Posts by William Ray
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: H4x0rs and You, in reply to Sacha,
Sorry if it came across that I was assuming an interview was asked for and didn't happen that's not the impression I meant to give. I'm just curious why the other side of the argument wasn't present in the story and wondered if that was because they declined an interview.
-
OnPoint: H4x0rs and You, in reply to Lilith __,
Sorry don't understand your objection, could you explain a bit further?
Keith's original story was outing the security flaw at MSD and had nothing to do with this particular hacker as far as I can see. As I understood it the TVNZ story seems only tangentially related to the MSD thing. It seems to suggest suggests a hacker who worked for a company which did some work for MSD was encouraging other hackers to breach kiosk security and showing them how to do it. That would be a story in itself even if there were no issues with the kiosks at MSD (although I accept from reading Kieth's blog he wasn't doing this with malicious intent and was actually working on the side of good)..
Nothing in Keiths previous blog posts alluded to hackers at all (except to say the security breach didn't actually require the skill of a professional hacker).
Sacha:
No I don't have evidence (beyond noting no interview appears in the report) but I don't really need any, I'm just asking whether there was an interview or not and pointing out if one was requested and refused it seems a bit unfair to complain a story lacks context.
-
OnPoint: H4x0rs and You, in reply to Sacha,
Agreed but if those parties won't front to explain themselves it's hard to complain the story was maliciously biased against them.
-
OnPoint: H4x0rs and You, in reply to Sacha,
Sorry that sentence should have been “IF that reporter didn’t have an opportunity”.
I was inferring an interview didn’t happen because Paul doesn’t appear to be interviewed in the TVNZ piece. It only shows snippets from his youtube vid.
-
Quick question Keith. Was Paul (or yourself) actually approached to be interviewed about the story and if so did he (or you) give one? Seems like that could have cleared up any confusion about his motives in breaking into kiosks.
Without the opportunity of speaking to an insider it seems hard to argue a reporter should automatically know the word "malicious" has different meaning in hacker circles (or even that "hacker" doesn't immediately mean "bad guy" in hacker jargon).
I also don't think you can necessarily argue a reporter should assume that because someone is posting about hacking on youtube that means they actually have noble intentions. There of plenty of people who post on facebook and youtube gloating and boasting about how they are breaking the law and showing how to do it (just to be clear I'm not suggesting that's what Paul was doing but you can see how someone might misinterpret the tone of what is being said in that youtube vid).
What I'm trying to say here is it seems unfair to accuse a reporter of producing a misleading report which lacked context when that reporter didn't have the opportunity to speak to someone who could explain that context...
-
I talked to my Advanced PE teacher about this and he gave me something interesting to consider.
In the paralympics many sprinters with prosthetic limbs can run faster than they could before they got prosthetic limbs. Should they be able to compete against "normal olympians" or does having no feet give them an unfair competative advantage?
-
Speaking as a student one year out of high school i think its pretty pointless to put creationism in the curriculum.
I mean if you were taking biology does that mean half your course will be on creationism? Or would you have to take a creationism class? Pretty simple exam: just say "God did it."
-
To be fair this reveiw has only just been announced. We can't automatically assume "review" means "reduce".