The Economist on Netscape "hackers"
Looks like every cypherpunk's favorite newsweekly has slipped a bit. This week's Economist (Oct 7-13, 1995, pp. 77-78) has a story about banks getting on the Internet, and some of the security risks involved. It's not _too_ bad, but, well, judge for yourself: "By far their biggest worry, however, is the threat posed by computer hackers. In recent months, numerous defects have been detected in the state-of-the-art Navigator program developed by Netscape, the leading maker of Internet ``browsing'' software. Earlier this year, a French hacker broke the program's code, albeit with the help of 120 computers. Although Netscape claims that the glitches in Navigator have now been smoothed out, their very existence has shaken confidence. ..." Sigh. No mention of export restrictions (I wanted to add "of course," but for the Economist it shouldn't be an "of course"). Shall I write the letter to the editor, or does someone else want to? One thing I'll need is a brief outline of Damien Doligez's acheivements to support the idea that characterizing him as a "hacker" is not quite right. Raph (who's wondering if there's something inherent in the media process that keeps them from getting their stories straight)
I was going to ignore this, but I feel verbose today..
I write the letter to the editor, or does someone else want to? One thing I'll need is a brief outline of Damien Doligez's acheivements to support the idea that characterizing him as a "hacker" is not quite right.
Hacker good. Cracker bad. Media distort hacker to bad. Media hype merchants. Media bad. Bad ol' Media. Degauss. Reformat.
Raph (who's wondering if there's something inherent in the media process that keeps them from getting their stories straight)
Reporters. Editors. Owners. Cheers, Mark mark@locahrd.com.au The above opinions are rumoured to be mine.
On Fri, 13 Oct 1995, Mark wrote:
Raph (who's wondering if there's something inherent in the media process that keeps them from getting their stories straight)
Reporters. Editors. Owners.
Usually the Economist does take pains to get their facts right, and to print corrections if errors are reported. Recently they have been making a few more mistakes than they used to in their net coverage (most amusing mistake was making John Curran CTO of BBN instead of BBN Planet). They did come to the right conclusion on the payment standards issue, so they do deserve at least a B-. Simon ---- (defun modexpt (x y n) "computes (x^y) mod n" (cond ((= y 0) 1) ((= y 1) (mod x n)) ((evenp y) (mod (expt (modexpt x (/ y 2) n) 2) n)) (t (mod (* x (modexpt x (1- y) n)) n))))
On Fri, 13 Oct 1995, Mark wrote:
Hacker good. Cracker bad. Media distort hacker to bad. Media hype merchants. Media bad. Bad ol' Media. Degauss. Reformat.
Raph (who's wondering if there's something inherent in the media process that keeps them from getting their stories straight)
Reporters. Editors. Owners. I'd say there's a nice market right now for people on this list to freelance some accurate security and crypto articles out to the traditional media. (accurate meaning your own personal bias)
While a nobody like me isn't going to get published in Time, I don't see why, oh, let's say a Kevin Kelly or a Steven Levy couldn't. Besides, there's still an opening for all the rest of us to get published in the various computer trades and net mags. I'm positive *some* take freelancers. If a lot of you get quoted and even interviewed in the bad ol' media, and you actually care about getting the story right, why not write your own press releases and articles? If you just managed the next netscape crack, release the crack and an export control critique together. You might even make some money out of it. In their rush to print, editors would rather have first hand info asap than their half-competent journalist's misunderstanding of it tomorrow. It's better than working for t-shirts. (Yes, I'm sure they're nice, Sameer) If you want accurate press, you have to write it. (Disclaimer: I am not now, nor have ever been a journalist, so I really don't have a lousy clue if I'm right)
participants (4)
-
Mark -
Raph Levien -
s1018954＠aix2.uottawa.ca -
Simon Spero