>Blame accepted. But in general, this is the sort of thing we need to watch for
And imo Bruce is still an authority to report it. We all make mistakes. His transparency is breathtakingly refreshing in the era of 'fake news' and talking head blogs.
1. Between this incident, and the recent revelation that a Forbes contributor pretended to author a puff piece pre-written by Jeffrey Epstein's PR team [0], maybe the default reaction to any Forbes contributor piece should be "wait for confirmation from other outlets".
2. I love that Facebook's first official response to Schneier's prior blog post was a HN comment, causing Schneier to remark, "surely there is a more official news channel that Facebook could have chosen to use"
Bruce unfortunately calls the blog post a "Forbes essay" which it isn't, although it's an easy mistake to make.
The trouble is the Forbes blogging network has almost nothing to do with Forbes proper but the forbes.com domain lends these blogs a credibility they haven't earned.
For the record, any Forbes link that starts with /sites/ should be treated the same as you would any random blog.
What do you mean by "can be done"? Copying the message to 2 destinations is always possible. Doing this in the client makes it not break the e2e from user's point of view. I don't think this required any research.
Follow-ups of any kind usually do worse. There's a power-law dropoff of curiosity under repetition.
Skepticism featured prominently in the original thread, so your accounting should probably give it some retraction credit. It even helped create the follow-up, since Schneier cites it.
I believe Google has already added this sort of client-side backdoor in the form of Assistant being able to look inside chat messages or what you have on the screen. I believe the API was enabled by default at least for a version or two of Android back. Developers had to opt out of it.
12 comments
[ 0.19 ms ] story [ 36.3 ms ] threadAnd imo Bruce is still an authority to report it. We all make mistakes. His transparency is breathtakingly refreshing in the era of 'fake news' and talking head blogs.
2. I love that Facebook's first official response to Schneier's prior blog post was a HN comment, causing Schneier to remark, "surely there is a more official news channel that Facebook could have chosen to use"
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/21/business/media/jeffrey-ep...
The trouble is the Forbes blogging network has almost nothing to do with Forbes proper but the forbes.com domain lends these blogs a credibility they haven't earned.
For the record, any Forbes link that starts with /sites/ should be treated the same as you would any random blog.
Curious to see how this will net out.
Skepticism featured prominently in the original thread, so your accounting should probably give it some retraction credit. It even helped create the follow-up, since Schneier cites it.