fact (not being a US citizen). It wasn't porn by any standards. It was pretty bad though. It sent a lot of messages about female submission to male sexual dominance that should set alarm bells ringing. If there's one thing that's guaranteed to get people to look at something - tell them not to. This is how the outlawing of porn (or any other type of "subversive content") makes it spread. Interesting that on kde-look.org and gnome-look.org people who post semi-pornographic wallpapers tend to get told off by other users. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 03, 2006 10:09 PM EDT |
This thread made me think... Maybe what Linux needs to get the masses to convert is a (live?) distribution specifically aimed at surfing for porn. It worked for VHS. "Linux - the safest way to browse porn online!" - it'll be an instant hit I tell you :-) |
| rijelkentaurus Dec 04, 2006 2:48 AM EDT |
>"Linux - the safest way to browse porn online!" I've championed this usage for some time....8) |
| Scott_Ruecker Dec 04, 2006 5:56 AM EDT |
> I've championed this usage for some time....8) I take the fifth.. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 04, 2006 6:10 AM EDT |
Yeah, but someone needs to build a distro and specifically pimp it as such to the Windoze folk (pun intended). You could take 10% market share easily :-) |
| jdixon Dec 04, 2006 8:53 AM EDT |
Wow, take a few days off the net and look at what happens. :) > You both make some valid points, it makes me sad that ineptitude in journalism is a known hazard that you do not have to deal with in other professions. You obviously missed our recent discussions concerning business management. > The thing about campaign reform is that it always seems to be done in a way that locks the power of incumbents down even more tightly than it was before. And will be, as long as the currently elected politicians are the ones writing the rules. They have no incentive to make it harder to get re-elected. > Hey, there was a time when people actually 'trusted' government and our 'leaders', but that's only a memory. Well, we do learn sometimes. > Someone please attempt to convince me of a time when hooters/boobs were offensive to anyone, outside of the context of modern day media. Seriously, this is a holdover from Victorian England morals, so it goes back a fairly long way. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_morality > Maybe what Linux needs to get the masses to convert is a (live?) distribution specifically aimed at surfing for porn. That is actually a great idea. People are going to do it anyway, why not have a way of doing so safely? And it would increase usage significantly. The only problem with it I can see is reverse engineering all of the Windows specific programs many of the sites probably use for video and audio. Not that I would know, of course :). |
| dcparris Dec 04, 2006 10:14 AM EDT |
On Exposed boobs and butts: I can't help but make a smart remark about having to look hi and low for a man who would be offended by Janet Jackson's boobs being exposed. Phyllis Diller, on the other hand, would have sent congress into heretofore unknown speeds in legislative history. Come to think of it, why that didn't happen with Franz is a good question. But then, I'm not a gal, soooo... There is a huge difference, though, between the American perspective (generally) and Europeans. My brother and I stayed in youth hostels during a 10-day sprint around Belgium, Germany and Luxembourg. It was in Belgium that we were assigned our first co-ed room, and walked in to find a young lady sleeping in..., um..., not much. Not being used to that, we promptly went back down to the desk to be sure we had understood the room assignment correctly. The manager told us if the women bit us, we could report it. We managed to adjust, and were o.k., but the girls had more of an understanding than we did of the difference. That said, I still don't listen to an awful lot of music and other entertainment, since much of it clashes with my views or is offensive. I generally don't even watch pro sports anymore, and have even pretty much written off the Super Bowl. I still watch college football pretty seriously, and maybe World Cup soccer. > Someone please attempt to convince me of a time when hooters/boobs were offensive to anyone, outside of the context of modern day media. Consider any muslim country over the last several hundred years. Also, I think there is a world of difference between a person seen skinny-dipping at the water hole and showing it all on television. |
| jimf Dec 04, 2006 11:01 AM EDT |
> there is a world of difference between a person seen skinny-dipping at the water hole and showing it all on television. 'Media' in general has taken all that is normal or natural out of nudity (and sexuality) and made it an exploitable commodity for sale to anyone with a TV, a computer, or even a cell phone. That's just wrong. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 04, 2006 12:12 PM EDT |
> There is a huge difference, though, between the American perspective (generally) and Europeans. Yup, that's true. You yanks are incredibe prudes by our standards :-) You should watch some Dutch import movies sometimes. What's rated 16+ here would probably 21+ in the US (Turkish Delight for instance). Also, you'll trip over the topless grils on the beaches here :-P We - or at least I - thought that the entire riot about Janet's boob was hillarious and backwards. Sorry, I hope I didn't offend anyone here. Just come over to europe and verify my claims ;-) |
| dek Dec 04, 2006 12:36 PM EDT |
>> Just come over to europe and verify my claims ;-) (checks out the cost of flying over) Dang! I'll have to take your word for it!! ;-) |
| jezuch Dec 04, 2006 2:14 PM EDT |
Quoting:"Linux - the safest way to browse porn online!" Dunno 'bout Linux, but... http://www.squarefree.com/pornzilla/why-firefox.html |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 04, 2006 3:38 PM EDT |
I know pornzilla. Many of the bookmarklets and extensions are actually quite usefull for business applications and web-based database front-ends. I have things like the increment/decrement, location navigator etcetera on my work laptop. It makes tabbing through loads of paginated records a breeze :-) |
| tuxchick Dec 04, 2006 3:48 PM EDT |
Sure is amazing what a person can learn in a discussion forum. |
| dinotrac Dec 04, 2006 5:35 PM EDT |
>Sure is amazing what a person can learn in a discussion forum. Should be preserved the next time somebody needs a textbook example of hubris, with no offense meant to anyone in the thread. The little side-current about prudish yanks presumes that European standards are the correct ones in much the way Americans presume that our positions are the correct ones. However, as the Rev points out, even our posturing (which doesn't much match our reality) only makes us second rate prudes. In a world with India (more people than the US and Europe combined) and the Muslim nations, Americans are, at best, middling prudes. Who's outlook is best and healthiest? Is anybody qualified to say? |
| tuxchick Dec 04, 2006 6:09 PM EDT |
Well Dino, you could start with the victims of the established mores. :) |
| dinotrac Dec 04, 2006 6:16 PM EDT |
>Well Dino, you could start with the victims of the established mores. If only I knew who they were... |
| henke54 Dec 12, 2006 11:50 PM EDT |
here is also a good article on 'biased reporting' ... --> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/12/analyst_nytimes/ |
You cannot post until you login.