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

Things You Notice When You Quit the News

raptitude.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 502 posts

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#481

Post by RCortex »

gnarbarian wrote: post #117
leephillips wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greenwald's "excellent" piece is itself fake news. It deliberately misrepresents the reporting done by Kurt Eichenwald about the leaked emails. We know it's deliberate because he's distorted the story the same way in the past and it's been pointed out to him. Eichenwald did not claim that the leaked information was false, but showed, to a high degree of certainty, that Trump campaign staffers were working with Russia…

"showed, to a high degree of certainty, that Trump campaign staffers were working with Russian disinformation operatives." Can you show me what warrants a high degree of certainty for that claim? Because as far as I know there is no evidence for this beyond the tenuous circumstantial nature of Clinton's dirty laundry helping Trump, and a Trump presidency is less likely to start a war with Russia.

Not the piece above, but here it is. This article has a lot of links/sources on how Trump's campaign statements and Russian propaganda are almost word-for-word identical, and in general complementary. This is from back in August. http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/underst...

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#482

Post by scottishfiction »

masondixon wrote: post #314
scottishfiction wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: I work for the BBC. The BBC doesn't have 'a clear political affiliation', and neither does Channel 4. Both are public service broadcasters that are committed to non-bias reporting. However, they are run by people, and people are bias.

I think its very common in most countries for public broadcasters to lean left, and there is nearly always the perception. In my experience this has always been true. It might be because a right-wing government is more likely to make cuts in funding of a public broadcaster than the left. I have not thought the reason why it is in depth though. I wonder if you have an opinion?

I wouldn't say that its an unreasonable theory. There's also the tendency for those working in media to be of the left. My main point though is that any perceived bias comes from the individuals that happen to be working on that production. The organisation itself is non-bias and has many measures to avoid bias.

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#483

Post by vog »

DonaldFoss wrote: post #403
vog wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Germany we have the term "Zeitsouveränität" which means time sovereignty . That term originally appeared to describe workplace conditions and biography. However, nowadays it is mostly used to describe media consumption. You decide when to listen to news or watch a certain show, the same way you decide when you read the next chapter of a novel.

Very nice. I saw the word "Zeitsouveränität" and knew the literal meaning but didn't realize it's modern usage. In reality, time sovereignty is the only worthwhile thing wealth gets us, because time is our most valuable resource, a non-renewable one at that.

One particularily popular example are German podcasts of radio stations, which are advertised by "... zum zeitsouveränen Nachhöhren", which roughly translates to: ... for time souvereign listening.

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#484

Post by rndgermandude »

heartbreak wrote: post #479
rndgermandude wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eichenwald claims on live TV the email in question was "manipulated" by Russia. Just watch the video that Eichenwald himself embedded in his article (at 01:49). > There are two possibilities: One is that both the Russians and Donald Trump were tricked into believing of a manipulated email or the Russians manipulated it and Donald Trump fell for it Greenwald counters emails were not doctored/manipulated and that sayin…

The gmail DKIM signatures are not a reliable verification that the contents of an email have not been modified. The algorithm and key length of the signatures used by gmail (sufficient for anti-spam) are cracked with an honestly trivial amount of hardware according to RSA in 2003 [1]. Since the premise here is that a state-backed adversary is involved, we can reasonably expect that the keys are compromised. [1] https…

Gmail DKIM uses rsa-2048 keys (their key has a selector named "20120113" suggesting this key was in use since 2012, but I didn't do DNS historical digging to confirm). 2048 bit is still believed to be secure enough, even against a state actor, and even the article you linked says it. Either way 2048 bit does not just require a "trivial amount of hardware" (even from a state actors perspective)

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#485

Post by heartbreak »

rndgermandude wrote: post #484
heartbreak wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gmail DKIM signatures are not a reliable verification that the contents of an email have not been modified. The algorithm and key length of the signatures used by gmail (sufficient for anti-spam) are cracked with an honestly trivial amount of hardware according to RSA in 2003 [1]. Since the premise here is that a state-backed adversary is involved, we can reasonably expect that the keys are compromised. [1] https…

Gmail DKIM uses rsa-2048 keys (their key has a selector named "20120113" suggesting this key was in use since 2012, but I didn't do DNS historical digging to confirm). 2048 bit is still believed to be secure enough, even against a state actor, and even the article you linked says it. Either way 2048 bit does not just require a "trivial amount of hardware" (even from a state actors perspective)

The keys in at least several of the Wikileaks emails are 1024-bit. Those are specifically what I was referring to.

Others are signed by hillaryclinton.com, which was likely compromised as well.

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#486

Post by rndgermandude »

heartbreak wrote: post #485
rndgermandude wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gmail DKIM uses rsa-2048 keys (their key has a selector named "20120113" suggesting this key was in use since 2012, but I didn't do DNS historical digging to confirm). 2048 bit is still believed to be secure enough, even against a state actor, and even the article you linked says it. Either way 2048 bit does not just require a "trivial amount of hardware" (even from a state actors perspective)

The keys in at least several of the Wikileaks emails are 1024-bit. Those are specifically what I was referring to. Others are signed by hillaryclinton.com, which was likely compromised as well.

The leaked Podesta content goes back quite some time, so yes, there are old emails in there that still had DKIM signatures from a 1024 key.

The email in question is not one of those, and uses the 2048 bit key (emailid/2038).

Also, your assertion that hillaryclinton.com was compromised ... where did you get that? Those emails were released by the govt because of FOIA requests. The DNC was hacked and therefore "compromised" by persons unknown (but some people did a lousy job of attributing it to Russia). The DNC is not hillaryclinton.com, tho.

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#487

Post by heartbreak »

rndgermandude wrote: post #486
heartbreak wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The keys in at least several of the Wikileaks emails are 1024-bit. Those are specifically what I was referring to. Others are signed by hillaryclinton.com, which was likely compromised as well.

The leaked Podesta content goes back quite some time, so yes, there are old emails in there that still had DKIM signatures from a 1024 key. The email in question is not one of those, and uses the 2048 bit key (emailid/2038). Also, your assertion that hillaryclinton.com was compromised ... where did you get that? Those emails were released by the govt because of FOIA requests. The DNC was hacked and therefore "comprom…

Yeah, you're correct a lot of the emails use 2048-bit RSA for the DKIM signature. I trust those more than the 1024-bit signatures. I have a pretty heavy distrust of all of this, because from the sidelines I can't tell who is manipulating what. I don't blindly trust the cryptography because I don't know the capabilities of the adversary or what side channel attacks were present. That probably sounds stupid, but I'm feeling a whole lot of distrust of everyone involved.

Following that, my assertion that hillaryclinton.com was compromised was completely evidence-free. That's a personal assumption due to the significant lack of security expertise by the maintainer of the server. There are plenty of emails sent between clintonemail.com and the DNC gmail accounts that CC Podesta and were included in the Wikileaks dumps.

The DNC was hacked by two Russian actors according to CrowdStrike. I trust CrowdStrike in this assessment.

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#488

Post by optimuspaul »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #406
mSparks wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes and no. Ive noticed the economist has a habit of playing policy games. In that case they publish nonsense to further certain policy aims. But often its well researched unbiased material. not that easy to tell the difference. but infinately better than the junk put out by the likes of the bbc fox cnn times etc.

Totally agreed. But the nice thing about the newspaper (The Economist refers to itself as a newspaper, not a magazine) is that they provide pure opinion journalism and as a reader you know exactly where they are coming from. While I agree a lot with the publication (for example: they argued to liberalize drugs, or advocated gay marriage literally decades before it was chic). I encounter my share of (what I lovingly r…

How is an opinion "full-of-shit? Do you not think that is their actual opinion?

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#489

Post by tasty_freeze »

concinds wrote: post #320
tasty_freeze wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here are a few reasons * It puts the burden of collecting and summarizing relevant news on others * You are at the mercy of the grapevine effect, which only gets worse as more and more people take up this solution so your news takes more hops before you receive it * And, most importantly, your sources are also not getting their news first hand; their sources the very same crappy news outlets that you yourself rejecte…

How does knowing that a train derailed and 300 people died, or that someone got stabbed, change your behavior in any way, shape or form? This may seem callous, but in my country the average person watches 3h of TV every day. That's 3 hours they could spend on a side-job, on a hobby, improving professional skills, getting fit, spending more time with their kids. Who cares that someone got stabbed? Most people care to…

You are addressing a point my comment didn't address. I didn't say that someone needs to know that stuff. My point was that relying on your social network to let you know about important news doesn't increase the quality of the news you do receive.

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#490

Post by nindalf »

optimuspaul wrote: post #488
CaptainZapp wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agreed. But the nice thing about the newspaper (The Economist refers to itself as a newspaper, not a magazine) is that they provide pure opinion journalism and as a reader you know exactly where they are coming from. While I agree a lot with the publication (for example: they argued to liberalize drugs, or advocated gay marriage literally decades before it was chic). I encounter my share of (what I lovingly r…

How is an opinion "full-of-shit? Do you not think that is their actual opinion?

I'll give you an example. The Economist has a few core principles that they hold very dear. Two of these are social liberalism and trade liberalism. They are strong believers in the free market. Applying these principles to issues in the recent past, the Economist took positions in favour of both legalisation of drugs and enacting the Trans Pacific Partnership. Most people (but not all) disagree with one of these stances but not the other. A Reagan Republican would favour trade and "just say no" whereas an Obama Democrat would demonise the TPP and demand the end of a failed, pointless war. It's easy to see how such people would find some stances taken by the Economist as "full-of-shit".

I'm a long time subscriber to the Economist, ever since I was in high school. I appreciate their breadth of reporting and their commitment to provide opinionated takes on news while also giving a balanced take on news. Very few times have I felt the "Murray Gell-Mann effect" while reading it. I can recall just one instance they have been wrong about a topic I'm knowledgeable about. That's a better record than any other publication I read.

Post reply on HN