Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Tell Us a Secret

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 120 posts

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#11

Post by rock_hard »

jlmorton wrote: post #7
plgonzalezrx8 wrote: post #2

Does anyone else think that Anonymous tips can sometimes be a two-edged blade if claims are not properly backed up with facts? Sometimes we see a lot of news articles and news regarding X, Y, Z topic from anonymous sources, being passed as legit news and reliable, but when you examine the news in more details, nothing that backs up such claims can be found. How can this be addressed in a way that doesn't expose those…

> Sometimes we see a lot of news articles and news regarding X, Y, Z topic from anonymous sources, being passed as legit news and reliable, but when you examine the news in more details, nothing that backs up such claims can be found. Your implication is that because a story contains no named sources, the information is not legitimate, or not reliable. I would submit to you that this is exceedingly rare at a reputabl…

I have not found this to be true.

There is tons of NYT articles that are factually wrong and have never been updated.

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#12

Post by lalos »

myth_buster wrote: post #9

WhatsApp, with more than 1.2 billion active users, is one of the easiest ways to send secure information. “With WhatsApp, it’s as simple as sending a text message — but it’s encrypted,” Mr. Dance explained. I'm not a security expert but I think this is not exactly the best practice. This may have been true pre-fb acquisition but there has been changes to how WhatsApp behaves, especially server side storage. Also the…

Not to mention if they have automatic backup enabled on the phone, it bypasses the E2E encryption and adds another third party to the list that can read the messages. You never know if the other person has it enabled or not.

https://www.engadget.com/2018/08/29/whatsapp-google-drive-ba...

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#13

Post by lisper »

myth_buster wrote: post #9

WhatsApp, with more than 1.2 billion active users, is one of the easiest ways to send secure information. “With WhatsApp, it’s as simple as sending a text message — but it’s encrypted,” Mr. Dance explained. I'm not a security expert but I think this is not exactly the best practice. This may have been true pre-fb acquisition but there has been changes to how WhatsApp behaves, especially server side storage. Also the…

In general you cannot be certain of anything in today's world with regards to security. You have to trust someone. Actually, you have to trust a lot of people: hardware vendors, compiler vendors, OS vendors, and application software vendors. Any one of these could, if they chose to, easily introduce a back-door into your "secure" system. The only way to be absolutely certain that no one has done this is to build your own hardware from discrete components and write all your own code from the bare metal on up, and even then you have to trust yourself not to have made a single mistake in a realm where even experts regularly do.

Personally, I don't trust FB, but for a non-technical person there aren't any clearly superior alternatives.

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#14

Post by rubidium »

rock_hard wrote: post #11
jlmorton wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sometimes we see a lot of news articles and news regarding X, Y, Z topic from anonymous sources, being passed as legit news and reliable, but when you examine the news in more details, nothing that backs up such claims can be found. Your implication is that because a story contains no named sources, the information is not legitimate, or not reliable. I would submit to you that this is exceedingly rare at a reputabl…

I have not found this to be true. There is tons of NYT articles that are factually wrong and have never been updated.

Agreed. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#15

Post by rock_hard »

rubidium wrote: post #14
rock_hard wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not found this to be true. There is tons of NYT articles that are factually wrong and have never been updated.

Agreed. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect

Thanks for sharing the link.

I was just going to add that just based on the articles I read (in the NYT and elsewhere) that are within my field of expertise and how wrong they get basic facts, cause and Effect, etc. I don’t think I can trust them with reporting of other domains either.

News outlets across the board have entertainment value at best, nothing else.

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#16

Post by tertius »

wool_gather wrote: post #6
plgonzalezrx8 wrote: post #2

Does anyone else think that Anonymous tips can sometimes be a two-edged blade if claims are not properly backed up with facts? Sometimes we see a lot of news articles and news regarding X, Y, Z topic from anonymous sources, being passed as legit news and reliable, but when you examine the news in more details, nothing that backs up such claims can be found. How can this be addressed in a way that doesn't expose those…

Anonymous sources that are quoted directly are known to the journalists ; their identity is only concealed from readers. This is about anonymously passing information for further investigation.

So you're saying that no journalist would accept a tip from someone who will not identify themselves?

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#17

Post by jlmorton »

rock_hard wrote: post #11
jlmorton wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sometimes we see a lot of news articles and news regarding X, Y, Z topic from anonymous sources, being passed as legit news and reliable, but when you examine the news in more details, nothing that backs up such claims can be found. Your implication is that because a story contains no named sources, the information is not legitimate, or not reliable. I would submit to you that this is exceedingly rare at a reputabl…

I have not found this to be true. There is tons of NYT articles that are factually wrong and have never been updated.

If there are "tons that are factually wrong" and have not been corrected, perhaps you link to a few of those examples?

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#18

Post by s73v3r_ »

plgonzalezrx8 wrote: post #2

Does anyone else think that Anonymous tips can sometimes be a two-edged blade if claims are not properly backed up with facts? Sometimes we see a lot of news articles and news regarding X, Y, Z topic from anonymous sources, being passed as legit news and reliable, but when you examine the news in more details, nothing that backs up such claims can be found. How can this be addressed in a way that doesn't expose those…

It's not like someone sends an anonymous text message to them and they immediately publish it. They start investigating based on that tip.

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#19

Post by lightbyte »

tertius wrote: post #16
wool_gather wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anonymous sources that are quoted directly are known to the journalists ; their identity is only concealed from readers. This is about anonymously passing information for further investigation.

So you're saying that no journalist would accept a tip from someone who will not identify themselves?

Unless they can verify it some other way, I highly doubt any reputable journalist would publish something like that. When a journalists publishes something based on a source that wishes to stay anonymous they are putting their career and reputation on the line.

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#20

Post by fcarraldo »

lisper wrote: post #13
myth_buster wrote: post #9

WhatsApp, with more than 1.2 billion active users, is one of the easiest ways to send secure information. “With WhatsApp, it’s as simple as sending a text message — but it’s encrypted,” Mr. Dance explained. I'm not a security expert but I think this is not exactly the best practice. This may have been true pre-fb acquisition but there has been changes to how WhatsApp behaves, especially server side storage. Also the…

In general you cannot be certain of anything in today's world with regards to security. You have to trust someone. Actually, you have to trust a lot of people: hardware vendors, compiler vendors, OS vendors, and application software vendors. Any one of these could, if they chose to, easily introduce a back-door into your "secure" system. The only way to be absolutely certain that no one has done this is to build your…

I believe Signal and Wire are both clearly superior alternatives when it comes to privacy and trust. Both are easy to use for non-technical people.
Post reply on HN