57 ms·

You're saying the entire security community has put its head in the sand. Why do you think the top people in the field have signed this letter? I'm asking since

You're saying the entire security community has put its head in the sand. Why do you think the top people in the field have signed this letter? I'm asking sincerely. What do you think you understand that they're missing?

EGreg 10y ago
I haven't heard or investigated much about this issue. But I want to ask about the general question. If something is actually true, then why is it preferable not to say it publicly (including in a headline)? As long as the qualifying statements are made alongside it (eg probabilities)? Why should governments have so much classified information and secrets? What if they just operated entirely transparently? (Except for short term tactics for raids and investigations of suspected criminals and terrorists.)
- pjc50 10y ago
  > If something is actually true, then why is it preferable not to say it publicly Heavily de-contextualised true information can be just as misleading as actual lies. Hence the vaccine example.
  - EGreg 10y ago
    What context needs to be given except for probability for which the statement "can" becomes "does"? The probability can be conditioned on some relevant assumption to make the story sensationalized. But as long as the probability and assumption is clearly spelled out, I don't see what other context should be required for PUBLIC disclosure. Maybe also the total incidence number. For example: Jihadist terrorists can kill you! With a 0.001% probability for every hour you spend in a large crowd. It has happened in two crowds so far. Or: 97% of climate scientists agree the rise in greenhouse gases is mostly attributable to human activities. That is 97% of 35 PEOPLE in the world.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Some people are allergic to vaccines. That's a real story, too. But none of us have any trouble seeing the problem if The Guardian runs an RFK Jr. story saying "Vaccines Might Kill You".
    - pjc50 10y ago
      Since when have you ever seen a probability in a newspaper? (the climate scientist number is probably closer to 35,000; and when talking of surveys and samples, reporting the sample size causes everyone not professionally trained in statistics - that is, almost everyone - to underestimate the "power" of the survey.)
  - Natsu 10y ago
    > Heavily de-contextualised true information can be just as misleading as actual lies. Don't they end up being lies of omission at that point?
- idlewords 10y ago
  I think the vaccine analogy is really helpful here. You can make true statements, like "vaccines can kill you", that cause massive public harm if they're not correctly contextualized. People come away thinking "vaccines are bad". In this case, the Guardian put the tech equivalent of "vaccines can kill you" in a headline.
deathhand 10y ago
Bruce Schneier calls it a vector... https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/01/whatsapp_securi.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/01/whatsapp_secu...
- idlewords 10y ago
  He signed the letter we're debating!

EGreg 10y ago

I haven't heard or investigated much about this issue. But I want to ask about the general question. If something is actually true, then why is it preferable not to say it publicly (including in a headline)? As long as the qualifying statements are made alongside it (eg probabilities)? Why should governments have so much classified information and secrets? What if they just operated entirely transparently? (Except for short term tactics for raids and investigations of suspected criminals and terrorists.)

pjc50 10y ago
> If something is actually true, then why is it preferable not to say it publicly Heavily de-contextualised true information can be just as misleading as actual lies. Hence the vaccine example.
- EGreg 10y ago
  What context needs to be given except for probability for which the statement "can" becomes "does"? The probability can be conditioned on some relevant assumption to make the story sensationalized. But as long as the probability and assumption is clearly spelled out, I don't see what other context should be required for PUBLIC disclosure. Maybe also the total incidence number. For example: Jihadist terrorists can kill you! With a 0.001% probability for every hour you spend in a large crowd. It has happened in two crowds so far. Or: 97% of climate scientists agree the rise in greenhouse gases is mostly attributable to human activities. That is 97% of 35 PEOPLE in the world.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Some people are allergic to vaccines. That's a real story, too. But none of us have any trouble seeing the problem if The Guardian runs an RFK Jr. story saying "Vaccines Might Kill You".
  - pjc50 10y ago
    Since when have you ever seen a probability in a newspaper? (the climate scientist number is probably closer to 35,000; and when talking of surveys and samples, reporting the sample size causes everyone not professionally trained in statistics - that is, almost everyone - to underestimate the "power" of the survey.)
- Natsu 10y ago
  > Heavily de-contextualised true information can be just as misleading as actual lies. Don't they end up being lies of omission at that point?
idlewords 10y ago
I think the vaccine analogy is really helpful here. You can make true statements, like "vaccines can kill you", that cause massive public harm if they're not correctly contextualized. People come away thinking "vaccines are bad". In this case, the Guardian put the tech equivalent of "vaccines can kill you" in a headline.

deathhand 10y ago

Bruce Schneier calls it a vector... https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/01/whatsapp_securi.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/01/whatsapp_secu...

idlewords 10y ago
He signed the letter we're debating!