24 ms·

But how shocked are you that it turned out also not to be pictures of fireworks (seeing as you posted the article that speculated facebook photos were to blame)

But how shocked are you that it turned out also not to be pictures of fireworks (seeing as you posted the article that speculated facebook photos were to blame)?

tptacek 13y ago
Not at all shocked. I liked Declan's post because it posited a more plausible scenario than the article's "FBI is monitoring my Googles". Declan posted it for the same reason. You apparently don't follow him on Twitter and expect his Google+ feed to give you full insight into his thoughts. Oops. I anticipate any number of people will try to jump on the fact that the FBI didn't literally respond to a Facebook photo and have decided to simply quietly and not-so-quietly make fun of those people. Here's my original post, which I stand by 1000% now, which is easy to do since it's been entirely vindicated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6141113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6141113
- famousactress 13y ago
  To be clear, I stood by that post as well (and was really surprised at all the flack you were getting for making a wildly rational argument). I just thought Declan's post only added even more valueless speculation to the conversation.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    If that's the takeaway you got from it, you probably needed the Twitter context to make sense of the point he was making. I suspect that's why he wrote it on G+ and not on CNet. Or, maybe it was because his corporate overlords at CBS, where he is a political correspondent (spit!) would have had him skinned if he wrote it on their masthead.
    - famousactress 13y ago
      Yeah, if there was more context needed I certainly didn't have it. Specifically it was the fact that he said pretty clearly that authorities visiting after viewing a facebook photo of fireworks was "the most likely conclusion", which irked me. I thought that statement was irresponsible for a reporter to make in the face of so few verified facts about the incident or circumstances that preceded it.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        Sorry, my second sentence made it sound like my response was intended to be snarky, but I in fact understand where you're coming from and don't expect you to have the full context for random G+ stories. Again: when someone writes something on their G+ page, it's hard to accuse them of not meeting journalistic standards; it's a G+ page. If McCullagh wanted that post to be on CNet, it would have been on CNet.
        famousactress 13y ago
        Oookay, now I see what you meant. I guess I get that point but don't find it reasonable in today's age of the collision of journalism and social media. A G+ page that identifies you as a professional journalist is likely to be treated and interpreted by readers as a source of journalism. I suspect if Declan was an enterprise Java developer the post wouldn't have been paid much attention, or up-voted. Apologies for dragging this out though, I think my confusion caused us both to belabor our points :)
- guelo 13y ago
  You still stand by the part where you accused her of perpetrating a hoax?
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Hm. I tried to be careful when I used the word "hoax"; for instance, I described it elsewhere as an "inadvertent hoax". But I'll go farther here: I think the story was dishonest and deliberately sensationalized. Yeah, I'll call it a hoax. Sure.
    - regularfry 13y ago
      I'll go along with "deliberately sensationalised." That's her job, after all. "Dishonest?" I think she believed what she wrote, when she wrote it.
  - drewblaisdell 13y ago
    She did perpetuate a hoax.
    - droithomme 13y ago
      How do you figure? Did the JTTF interrogate her husband and search their house? Did they ask about pressure cookers? Are they now saying it was because of a web search that they initiated the interrogation and search? Yes or no? To say this is a hoax is to say these things did not happen. What is your evidence of this?
      - tptacek 13y ago
        No, "the JTTF" didn't interrogate her husband. The Suffolk PD did, because the employer called them. It's hard to respond to the other questions because they're premised on the first.
        droithomme 13y ago
        Is your assertion that she is lying when she says they identified themselves as part of the JTTF which is overseen by the FBI and includes local police force members throughout the US whose salary and expenses they pay while working on JTTF tasks? Or are you saying that they lied to her in saying they were JTTF. You are very clearly stating here "'the JTTF' didn't interrogate her husband", meaning that she is lying when she says they told her that or they told her that and were lying. Please cite your evidence of this claim.

But how shocked are you that it turned out also not to be pictures of fireworks (seeing as you posted the article that speculated facebook photos were to blame)?

tptacek 13y ago

Not at all shocked. I liked Declan's post because it posited a more plausible scenario than the article's "FBI is monitoring my Googles". Declan posted it for the same reason. You apparently don't follow him on Twitter and expect his Google+ feed to give you full insight into his thoughts. Oops. I anticipate any number of people will try to jump on the fact that the FBI didn't literally respond to a Facebook photo and have decided to simply quietly and not-so-quietly make fun of those people. Here's my original post, which I stand by 1000% now, which is easy to do since it's been entirely vindicated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6141113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6141113

famousactress 13y ago
To be clear, I stood by that post as well (and was really surprised at all the flack you were getting for making a wildly rational argument). I just thought Declan's post only added even more valueless speculation to the conversation.
- tptacek 13y ago
  If that's the takeaway you got from it, you probably needed the Twitter context to make sense of the point he was making. I suspect that's why he wrote it on G+ and not on CNet. Or, maybe it was because his corporate overlords at CBS, where he is a political correspondent (spit!) would have had him skinned if he wrote it on their masthead.
  - famousactress 13y ago
    Yeah, if there was more context needed I certainly didn't have it. Specifically it was the fact that he said pretty clearly that authorities visiting after viewing a facebook photo of fireworks was "the most likely conclusion", which irked me. I thought that statement was irresponsible for a reporter to make in the face of so few verified facts about the incident or circumstances that preceded it.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Sorry, my second sentence made it sound like my response was intended to be snarky, but I in fact understand where you're coming from and don't expect you to have the full context for random G+ stories. Again: when someone writes something on their G+ page, it's hard to accuse them of not meeting journalistic standards; it's a G+ page. If McCullagh wanted that post to be on CNet, it would have been on CNet.
      - famousactress 13y ago
        Oookay, now I see what you meant. I guess I get that point but don't find it reasonable in today's age of the collision of journalism and social media. A G+ page that identifies you as a professional journalist is likely to be treated and interpreted by readers as a source of journalism. I suspect if Declan was an enterprise Java developer the post wouldn't have been paid much attention, or up-voted. Apologies for dragging this out though, I think my confusion caused us both to belabor our points :)
guelo 13y ago
You still stand by the part where you accused her of perpetrating a hoax?
- tptacek 13y ago
  Hm. I tried to be careful when I used the word "hoax"; for instance, I described it elsewhere as an "inadvertent hoax". But I'll go farther here: I think the story was dishonest and deliberately sensationalized. Yeah, I'll call it a hoax. Sure.
  - regularfry 13y ago
    I'll go along with "deliberately sensationalised." That's her job, after all. "Dishonest?" I think she believed what she wrote, when she wrote it.
- drewblaisdell 13y ago
  She did perpetuate a hoax.
  - droithomme 13y ago
    How do you figure? Did the JTTF interrogate her husband and search their house? Did they ask about pressure cookers? Are they now saying it was because of a web search that they initiated the interrogation and search? Yes or no? To say this is a hoax is to say these things did not happen. What is your evidence of this?
    - tptacek 13y ago
      No, "the JTTF" didn't interrogate her husband. The Suffolk PD did, because the employer called them. It's hard to respond to the other questions because they're premised on the first.
      - droithomme 13y ago
        Is your assertion that she is lying when she says they identified themselves as part of the JTTF which is overseen by the FBI and includes local police force members throughout the US whose salary and expenses they pay while working on JTTF tasks? Or are you saying that they lied to her in saying they were JTTF. You are very clearly stating here "'the JTTF' didn't interrogate her husband", meaning that she is lying when she says they told her that or they told her that and were lying. Please cite your evidence of this claim.