4 ms·

Krebs has generally great content, but how the Ubiquiti situation was handled really rubbed me the wrong way. Krebs made a mistake, trusting a source that ended

Krebs has generally great content, but how the Ubiquiti situation was handled really rubbed me the wrong way. Krebs made a mistake, trusting a source that ended up being the malicious party. However Krebs never owned up to it. Never issued an apology or admitted his frankly scathing posts about Ubiquiti were inaccurate or at best incomplete. It’s unfortunately a common theme these days in media.

powerhour 4y ago
This and his predilection to doxx his opponents is reason enough to block his site from social media platforms. He's a bad egg.
ahepp 4y ago
Can I find a rundown of this situation somewhere?
- tadfisher 4y ago
  https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/03/ubiquiti-sues-journalist-alleging-defamation-in-coverage-of-data-breach/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/03/ubiquiti-sues-jo...
greggsy 4y ago
He’s one of very few people doing this type of investigative journalism online, and is - as cringey as it sounds - the closest we’ve got to an IRL ‘internet superhero’. Ubi was a bad call but the information was credible - as an insider, the informant was in a unique position to spin his story in such a way. I don’t blame him for making the bad call, and I don’t think he should ‘own up to it’. That one story is far from representative of his broader achievements, and comparing it to the concerted efforts other more malicious actors in the media landscape is disingenuous at best.
tadfisher 4y ago
1. Krebs' source was anonymous and he has not confirmed it to be the party responsible. 2. Ubiquiti is currently suing Krebs for defamation, and the lawsuit is the source of the allegation that Krebs' source and the indicted person are one and the same. 3. Krebs' original article does report both sides of the issue, albeit with a scathing tone regarding UI's security disclosure practices. 4. Even if Krebs' source turned out to be the indicted individual, it is still ethical to avoid revealing the source. No one has been convicted. 5. It is generally not a smart move to apologize for an action that is at the center of an ongoing legal action, in any case.

powerhour 4y ago

This and his predilection to doxx his opponents is reason enough to block his site from social media platforms. He's a bad egg.

ahepp 4y ago

Can I find a rundown of this situation somewhere?

tadfisher 4y ago
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/03/ubiquiti-sues-journalist-alleging-defamation-in-coverage-of-data-breach/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/03/ubiquiti-sues-jo...

greggsy 4y ago

He’s one of very few people doing this type of investigative journalism online, and is - as cringey as it sounds - the closest we’ve got to an IRL ‘internet superhero’. Ubi was a bad call but the information was credible - as an insider, the informant was in a unique position to spin his story in such a way. I don’t blame him for making the bad call, and I don’t think he should ‘own up to it’. That one story is far from representative of his broader achievements, and comparing it to the concerted efforts other more malicious actors in the media landscape is disingenuous at best.

tadfisher 4y ago

1. Krebs' source was anonymous and he has not confirmed it to be the party responsible. 2. Ubiquiti is currently suing Krebs for defamation, and the lawsuit is the source of the allegation that Krebs' source and the indicted person are one and the same. 3. Krebs' original article does report both sides of the issue, albeit with a scathing tone regarding UI's security disclosure practices. 4. Even if Krebs' source turned out to be the indicted individual, it is still ethical to avoid revealing the source. No one has been convicted. 5. It is generally not a smart move to apologize for an action that is at the center of an ongoing legal action, in any case.