3 ms·
The language seems pretty reasonable... "The attackers are believed to have communicated using encryption technology, according to European officials who had b
by josefresco 11y ago
The language seems pretty reasonable...
"The attackers are believed to have communicated using encryption technology, according to European officials who had been briefed on the investigation but were not authorized to speak publicly. It was not clear whether the encryption was part of widely used communications tools, like WhatsApp, which the authorities have a hard time monitoring, or something more elaborate. Intelligence officials have been pressing for more leeway to counter the growing use of encryption."
- mtgx 11y agoSure, if you think unproven hearsay in NYT that we all ought to take for granted is "reasonable". If the authorities believe it was the encryption to blame, then they should come out and say it outright - with details, of course. They shouldn't hide under the "anonymous officials" tag which "believe" it was encryption the culprit that stopped them from learning about the attacks, and nothing else. It could've been just some random cop's opinion, who heard it from someone else, who was also wrong about it.
- hellbanner 11y agoSeriously, yes. "News" outlets for decades have printed "anonymous officials" and "inside government sources" with devastating opinions.. even worse is "So and so was CALLED XYZ by ... " this is like assigning a variable in programming, X=Y.. talk about programming the mass consciousness!
- golergka 11y agoWhat's wrong with newspaper reporting hearsay, while describing it as hearsay? NYT didn't seem to pass it as anything else than it is. What's your logic here? Should all anonymous sources be banned? Or only the sources with opinions that you don't like?
- hobs 11y agoProbably sources that have a political bone to pick with no evidence should be banned. Should the NYT report that a UFO passed over because some official told them so? No. When you receive an anonymous tip, its your job as a journalist to try and confirm it, not report it directly. Additionally, when a paper reports something with no evidence and screws up, they usually publish a retraction, not change the article and direct you to a new copy.
- bluesilver07 11y agoBecause, with anonymous sources you can sway public opinion, saying pretty much anything you want without the possibility of being held accountable for it.
- throwaway2048 11y agothe NYT was instrumental in printing outright lies leading up to the Iraq war for instance, we absolutely should not trust unidentified sources from them when there is a clear political motive at play.
- jnbiche 11y agoActually, most reputable newspapers have very strict rules about anonymous sources, including some who ban them altogether. Here is the NY Times Standard and Ethics Statement, which describes the newspaper's "distaste" for anonymous sources: http://www.nytco.com/who-we-are/culture/standards-and-ethics/ http://www.nytco.com/who-we-are/culture/standards-and-ethics... In fact, that's probably the reason it was pulled: a complaint was made to the NYT Public Editor about the piece's sources.
- morninj 11y agoIf so, they should say so. Silently pulling the article and redirecting the URL is a little misleading.
- Zigurd 11y agoUnproven hearsay in the New York Times has never led to disaster before <cough>Judith Miller</cough>.
- cooper12 11y agoWhat's this "encryption technology"? It just sounds like another case of "a hacker named 4chan", meaning the media throwing around buzzwords like they know what they mean. Encryption is built into technologies, not something that stands on its own like a weapon. It's like saying, "the hacker used http to gain access to the server".