4 ms·

I'd rather they hire a qualified person who understands the issue to prevent any side, including the side I don't agree with. They failed at that miserably in t

by joesmo 11y ago

I'd rather they hire a qualified person who understands the issue to prevent any side, including the side I don't agree with. They failed at that miserably in this case and the previous poster was right: they should be ashamed of publishing this garbage. More like shit, really.

ikeboy 11y ago
They generally do that as well, but not in their op-ed pages. Let me look: yeah http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/technology/code-specialists-oppose-us-and-british-government-access-to-encrypted-communication.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/technology/code-specialist... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/technology/tech-giants-urge-obama-to-reject-policies-that-weaken-encryption-technology.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/technology/tech-giants-urg... The problem with doing just that is that you run the risk of misinterpreting or subconsciously strawmanning the opposition. That's what op-eds prevent; they're an unfiltered statement of a view. If everything runs through a rewriter, the reader misses whatever arguments the rewriter feels are too weak to be included.
- joesmo 11y ago
  So you're defending their practice of using ill-informed opinions made by people who don't understand the facts? I'm sorry, but that is not too much to ask of a publication. I'm not talking about getting an expert, simply someone that understands the basics of encryption. Vance doesn't even understand the basic principles. It's like me writing an article about giving birth. I don't understand it because I'm not a woman. He doesn't understand encryption because he refuses to, didn't try, or is too stupid. Let's not pretend that stupidity rules the world when malice is a much more likely explanation.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    I just went through the article again slowly. I can't find anything that would support your conclusion of "Vance doesn't even understand the basic principles." If you see a specific factual mistake in that article, point it out.

by joesmo 11y ago

ikeboy 11y ago

They generally do that as well, but not in their op-ed pages. Let me look: yeah http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/technology/code-specialists-oppose-us-and-british-government-access-to-encrypted-communication.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/technology/code-specialist... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/technology/tech-giants-urge-obama-to-reject-policies-that-weaken-encryption-technology.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/technology/tech-giants-urg... The problem with doing just that is that you run the risk of misinterpreting or subconsciously strawmanning the opposition. That's what op-eds prevent; they're an unfiltered statement of a view. If everything runs through a rewriter, the reader misses whatever arguments the rewriter feels are too weak to be included.

joesmo 11y ago
So you're defending their practice of using ill-informed opinions made by people who don't understand the facts? I'm sorry, but that is not too much to ask of a publication. I'm not talking about getting an expert, simply someone that understands the basics of encryption. Vance doesn't even understand the basic principles. It's like me writing an article about giving birth. I don't understand it because I'm not a woman. He doesn't understand encryption because he refuses to, didn't try, or is too stupid. Let's not pretend that stupidity rules the world when malice is a much more likely explanation.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  I just went through the article again slowly. I can't find anything that would support your conclusion of "Vance doesn't even understand the basic principles." If you see a specific factual mistake in that article, point it out.