5 ms·

many of Krebs's sources are criminals, often dropping their competitors info in Brian's lap as a way to get ahead. Brian's a willing and witting participant in

many of Krebs's sources are criminals, often dropping their competitors info in Brian's lap as a way to get ahead. Brian's a willing and witting participant in this behaviour, even encourages it, because it gives him more stories.

Werewolf255 4y ago
Yeah, this reflects my views too. He's using the veneer or pretext of journalism and reporting the truth in order for him to cover sloppy sourcing.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > sing the veneer or pretext of journalism and reporting the truth in order for him to cover sloppy sourcing Getting tips from criminals is not sloppy sourcing. There is verification that obviously failed here. We likely won't hear the full story until the prosecution and litigation cycles have turned.
  - cthalupa 4y ago
    To me, the issue isn't really that the source in question is a criminal - I think they might be a bit less reliable than the average person, but as others have noted, general people are pretty unreliable too. But the fact that the source was also the person who has allegedly perpetrated the crimes going unmentioned and not being disclaimed to me is sloppy - even if there was additional verification done, if you are mentioning this source as the cornerstone of your article, I want to know about the vested interests that source has. Obviously, being the person that allegedly did it means you have A LOT of vested interest in how it is covered and what is revealed. If you want to talk yourself up and brag about it (which seems to be a given if you are telling a journalist about something you allegedly perpetrated) it is totally reasonable for people to be suspicious about how much is fact and how much is fiction. Humans like to exaggerate when talking themselves up.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- lazide 4y ago
  Have you even met any Journalists?
  - nibbleshifter 4y ago
    I know a good number of them. Most do a lot more source verification than Krebs these days, dropping/shelving stories if they can't find corroborating evidence.
    - lazide 4y ago
      Most for sure, but even then most I know aren’t checking everything, all the time. Which leaves a lot of crap out there. And most of the industry is busy trying to stay afloat and shoveling whatever random thing they can find. Only the top couple percent has the luxury of taking or leaving something juicy (if it isn’t obviously a trap).
LordDragonfang 4y ago
That might seem like an indictment of Brian's ethics, but I'd argue that having criminals as sources is an unfortunate inevitability if you're going to have up-to-date reporting on a topic that is so heavily entangled with cybercrime. Besides, it's not like non-criminal sources never lie.
- jibe 4y ago
  It is fine to use criminal sources, but in this case the criminal was a primary party with a self interest. If you can’t disclose that and still wrote the story, it is a warning that you either need additional sources, or don’t publish.
- nibbleshifter 4y ago
  There is nothing inherently wrong with using criminals (or other unreliable sources) as sources, most journalists in the space do so. The issue arises when you report on it without clearly disclaiming/disclosing that its a single, unreliable source and that you have been unable to externally verify the facts. Mistakes happen, and that's fine. But in recent years Brian has been getting a bit slipshod in his verification and disclosure practices, most likely due to competition in the space and the need to publish fast.

Werewolf255 4y ago

Yeah, this reflects my views too. He's using the veneer or pretext of journalism and reporting the truth in order for him to cover sloppy sourcing.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> sing the veneer or pretext of journalism and reporting the truth in order for him to cover sloppy sourcing Getting tips from criminals is not sloppy sourcing. There is verification that obviously failed here. We likely won't hear the full story until the prosecution and litigation cycles have turned.
- cthalupa 4y ago
  To me, the issue isn't really that the source in question is a criminal - I think they might be a bit less reliable than the average person, but as others have noted, general people are pretty unreliable too. But the fact that the source was also the person who has allegedly perpetrated the crimes going unmentioned and not being disclaimed to me is sloppy - even if there was additional verification done, if you are mentioning this source as the cornerstone of your article, I want to know about the vested interests that source has. Obviously, being the person that allegedly did it means you have A LOT of vested interest in how it is covered and what is revealed. If you want to talk yourself up and brag about it (which seems to be a given if you are telling a journalist about something you allegedly perpetrated) it is totally reasonable for people to be suspicious about how much is fact and how much is fiction. Humans like to exaggerate when talking themselves up.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
lazide 4y ago
Have you even met any Journalists?
- nibbleshifter 4y ago
  I know a good number of them. Most do a lot more source verification than Krebs these days, dropping/shelving stories if they can't find corroborating evidence.
  - lazide 4y ago
    Most for sure, but even then most I know aren’t checking everything, all the time. Which leaves a lot of crap out there. And most of the industry is busy trying to stay afloat and shoveling whatever random thing they can find. Only the top couple percent has the luxury of taking or leaving something juicy (if it isn’t obviously a trap).

LordDragonfang 4y ago

That might seem like an indictment of Brian's ethics, but I'd argue that having criminals as sources is an unfortunate inevitability if you're going to have up-to-date reporting on a topic that is so heavily entangled with cybercrime. Besides, it's not like non-criminal sources never lie.

jibe 4y ago
It is fine to use criminal sources, but in this case the criminal was a primary party with a self interest. If you can’t disclose that and still wrote the story, it is a warning that you either need additional sources, or don’t publish.
nibbleshifter 4y ago
There is nothing inherently wrong with using criminals (or other unreliable sources) as sources, most journalists in the space do so. The issue arises when you report on it without clearly disclaiming/disclosing that its a single, unreliable source and that you have been unable to externally verify the facts. Mistakes happen, and that's fine. But in recent years Brian has been getting a bit slipshod in his verification and disclosure practices, most likely due to competition in the space and the need to publish fast.