I wrote it, and I know how insecure WEP is. I don't even bother with it for my home network, so I didn't consider it a viable security measure. I prefer MAC filtering, and that's what the Secret Service suggests. But MAC filtering is a bit too techie to get into an article for the intended (non-Slashdot) audience.
The Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, entitles the public to request government documents. There are limits, of course, which account for the redactions. Typical redaction reasons include national security, methods of investigations, personal or private information, and information that may jeopardize an ongoing case. Those reasons are open to appeal, but a victory is not likely.
By the way, I'm the one who wrote the story. The ".ap" at the end of the folder means Associated Press, and I'm the AP's tech writer in Washington. (So nyah.)
I put in my FOIA request for the information months ago, around October. You do eventually get the info, but it isn't quick. (Although quicker (and free) for the press than it is the general public.)
For stories syndicated from IDG publications, the 'related sites' are typically added by the IDG member editors, and added to or edited by IDG.net editors.
Only then is it passed on to CNN.com, where it's processed and published. There's an editing process there, too, but apparently the link got overlooked. Sorry, no conspiracy afoot here. As with most "Media Conspiracies," it's just your basic "oops."
There is a journalism-wide lack of scope regarding the DeCSS issue. Part of it is a genuine lack of understanding on the part of reporters, and part of it is the Eternal Problem of Technology Reporting -- making it understandable to the masses, while still not wrong. The byproduct of that is that it's typically not exactly what the Slashdot-types want to see. But then again, that's why the speciality media exists.
And just so y'all don't think I'm just making all this up, I'm the former Technology Editor at CNN.com. A scant few months ago, it would have been my ass in the fire for what happened today. Timing's everything, I guess.
I doubt the courts, or Congress, will adequately address this issue of linking. After all, sites think they're doing pretty well as long as they run the disclaimer next to internal links -- for those not savvy enough to note that they've left the publication's site. But now, even that's not enough.
Might as well make the shameless plug of a lurker... feel free to e-mail me with story tips. Now I'm the Washington tech writer for The Associated Press.
Slashdot Mirror
I wrote it, and I know how insecure WEP is. I don't even bother with it for my home network, so I didn't consider it a viable security measure. I prefer MAC filtering, and that's what the Secret Service suggests. But MAC filtering is a bit too techie to get into an article for the intended (non-Slashdot) audience.
Not to say I've never gotten lucky.
By the way, I'm the one who wrote the story. The ".ap" at the end of the folder means Associated Press, and I'm the AP's tech writer in Washington. (So nyah.)
I put in my FOIA request for the information months ago, around October. You do eventually get the info, but it isn't quick. (Although quicker (and free) for the press than it is the general public.)
For stories syndicated from IDG publications, the 'related sites' are typically added by the IDG member editors, and added to or edited by IDG.net editors.
Only then is it passed on to CNN.com, where it's processed and published. There's an editing process there, too, but apparently the link got overlooked. Sorry, no conspiracy afoot here. As with most "Media Conspiracies," it's just your basic "oops."
There is a journalism-wide lack of scope regarding the DeCSS issue. Part of it is a genuine lack of understanding on the part of reporters, and part of it is the Eternal Problem of Technology Reporting -- making it understandable to the masses, while still not wrong. The byproduct of that is that it's typically not exactly what the Slashdot-types want to see. But then again, that's why the speciality media exists.
And just so y'all don't think I'm just making all this up, I'm the former Technology Editor at CNN.com. A scant few months ago, it would have been my ass in the fire for what happened today. Timing's everything, I guess.
I doubt the courts, or Congress, will adequately address this issue of linking. After all, sites think they're doing pretty well as long as they run the disclaimer next to internal links -- for those not savvy enough to note that they've left the publication's site. But now, even that's not enough.
Might as well make the shameless plug of a lurker... feel free to e-mail me with story tips. Now I'm the Washington tech writer for The Associated Press.
- Ian.