4 ms·

I think this is a really thorough mea culpa which is quite impressive, given the frequent failure of other newspapers to publish a prominent apology when they h

by gtf21 9y ago

I think this is a really thorough mea culpa which is quite impressive, given the frequent failure of other newspapers to publish a prominent apology when they have got things far more wrong than this.

moyix 9y ago
Yes. It would be nice if they hadn't taken 6 months to get around to it, though...
masklinn 9y ago
> I think this is a really thorough mea culpa which is quite impressive It took almost 6 months of badgering for that to finally happen though, despite an extensive and widely signed (by experts) op-ed pointing out how wrong and dangerous it was barely a week after the original article was published, and calls for corrections/retractions started within days if not hours. > given the frequent failure of other newspapers to publish a prominent apology when they have got things far more wrong than this. Getting things "far more wrong" matters less when it doesn't put lives at stakes, and you don't need to believe me on that, this correction article makes that point: > During the review I independently confirmed that a Turkish government official had used the article when, in effect, attempting to deter users from WhatsApp.
- Osmium 9y ago
  > It took almost 6 months of badgering for that to finally happen though, despite an extensive and widely signed (by experts) op-ed pointing out how wrong and dangerous it was barely a week after the original article was published, and calls for corrections/retractions started within days if not hours. Completely agreed, but they do fully concede this in their retraction: >This made a relatively small, expert, vocal and persistent audience very angry. Guardian editors did not react to an open letter co-signed by 72 experts in a way commensurate with the combined stature of the critics and the huge number of people potentially affected by the story. It might have taken a while for their internal review to complete but, honestly, what more can we ask for but an honest admission like this? If more media outlets could meet this standard we'd be in a much better place.
  - shallot_router 9y ago
    >what more can we ask for but an honest admission like this? We can ask people to simply not trust traditional newspapers for reporting on stories concerning highly technical and scientific fields.
    - blowski 9y ago
      Who should we trust? Business Insider? TechCrunch? They all get it wrong sometimes. We should be equally sceptical of all sources of news.
      - shallot_router 9y ago
        Yes, we should be skeptical of all news sources, but from my experience, traditional newspapers tend to consistently misreport information security news. I personally only trust security blogs and Twitters operated by certain security experts when it comes to news about security. I have a list of about 30 or so experts I trust. I know that's not really practical advice for a typical person, though. I think the Guardian handled the retraction and apology as best they could, and they deserve props for that, but it seems the hit-miss ratio for infosec stories is very poor for most "mainstream" sources out there (as much as I despise the "MSM" term).
        Angostura 9y ago
        Which other infosec stories did the Guardian screw up?
        shallot_router 9y ago
        I don't read it, but just from a quick glance, this headline is misleading: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/07/russian-hackers-qatar-crisis-fbi-inquiry-saudi-arabia-uae https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/07/russian-hacker... >An investigation by the FBI has concluded that Russian hackers were responsible for sending out fake messages from the Qatari government, sparking the Gulf’s biggest diplomatic crisis in decades. >It is believed that the Russian government was not involved in the hacks; instead, freelance hackers were paid to undertake the work on behalf of some other state or individual. They could've easily made the headline "FBI: Qatar hackers of Russian nationality". By making the first 2 words of the headline "Russian hackers", they're obviously trying to take advantage of the recent surge in reports over Russian state-sponsored hacking. Most readers who see that headline are going to assume they meant "Russian state hackers", until they read the second paragraph. That said, I don't see any factual errors in the article itself.
segmondy 9y ago
No it's not. They were called out immediately and yet refused to correct themselves.
- the_watcher 9y ago
  It absolutely was a thorough mea culpa. You are also absolutely correct that it was not, at all, a timely mea culpa. The lack of timeliness makes it a much less impactful mea culpa, as public consciousness of the issue is likely drastically reduced, and there will likely be many who now remember the initial uproar but never see the correction.
loeg 9y ago
It would be nice if the very second sentence of the "mea culpa" wasn't a defense of the original article.
iaw 9y ago
Did you read it? This is a lawyers carefully worded article to avoid being sued... > "I accept the consensus view of the experts and, in consultation with editors, have arranged for the coverage to be amended and for a note to be added drawing attention to the review and linking to this column. > I do not agree with critics that the story should be entirely retracted." Huh? Accepting a consensus view is a really shifty way to avoid acknowledging being blatantly wrong.
- inciampati 9y ago
  It would be easier for them to make a clear statement if the app were open source. The decision to be coy could be understood as a hedge against the possibility that there really is a hidden exploit.
- gtf21 9y ago
  > Did you read it? I try to avoid making a habit of commenting on things without reading them, and also of over-quickly assuming that others do so. > This is a lawyers [sic] carefully worded article to avoid being sued [...] Accepting a consensus view is a really shifty way to avoid acknowledging being blatantly wrong. This leads me to question whether you read the article, or simply picked out snippets to support your preconceptions. Let's take some other quotations: > In a detailed review I found that misinterpretations, mistakes and misunderstandings happened at several stages of the reporting and editing process. Cumulatively they produced an article that overstated its case. > The most serious inaccuracy was a claim that WhatsApp had a “backdoor” ^ these look like an acknowledgement to me. Furthermore, to refute your selectively used quotation above: > I am not an expert in this field. For the review I consulted suitably experienced experts other than the 72 who had already declared their view. [...] I found a consensus that [...] The author is accepting the consensus view amongst the experts with whom he spoke, since, as he acknowledges, he is not an expert in the field. This seems to me to be an emminently sensible approach, which most journalists would do well to follow.

by gtf21 9y ago

moyix 9y ago

Yes. It would be nice if they hadn't taken 6 months to get around to it, though...

masklinn 9y ago

> I think this is a really thorough mea culpa which is quite impressive It took almost 6 months of badgering for that to finally happen though, despite an extensive and widely signed (by experts) op-ed pointing out how wrong and dangerous it was barely a week after the original article was published, and calls for corrections/retractions started within days if not hours. > given the frequent failure of other newspapers to publish a prominent apology when they have got things far more wrong than this. Getting things "far more wrong" matters less when it doesn't put lives at stakes, and you don't need to believe me on that, this correction article makes that point: > During the review I independently confirmed that a Turkish government official had used the article when, in effect, attempting to deter users from WhatsApp.

Osmium 9y ago
> It took almost 6 months of badgering for that to finally happen though, despite an extensive and widely signed (by experts) op-ed pointing out how wrong and dangerous it was barely a week after the original article was published, and calls for corrections/retractions started within days if not hours. Completely agreed, but they do fully concede this in their retraction: >This made a relatively small, expert, vocal and persistent audience very angry. Guardian editors did not react to an open letter co-signed by 72 experts in a way commensurate with the combined stature of the critics and the huge number of people potentially affected by the story. It might have taken a while for their internal review to complete but, honestly, what more can we ask for but an honest admission like this? If more media outlets could meet this standard we'd be in a much better place.
- shallot_router 9y ago
  >what more can we ask for but an honest admission like this? We can ask people to simply not trust traditional newspapers for reporting on stories concerning highly technical and scientific fields.
  - blowski 9y ago
    Who should we trust? Business Insider? TechCrunch? They all get it wrong sometimes. We should be equally sceptical of all sources of news.
    - shallot_router 9y ago
      Yes, we should be skeptical of all news sources, but from my experience, traditional newspapers tend to consistently misreport information security news. I personally only trust security blogs and Twitters operated by certain security experts when it comes to news about security. I have a list of about 30 or so experts I trust. I know that's not really practical advice for a typical person, though. I think the Guardian handled the retraction and apology as best they could, and they deserve props for that, but it seems the hit-miss ratio for infosec stories is very poor for most "mainstream" sources out there (as much as I despise the "MSM" term).
      - Angostura 9y ago
        Which other infosec stories did the Guardian screw up?
        shallot_router 9y ago
        I don't read it, but just from a quick glance, this headline is misleading: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/07/russian-hackers-qatar-crisis-fbi-inquiry-saudi-arabia-uae https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/07/russian-hacker... >An investigation by the FBI has concluded that Russian hackers were responsible for sending out fake messages from the Qatari government, sparking the Gulf’s biggest diplomatic crisis in decades. >It is believed that the Russian government was not involved in the hacks; instead, freelance hackers were paid to undertake the work on behalf of some other state or individual. They could've easily made the headline "FBI: Qatar hackers of Russian nationality". By making the first 2 words of the headline "Russian hackers", they're obviously trying to take advantage of the recent surge in reports over Russian state-sponsored hacking. Most readers who see that headline are going to assume they meant "Russian state hackers", until they read the second paragraph. That said, I don't see any factual errors in the article itself.

segmondy 9y ago

No it's not. They were called out immediately and yet refused to correct themselves.

the_watcher 9y ago
It absolutely was a thorough mea culpa. You are also absolutely correct that it was not, at all, a timely mea culpa. The lack of timeliness makes it a much less impactful mea culpa, as public consciousness of the issue is likely drastically reduced, and there will likely be many who now remember the initial uproar but never see the correction.

loeg 9y ago

It would be nice if the very second sentence of the "mea culpa" wasn't a defense of the original article.

iaw 9y ago

Did you read it? This is a lawyers carefully worded article to avoid being sued... > "I accept the consensus view of the experts and, in consultation with editors, have arranged for the coverage to be amended and for a note to be added drawing attention to the review and linking to this column. > I do not agree with critics that the story should be entirely retracted." Huh? Accepting a consensus view is a really shifty way to avoid acknowledging being blatantly wrong.

inciampati 9y ago
It would be easier for them to make a clear statement if the app were open source. The decision to be coy could be understood as a hedge against the possibility that there really is a hidden exploit.
gtf21 9y ago
> Did you read it? I try to avoid making a habit of commenting on things without reading them, and also of over-quickly assuming that others do so. > This is a lawyers [sic] carefully worded article to avoid being sued [...] Accepting a consensus view is a really shifty way to avoid acknowledging being blatantly wrong. This leads me to question whether you read the article, or simply picked out snippets to support your preconceptions. Let's take some other quotations: > In a detailed review I found that misinterpretations, mistakes and misunderstandings happened at several stages of the reporting and editing process. Cumulatively they produced an article that overstated its case. > The most serious inaccuracy was a claim that WhatsApp had a “backdoor” ^ these look like an acknowledgement to me. Furthermore, to refute your selectively used quotation above: > I am not an expert in this field. For the review I consulted suitably experienced experts other than the 72 who had already declared their view. [...] I found a consensus that [...] The author is accepting the consensus view amongst the experts with whom he spoke, since, as he acknowledges, he is not an expert in the field. This seems to me to be an emminently sensible approach, which most journalists would do well to follow.