4 ms·

Krebs was pretty unethical in this case. He published articles based on quotes from a Ubiquiti insider who it later turned out was actually the hacker who was e

Krebs was pretty unethical in this case. He published articles based on quotes from a Ubiquiti insider who it later turned out was actually the hacker who was extorting them at the time. Krebs has never (as far as I know) addressed this or even acknowledged it. If Krebs had just been a rube who was used by the hacker, I'd agree with you. But by not updating the record, he's continuing to further lies that he knows aren't true and are/will hurt Ubiquiti's reputation. Given that, I don't think it's as simple as "this gets dismissed as a SLAPP".

InTheArena 5y ago
More to the point - he has doubled down on his reporting being correct, but failed to acknowledge that he - himself - was the weapon that the attacker used to inflict damage on Ubiquiti - their employees, users and shareholders. Krebs got taken. Pure and simple. I can see why he might not want to acknowledge that, or do any soul searching on it, but when you were part of the problem, you have a responsibility to fix your part in it, even if it was a unwitting accomplice.
- OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  (From a questioning perspective) If a source happens not to be who they claimed to be, hiding for whatever reason, but the information in the story is newsworthy, credible, verifiable, and authenticated, does that mean the story should not go forward then?
  - InTheArena 5y ago
    The story already went forward. It means that a correction should have been issued.
  - brankest 5y ago
    This is why journalists try to get multiple sources to corroborate what the other is saying.
    - stjohnswarts 5y ago
      That's hardly very likely with whistleblower stories, all you can do is be careful with wording like "<name> claims" "<name> alleges" to qualify the reporting. I read Krebs I find it hard that he wouldn't retract something if Ubiquiti (or someone else) came to him with evidence showing the "whistleblower" was a fake that he wouldn't retract the article based on new information. He seems like a good journo to me and has nothing to lose by doing such. He reports on a lot of stuff and now one is going to be constantly fact checking every story they ever put out there. It's impossible. I suspect Ubiquiti filed this before they ever contacted him about the whistleblower being a fake.
- stormbrew 5y ago
  What's the counterfactual here? If Krebs was wrong to report on this, what's the world where he didn't look like? Is anyone better off? It doesn't seem like it. Either way, Ubiquiti had a major security issue on its hands. Krebs didn't make that true by reporting it, it was true already and he wasn't wrong to say that they did, regardless of some niggling over whether he knew two people were actually the same person lying to him about who they were.
  - thesausageking 5y ago
    Journalists aren't supposed to take what a "whistleblower" says at face value. If Krebs were a journalist at the NYTimes, for example, they would've done a lot of background research to corroborate the insider's story before publishing the quote. And then either would not have run it or at least have been clear about how little he knows about the "whistleblower". And the bigger issue is, once the truth came out, he should've done a retraction and discussed what he knows about "Adam" and how he was likely the hacker who did the extortion.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - stormbrew 5y ago
      Ignoring that I didn't ask anything like "what should Krebs have done later?": > he should've done a retraction and discussed what he knows about "Adam" and how he was likely the hacker who did the extortion. That's not a retraction. That's an update based on new information. Those aren't the same thing. This is just begging the question of his knowledge. It doesn't really seem like Krebs, even if he is a shitty journalist overall (I know very little about him, so I'm not going to assume one way or another), said anything actually false at the time he said it. Is a journalist, once they report on a story once, required to continue reporting on that story forever?
      - thesausageking 5y ago
        If a journalist is complicit in helping an extortion attempt with one of their stories, then, yes, any ethical journalist has a responsibility to update it. This will (hopefully) be a pretty rare occurrence.
lesuorac 5y ago
Not a lawyer, but I suspect that the sentence "Ubiquiti has not responded to repeated requests for comment." in Exhibit A of Ubiquiti's own evidence is going to carry a lot of Kreb's case.
throwaway5752 5y ago
Ubiquiti is interesting. The CEO is the technical founder and bootstrapper, overwhelming controlling shareholder, and has been the subject of what I'd consider unethical (stock) short campaigns in the past. So you have a CEO without many checks and balances who is justifiably defensive of his company. I am a fan of him and his company. That said, I think he is in the wrong here, and I just hope he realizes it and can amicably resolve this in a way that is more productive for everyone.
emmelaich 5y ago
Krebs did address it in a tweet. Says the facts as he reported them were true. See exhibit E. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.521759/gov.uscourts.vaed.521759.1.5.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.52...

InTheArena 5y ago

More to the point - he has doubled down on his reporting being correct, but failed to acknowledge that he - himself - was the weapon that the attacker used to inflict damage on Ubiquiti - their employees, users and shareholders. Krebs got taken. Pure and simple. I can see why he might not want to acknowledge that, or do any soul searching on it, but when you were part of the problem, you have a responsibility to fix your part in it, even if it was a unwitting accomplice.

OrvalWintermute 5y ago
(From a questioning perspective) If a source happens not to be who they claimed to be, hiding for whatever reason, but the information in the story is newsworthy, credible, verifiable, and authenticated, does that mean the story should not go forward then?
- InTheArena 5y ago
  The story already went forward. It means that a correction should have been issued.
- brankest 5y ago
  This is why journalists try to get multiple sources to corroborate what the other is saying.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    That's hardly very likely with whistleblower stories, all you can do is be careful with wording like "<name> claims" "<name> alleges" to qualify the reporting. I read Krebs I find it hard that he wouldn't retract something if Ubiquiti (or someone else) came to him with evidence showing the "whistleblower" was a fake that he wouldn't retract the article based on new information. He seems like a good journo to me and has nothing to lose by doing such. He reports on a lot of stuff and now one is going to be constantly fact checking every story they ever put out there. It's impossible. I suspect Ubiquiti filed this before they ever contacted him about the whistleblower being a fake.
stormbrew 5y ago
What's the counterfactual here? If Krebs was wrong to report on this, what's the world where he didn't look like? Is anyone better off? It doesn't seem like it. Either way, Ubiquiti had a major security issue on its hands. Krebs didn't make that true by reporting it, it was true already and he wasn't wrong to say that they did, regardless of some niggling over whether he knew two people were actually the same person lying to him about who they were.
- thesausageking 5y ago
  Journalists aren't supposed to take what a "whistleblower" says at face value. If Krebs were a journalist at the NYTimes, for example, they would've done a lot of background research to corroborate the insider's story before publishing the quote. And then either would not have run it or at least have been clear about how little he knows about the "whistleblower". And the bigger issue is, once the truth came out, he should've done a retraction and discussed what he knows about "Adam" and how he was likely the hacker who did the extortion.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - stormbrew 5y ago
    Ignoring that I didn't ask anything like "what should Krebs have done later?": > he should've done a retraction and discussed what he knows about "Adam" and how he was likely the hacker who did the extortion. That's not a retraction. That's an update based on new information. Those aren't the same thing. This is just begging the question of his knowledge. It doesn't really seem like Krebs, even if he is a shitty journalist overall (I know very little about him, so I'm not going to assume one way or another), said anything actually false at the time he said it. Is a journalist, once they report on a story once, required to continue reporting on that story forever?
    - thesausageking 5y ago
      If a journalist is complicit in helping an extortion attempt with one of their stories, then, yes, any ethical journalist has a responsibility to update it. This will (hopefully) be a pretty rare occurrence.

lesuorac 5y ago

Not a lawyer, but I suspect that the sentence "Ubiquiti has not responded to repeated requests for comment." in Exhibit A of Ubiquiti's own evidence is going to carry a lot of Kreb's case.

throwaway5752 5y ago

Ubiquiti is interesting. The CEO is the technical founder and bootstrapper, overwhelming controlling shareholder, and has been the subject of what I'd consider unethical (stock) short campaigns in the past. So you have a CEO without many checks and balances who is justifiably defensive of his company. I am a fan of him and his company. That said, I think he is in the wrong here, and I just hope he realizes it and can amicably resolve this in a way that is more productive for everyone.

emmelaich 5y ago

Krebs did address it in a tweet. Says the facts as he reported them were true. See exhibit E. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.521759/gov.uscourts.vaed.521759.1.5.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.52...