How to Tell Us a Secret • Hacker News Board

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#31

Post by enraged_camel » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 5:52 PM UTC

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.

[Citation needed.]

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

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#32

Post by dominotw » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 5:58 PM UTC

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…

> followed by a correction.

This is not useful most of the time. I've never seen a viral correction. Damage is done.

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#33

Post by newscracker » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 6:00 PM UTC

psychometry wrote: post #28

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…

How can I as an iOS user know that the message is encrypted? I don't see how.

Like lisper said above, you cannot really be certain of anything. Taken to an extreme, you can’t even be certain if the padlock icon on your browser signifying a secure HTTPS connection is truly secure or not. You decide to trust certain things with the assumption that everyone else out there is not out to get you, and that those who’re considered experts in this domain do practice honesty and that there are people who do care more about the rest of the population than their own paychecks.

In the case of WhatsApp, we do have public confirmation of the Signal team working with WhatsApp to implement end-to-end encryption. [1]

[1]: https://signal.org/blog/whatsapp-complete/

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#34

Post by known » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 6:01 PM UTC

https://vim.cx is better

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#35

Post by reificator » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 6:02 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…

Please don't use the code formatting for quotes. It makes them nearly unreadable on mobile.

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#36

Post by YinglingLight » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 6:05 PM UTC

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.

Absolutely. What happened to investigative journalism? Shoutouts to https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/

Cut through layers of agenda pushers and give me facts.

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#37

Post by KZeillmann » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 6:11 PM UTC

qubex wrote: post #5

code4tee wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the job of (real) journalists. I would imagine the vast majority of content submitted to the Times via these channels never appears in print because it doesn’t pass scrutiny and/or isn’t relevant.

Somebody illustrious and learned once said something to the effect that “if somebody tells you it's raining outside, and somebody else tells you the sun is shining, your job as a journalist isn't to report that some people say one thing whereas others say something else, your job as a journalist is to go look out the window and report what the weather is actually doing ”. What we have now is (mostly) talk-shows rough…

If you look at 24 hour cable news, I'm sure that's what you see. It's entertainment passed on as journalism. There's still good journalism going on if you know where to look. The New York Times, the Washington Post, for example, are incredibly informative and useful sources for news.

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#38

Post by mdex » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 6:12 PM UTC

jlmorton wrote: post #17

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.

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

It doesn't matter if they correct it after they've already sold the lie. The damage is done and most people won't read the correction.

After 9/11, New York Times wrote an article about how dangerous Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were. MSM just takes Bush/Obama admin + intelligence communities claims at face value. It is supposed to be their job to fact-check govt, but instead they are just a rubber stamp for govt propaganda. The only admin they have been capable of properly fact-checking is Trump admin and that's only because their corporate sponsors & donors are anti-Trump.

When the intelligence community makes a claim, media fact-checks that claim by asking the SAME intelligence community to verify.

If they aren't willing to put in the work to be trustworthy, there's no reason to give them any trust.

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#39

Post by newscracker » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 6:19 PM UTC

They should also add a strong recommendation that WhatsApp and Signal are better used from a burner phone and a disposable phone number. With phone (directory) aggregation platforms like Truecaller that collect many people’s names and numbers and also provide free lookups, certain people who want or need a higher degree of anonymity would end up being inadvertently exposed to the people at NYT.

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#40

Post by jumelles » Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 6:19 PM UTC

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.

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