This is a pretty embarrassing piece; it reads like something you'd find on a conspiracy forum.
1. The guy doesn't seem like a computer expert. Don't dismiss his speculation merely because he's unable to explain what he observed as an engineer or programmer would.
2. There are always lots of more reasonable explanations for any suspicious activity than spying. This will be true for almost every case of actual spying that isn't unambiguously discovered.
4. The fact that one possibility is more likely does not disprove the possibility that it was the other. Do you really believe that every gov't agent is above a juvenile prank, or that none are buffoons? Or perhaps it wasn't a gov't agent but some other person.
5. Hotel safes are universally crappy and usually have a default master password that is known to criminals, and spies. I'll assume there are other ways to break into them as well.
His lack of technical expertise is a very good reason to doubt his conclusions.
We've consulted on a few local cases of suspected computer sabotage. (Hurray for small-town politics.) In only one did we find actual evidence of wrong-doing; in every single other one, the case was an otherwise reasonable person whose suspicions were being fueled by a knowledge of I.T. based only on what they've seen on TV, in the movies, or read in magazines.
What Snowden did was remarkable specifically because it involved a huge pile of evidence. Conspiracy theorists are quick to point to this and say, "see, see, we've been right all along, and we're still right", but they don't understand that being right without any evidence is useless.
So articles like this one pollute the discussion that we all get to have thanks to Snowden's and Greenwald's efforts. Articles like this one erode their achievements.
This journalist doesn't seem to have consulted even one technical expert; he doesn't seem to have inspected the safe to gather any evidence whatsoever that it was tampered with; he doesn't seem to have taken a picture of a supposed spy who was assigned to take him around a city. In short, this journalist is not in any way contributing to the discussion that we get to have over the state's surveillance capabilities.
He's written a book about Snowden. He should know better.
Competent spies, criminals, and computer hackers don't leave a lot of evidence. I'd say that's a pretty good measure of competence at those activities. Flatly refusing to entertain the possibility that something like this might happen without solid proof is just as bad as mindlessly believing every fantastical nutter hypothesis without question. It may even be worse because those people don't sound crazy, but historically they've been wrong as often as the obvious loons.
Comments
1. The guy doesn't seem like a computer expert. Don't dismiss his speculation merely because he's unable to explain what he observed as an engineer or programmer would.
2. There are always lots of more reasonable explanations for any suspicious activity than spying. This will be true for almost every case of actual spying that isn't unambiguously discovered.
4. The fact that one possibility is more likely does not disprove the possibility that it was the other. Do you really believe that every gov't agent is above a juvenile prank, or that none are buffoons? Or perhaps it wasn't a gov't agent but some other person.
5. Hotel safes are universally crappy and usually have a default master password that is known to criminals, and spies. I'll assume there are other ways to break into them as well.
His lack of technical expertise is a very good reason to doubt his conclusions.
We've consulted on a few local cases of suspected computer sabotage. (Hurray for small-town politics.) In only one did we find actual evidence of wrong-doing; in every single other one, the case was an otherwise reasonable person whose suspicions were being fueled by a knowledge of I.T. based only on what they've seen on TV, in the movies, or read in magazines.
What Snowden did was remarkable specifically because it involved a huge pile of evidence. Conspiracy theorists are quick to point to this and say, "see, see, we've been right all along, and we're still right", but they don't understand that being right without any evidence is useless.
So articles like this one pollute the discussion that we all get to have thanks to Snowden's and Greenwald's efforts. Articles like this one erode their achievements.
This journalist doesn't seem to have consulted even one technical expert; he doesn't seem to have inspected the safe to gather any evidence whatsoever that it was tampered with; he doesn't seem to have taken a picture of a supposed spy who was assigned to take him around a city. In short, this journalist is not in any way contributing to the discussion that we get to have over the state's surveillance capabilities.
He's written a book about Snowden. He should know better.
Competent spies, criminals, and computer hackers don't leave a lot of evidence. I'd say that's a pretty good measure of competence at those activities. Flatly refusing to entertain the possibility that something like this might happen without solid proof is just as bad as mindlessly believing every fantastical nutter hypothesis without question. It may even be worse because those people don't sound crazy, but historically they've been wrong as often as the obvious loons.
Looks like someone deleted number 3.
I prefer to count in powers of two, at least up to five.