3 ms·
On the contrary, I believe they have criticized it but not in a way that's especially overt. Specifically, I would consider their choice of images intentional.
by kndyry 12y ago
On the contrary, I believe they have criticized it but not in a way that's especially overt. Specifically, I would consider their choice of images intentional. If you'll indulge me:
Image 1: [CC on keyboard] - Followed by text about "foreign hackers", "The US Treasury" and "economic ... security challenges."
Image 2: [Anonymous] - Proceeded by text about "individuals or entities that pose a cyber threat", both of which the image presumably represents.
Image 3: [Switch Rack] - Proceeded by assurances regarding the use of this power, followed by FUD and vague threats justifying it.
The final image is critical. It simultaneously represents the Internet, what is an obvious mess and, to those in the know, extremely poor cable management. Each of these associations imply something damning about the order.
I would absolutely expect a BBC reporter to have so carefully crafted such implications.
- mryan 12y agoRespectfully, I think you are overthinking this. One could use the same logic to make the argument that this article strongly supports the sanctions: 1: [CC on keyboard] "Hackers are trying to steal your money. We need these sanctions to protect you" 2: [Anonymous] "Look at the scary hacker. Don't you know kids these days can do anything with your computer?" 3: [Switch Rack] "See how complicated the internet is? Don't think about it too much, just let us protect you" Personally I consider it more likely that those were the first results on the stock image site when the reporter searched for "internet, security, hackers" :-)