3 ms·

I'm afraid we can't blame the NYT for that - printer tracking dots are public knowledge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code https://en.wi

I'm afraid we can't blame the NYT for that - printer tracking dots are public knowledge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code

jjk166 6y ago
That the dots existed was public knowledge. That the NSA had the means to recover them from a document that had been scanned and faxed and reprinted was not. The NYT is criticizing the Intercept for verifying its documents and showing them to the public. That's exactly what journalists are supposed to do, and something that the NYT regularly doesn't. Trying to justify it by raising concerns about security of the sources is bogus: the purpose of journalism is to inform the public, and sources risk everything to that end. At best, overzealously withholding information from the public is an insult to the source's sacrifice; in many cases it simply hides questionable evidence from reasonable criticism. The NYT is guilty of this in this very article.
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  > The NYT is criticizing the Intercept for verifying its documents and showing them to the public No, the NYT is reporting on a newsworthy event. We, as readers, can criticize The Intercept for bumbling things so badly.
  - jjk166 6y ago
    What is the event here? The Reality Winner story happened 3 years ago and was picked apart thoroughly at the time. The event right now is that the NYT claims to have acquired secret documents, but since they are not sharing those documents, nor the testimony of anyone willing to go on record verifying the documents, that doesn't rise to the level of newsworthy. I'm not going to claim that The Intercept made no mistakes ever. The fact that they took on Winner's legal defense bills are a clear sign they took responsibility for those mistakes and did what they could to make them right. I would think an institution which reported that there were WMDs in Iraq, leading directly to a war that killed hundreds of thousands, ruined the lives of millions more, cost trillions of dollars, and whose full ramifications have still not been felt, issued nothing more than a belayed mea culpa, and profited handsomely reporting on the chaos they helped cause would be more hesitant about dredging up the past mistakes of news organizations.
    - lern_too_spel 6y ago
      > What is the event here? The Reality Winner story happened 3 years ago The event happened three years ago, but the investigation just finished, and the new information resulting from the investigation include the internal communications at The Intercept about their screwup. The Globe's reporting on the Catholic Church's coverup took time to investigate too and wasn't mere dunking just because they took the time to gather all that information. > I would think an institution which reported that there were WMDs in Iraq By that standard, The Intercept should just close up shop. At least the NYT issues corrections.

jjk166 6y ago

That the dots existed was public knowledge. That the NSA had the means to recover them from a document that had been scanned and faxed and reprinted was not. The NYT is criticizing the Intercept for verifying its documents and showing them to the public. That's exactly what journalists are supposed to do, and something that the NYT regularly doesn't. Trying to justify it by raising concerns about security of the sources is bogus: the purpose of journalism is to inform the public, and sources risk everything to that end. At best, overzealously withholding information from the public is an insult to the source's sacrifice; in many cases it simply hides questionable evidence from reasonable criticism. The NYT is guilty of this in this very article.

lern_too_spel 6y ago
> The NYT is criticizing the Intercept for verifying its documents and showing them to the public No, the NYT is reporting on a newsworthy event. We, as readers, can criticize The Intercept for bumbling things so badly.
- jjk166 6y ago
  What is the event here? The Reality Winner story happened 3 years ago and was picked apart thoroughly at the time. The event right now is that the NYT claims to have acquired secret documents, but since they are not sharing those documents, nor the testimony of anyone willing to go on record verifying the documents, that doesn't rise to the level of newsworthy. I'm not going to claim that The Intercept made no mistakes ever. The fact that they took on Winner's legal defense bills are a clear sign they took responsibility for those mistakes and did what they could to make them right. I would think an institution which reported that there were WMDs in Iraq, leading directly to a war that killed hundreds of thousands, ruined the lives of millions more, cost trillions of dollars, and whose full ramifications have still not been felt, issued nothing more than a belayed mea culpa, and profited handsomely reporting on the chaos they helped cause would be more hesitant about dredging up the past mistakes of news organizations.
  - lern_too_spel 6y ago
    > What is the event here? The Reality Winner story happened 3 years ago The event happened three years ago, but the investigation just finished, and the new information resulting from the investigation include the internal communications at The Intercept about their screwup. The Globe's reporting on the Catholic Church's coverup took time to investigate too and wasn't mere dunking just because they took the time to gather all that information. > I would think an institution which reported that there were WMDs in Iraq By that standard, The Intercept should just close up shop. At least the NYT issues corrections.