Slashdot Mirror
NYT Quietly Pulls Article Blaming Encryption In Paris Attacks
HughPickens.com writes: Inside Sources reports that the NY Times has quietly pulled a story from its website alleging the attackers used encrypted technology. The original piece, which has since been removed, can be found on the Internet Archive. It stated, "The attackers are believed to have communicated using encryption technology, according to European officials who had been briefed on the investigation but were not authorized to speak publicly. It was not clear whether the encryption was part of widely used communications tools, like WhatsApp, which the authorities have a hard time monitoring, or something more elaborate. Intelligence officials have been pressing for more leeway to counter the growing use of encryption."
A link to the NY Times article now redirects readers to a separate, general article on the attacks, which does not contain the word "encrypt." The Times later posted a second article citing an anonymous "European counterterrorism official" who was quoted saying authorities' "working assumption is that these guys were very security aware," but clarified officials "offered no evidence."
A link to the NY Times article now redirects readers to a separate, general article on the attacks, which does not contain the word "encrypt." The Times later posted a second article citing an anonymous "European counterterrorism official" who was quoted saying authorities' "working assumption is that these guys were very security aware," but clarified officials "offered no evidence."
"The attackers are believed to have transported themselves and their weapons using modern automobile technology, including (but not exclusively) internal combustion engines, air-pressurized tires and asphalted roads. They may even have used advanced public transportation technologies".
Speechless.
Are our so-called leaders *that fucking incompetent*?
In the USA, "treason" is defined in the Constitution, and has a very narrow meaning. Do keep that in mind when tossing the word about.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Paris Attacks Renew Call for Access to Encrypted Messages
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
And the NYT has a new and extensive story that absolutely "mentions" crypto.
We don't need "backdoors". What we need is a clear acknowledgment that what increasingly exists essentially amounts to a virtual fortress impenetrable by the legal mechanisms of free society, that many of those systems are developed and employed by US companies, and that US adversaries use those systems against the US and our allies, and for a discussion to start from that point.
The US has a clear and compelling interest in strong encryption, and especially in protecting US encryption systems used by our government, our citizens, and people around the world from defeat. But the assumption that the only alternatives are either universal strong encryption, or wholesale and deliberate weakening of encryption systems and/or "backdoors", is a false dichotomy.
Brennan also said the United States had strategic warning about the terrorist attack in Paris, but did not provide details, other than to say it was not a surprise.
The same subordinate status that makes it OK for the ruling class to violate citizens' privacy means it's not a big deal if they are blown up. Sheep are herded, sheep are slaughtered.
Exactly. In March 2011, a month after the Japanese Fukushima tsunami, there was a NYTimes article critical of Japan's leadership during the disaster. However, after re-reading it 8 hours post-original online publication, I noticed that it had become watered down and so I inquired to the NYTimes public editor about the discrepancy. I received the following response a month later from the Office of the Public Editor:
"To answer your question, yes, stories can be edited if they are part of the continuous news cycle. Mr. Brisbane [NYT public editor at the time] asked assistant managing editor Jim Roberts to address this in one of his first letters columns: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10... ... Hopefully Roberts’ response gives you some more info on how The Times processes material as part of the continuous news cycle. It seems that this article was constantly being updated with new information due to the changing nature of events right after the tsunami."
I tried to find the article just now, originally entitled "Flaws in Japan's Leadership Deepen Sense of Crisis," (March 16, 2011) only to find that even the title had been altered to the less damning "Dearth of Candor from Japan's Leadership," and the even weaker "In Tokyo, a Dearth of Candor" for the print edition. I always suspected that someone in the JST time zone made a last minute call in those critical hours between online print and hard copy, lots of "new information" right there.