Slashdot Mirror
Israeli Spies 'Watched Russian Agents Breach Kaspersky Software' (bbc.com)
Israeli spies looked on as Russian hackers breached Kaspersky cyber-security software two years ago, according to reports. From a report: The Russians were allegedly attempting to gather data on US intelligence programs, according to the New York Times and Washington Post. Israeli agents made the discovery after breaching the software themselves. Kaspersky has said it was neither involved in nor aware of the situation and denies collusion with authorities. Last month, the US government decided to stop using the Russian firm's software on its computers. The Israelis are said to have notified the US, which led to the ban on Kaspersky programs. The New York Times said that the situation had been described by "multiple people who have been briefed on the matter."
Here's an old story you might find apolitically interesting. We knew way before the election that Kaspersky was KGB trained and a Putin loyalist. You can read my comment history of you're an actual skeptic rather than a Russian botnik. But I also recommend anyone who doubts Putin's viciousness to hear the story of how he murdered his way into office from this PBS Documentary.
As a sidenote, I'm a slashdot reader from more than a decade ago, and I've been really disappointed to see the amount of denialism present on this issue. I remember this as a place for pragmatic, intelligent, realistic people. And here's the reality: Putin is at war with you, he doesn't give a shit about you or your family or even his own citizens' families, and he actively hopes that you are confused about what he is doing, or denying it entirely.
But they didn't report the security flaw to Kaspersky??
This issue is not immune to the scientific method. Much of the approbation for Fox, and kudos for NPR, comes from the Knowledge Networks study almost 15 years ago:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineRepo...
It IS possible for everybody to agree on a few simple facts, no really. Then you can survey news consumers for whether they are right on those really simple facts, and find which consumers have the best score. In this 2003 poll, you actually had the amazing stat that people who watched a lot of Fox had lower scores than the Fox fans who watched a little - a lot of watching actually subtracted from your factual knowledge. And NPR listeners had the highest score.
This study should be repeated yearly, about multiple news stories, and the results should be common knowledge. News sources should be competing on whether their viewers get 80% of 90%, not whether they get 90% or 25%.
You can tell lies by telling nothing but the truth.
I don't think Fox News can... If they can, they aren't. They seem to resort to normal lying quite regularly.
NPR is only slightly better but not much. It's nauseating to listen to them. What they report on and how they report on it is very one sided. Too much emotional manipulation. Too many loaded questions. Too many attempts for "gotcha moments" instead of understanding any position. Too many one sided arguments and token opponents. Too many fallacious arguments; strawmen and appeals are the norm.
It doesn't seem like you are defending Fox, so I won't bother pointing out all the BS on their side. But I honestly don't see any of what you are talking about with NPR. Can you cite any of the stuff you are describing from NPR?
If you think they are fair and balanced then perhaps you are already in an echo chamber. When I listen to them I don't feel like I am becoming better informed but rather learning talking points from a emotionally manipulative propagandist with an agenda.
It's possible. But I think I would have to only consume NPR and sources like it to be really be in an echo chamber. And honestly I think the term "fair and balanced" is basically meaningless after Fox News claiming this as their slogan for so long. It means different things to different people. To some people, being fair and balanced means being equally critical of "both" sides of an argument regardless of merit or how many sides there even are.
What I will say about NPR is that it is not often (I can't even remember the last time) when they reported something as fact that turned out to be false. Yes, the media can be deceptive with which facts they decide to report and which to omit. But omitting facts does not prevent those facts from being reported by other media outlets. What relevant facts did NPR omit? I haven't seen any.