How to Tell Us a Secret • Hacker News Board

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#41

Post by SlowRobotAhead » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 6:27 PM UTC

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…

CNN was caught last month blatantly lying about what an anonymous sources said when the source came out and said the exact opposite. CNN refuses to retract it.

I just like that a lot of people are defending NYT anonymous sources while also sticking their head in the sand about THE CONTENT of the DNC and Podesta leaks that wikileaks published.

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#42

Post by PurpleBoxDragon » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 6:28 PM UTC

jumelles wrote: post #40

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.

That's an extraordinary claim to make without any evidence. The entire business model of a newspaper is that they report facts.

Their business model is that they sell papers (or access to a website, or get ad views).

They can do this by reporting facts, but generally it is easier to do this by reporting stuff people want to read, which includes facts and non-facts and things that may or may not be factual. This also generally involves summaries which aren't factually true as they drop relevant details, but which are close enough that people tend to tolerate them (see any reporting on a scientific paper ever).

Also, an "an anonymous source said X" could be factual, but the implication is that X has some level of truth when the only known fact is that in reference to that X was said by an anonymous source.

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#43

Post by ac4tw » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 6:31 PM UTC

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…

myth_buster, lisper, & newscracker make interesting points.

In researching WhatsApp a while ago, I came across this in a Quora post "But one more point I want to stress here is that, though whatsapp is allowing end to end communication , it does not necessarily mean they can not analyse the encrypted data. in cryptography we call it Searchable Encryption." (https://www.quora.com/Now-that-WhatsApp-can-no-longer-read-y...)

I don't know whether it is accurate to WhatsApp, but it's certainly food for thought and also made me wonder how many other end-end encrypted systems use it.

I personally don't trust FB. WhatsApp is not open source, so I have to trust what FB says. I don't.

There are many important considerations in secure messaging and the EFF has done a reasonable job of trying to cover the subject in their series on messaging (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/secure-messaging-more-...)

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#44

Post by mdex » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 6:33 PM UTC

bwanab wrote: post #22

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.

There are lots of things not to like about the Times, but if you report an inaccuracy to them, they will research it and correct it if needed.

I have a suspicion that the mainstream media writers purposely under-resarch their stories so they can get the story out as fast as possible & minimize liability for libel.

Libel laws say that if you write something about someone that you believe COULD be true, it's not libel.

So imagine you are a writer who discovers a sensationalized claim you really want to print. But it could be completely false.

If you fact-check it, and it turns out to be false, now you know it's false. You could be liable for libel if you decide to print it.

However, if you don't fact-check it, you get to print the claim because you sincerely believed it could be true. Also, you get the advantage of getting the story out quicker, and you can always change it later if someone complains.

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#45

Post by urda » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 6:38 PM UTC

    grep "gpg" - no results
    grep "pgp" - no results

What in the what. Oh come on, how can you go through all this effort writing how share secrets with them, and there's zero mention of an actual public key?

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#46

Post by jlmorton » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 6:45 PM UTC

mdex wrote: post #44

bwanab wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of things not to like about the Times, but if you report an inaccuracy to them, they will research it and correct it if needed.

I have a suspicion that the mainstream media writers purposely under-resarch their stories so they can get the story out as fast as possible & minimize liability for libel. Libel laws say that if you write something about someone that you believe COULD be true, it's not libel. So imagine you are a writer who discovers a sensationalized claim you really want to print. But it could be completely false. If you fact-chec…

As it happens, the relevant case law is New York Times Co vs. Sullivan. According to that case, libel liability still applies when the information published is both untrue, and was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

In other words, a policy of publishing without investigation would not limit libel liability. If the information is false, and the publishers did not have a good-faith belief that it is true, then they might still be held liable.

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#47

Post by robotrout » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 6:50 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #31

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.

[Citation needed.] Come on, let's see some examples. Should be easy to find at least a few, since there are "tons" of them.

I did a 10 second google. Here's a couple where the NYT issued their little correction as unobtrusively as possible, which happens often, after they enjoy the click-bait traffic the erroneous story give them.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/05/30/new-york-tim...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/08/...

Small print corrections issued days later, are not effective in undoing the damage an erroneous blaring headline did.

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#48

Post by noir_lord » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 6:52 PM UTC

jumelles wrote: post #40

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.

That's an extraordinary claim to make without any evidence. The entire business model of a newspaper is that they report facts.

> That's an extraordinary claim to make without any evidence. The entire business model of a newspaper is that they report facts.

You've never regularly read UK newspapers I take it?

I wish that was their primary purpose, a few of them never let a story get in the way of their agenda.

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#49

Post by CiPHPerCoder » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 6:54 PM UTC

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…

> This may have been true pre-fb acquisition but there has been changes to how WhatsApp behaves, especially server side storage.

WhatsApp messages are encrypted end-to-end between each person using it. The whole point of end-to-end encryption is not having to trust the server-side storage.

Furthermore, WhatsApp uses the Signal Protocol-- the state-of-the-art for secure messaging protocols.

The worst that WhatsApp can see is "who's talking to who?"

Finally, the adoption of the Signal Protocol in WhatsApp came long after the Facebook acquisition.

So, no. It wasn't better off pre-fb.

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#50

Post by Symbiote » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 6:55 PM UTC

urda wrote: post #45

grep "gpg" - no results grep "pgp" - no results What in the what. Oh come on, how can you go through all this effort writing how share secrets with them, and there's zero mention of an actual public key?

You need a -i, they have PGP in upper case, with a public key.