3 ms·
Where's the proof that Krebs knew that the whistleblower account was a fabrication? Genuine question. It seems to me that Krebs might be in a position to clai
by james_in_the_uk 5y ago
Where's the proof that Krebs knew that the whistleblower account was a fabrication?
Genuine question.
It seems to me that Krebs might be in a position to claim:
1. He honestly reported the facts as were made available to him.
2. Either:
A. He didn't know his original source was Sharp (quite feasible that Sharp disguised this)
Or
B. He did know his original source was Sharp, but felt compelled to continue to protect his source despite charges having been brought (innocent until proven guilty).
3. He took the view was that nothing in the revelation of this hack
as an inside job casts doubt on his initial reporting, which was about Ubiquity's response to the incident not the attacker's identity.
We should at least wait to read the defence before drawing any conclusions.
- Animats 5y agoHe honestly reported the facts as were made available to him. Which is a more than adequate defense. See New York Times vs. Sullivan.
- esyir 5y agoThe truth is an absolute defense against libel, but what happens when that stops being true?
- cafard 5y agoThe parent comment referred to Sullivan v. NY Times, which ruled that a public figure (and I suppose companies count as such) have to prove not just factual error, but actual malice.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y agoSeems like refusing to take down known inaccurate articles at is at least suggestive of actual malice.
- james_in_the_uk 5y agoThat appears to be Ubiquity's argument, but we've only got one side at the moment, and to my reading (uneducated as to US defamation law) it's far from proven.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y agoWell yes you wouldn't expect anything to be proven at this point. There is only a complaint. We are discussing the reasonableness/plausibility of the allegation. All I'm saying is that to me it seems plausible.
- tga_d 5y agoAgain, "actual malice" doesn't mean "acting maliciously" in the colloquial sense. It's a legal term of art from the aforementioned NYT v. Sullivan case and is explicitly defined as "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Publications leave up articles they know to contain falsehoods (that were believed to be true at the time they were written) all the time. Unless libel (and therefore actual malice) is shown, I don't know of any precedent that would imply an obligation to issue a retraction.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]