|
ulterior motives
Ulterior Motives
Introduction
The New Problem
Action
Reaction
Appendix 1 - Forbes
Article
Appendix 2 - ZDNet
Article
Appendix 3 - CNN
Article
Introduction
Today, journalism has moved from shoddy to sleazy and
demands correction and explanation. We are all aware of the
deficiency in reporting on security and hacking and for those
who have read stories in the past few months, you probably
realize there is no sign of it getting any better.
Unfortunately, it is not holding steady on a below average level
either. It is spiraling downward very rapidly.
The fact is, media outlets report news to make money.
While a small few may still believe in journalistic integrity,
most of the news reporters write as a day job. It is a quick
lesson for each newcomer to the reporting field to find that
writing about dull topics with little excitement doesn't put
food on the table. Write about events overflowing with real life
heros, evil criminals intent upon hurting the average citizen,
or extraordinary events that transcend the daily grind.
The New Problem
Today is finding examples of shoddy journalism that
begs new examination and consideration of the growing problem.
The last few weeks have produced a very clear and specific
example of this. Instead of resorting to the previously
mentioned lame excuses, no valid explanation of these articles
can be found. Not only are these errors inherently inaccurate,
they are explicity opposite of prior factual reporting. Rather
than two media outlets coming to different conclusions based on
independent research, we find one outlet writing their own piece
directly based on another outlets published article. More
astonishing is the lack of response when directly confronted on
it.
It doesn't need to be said for most people, but this
kind of journalism is unethical and overwhelmingly points to an
ulterior motive in writing these articles. This is not to
suggest there is a master plan or wealthy round table that
controls these articles. Rather, it seems that several media
outlets have come to the same conclusion that the truth is not
profitable. When the truth doesn't sell copies, what is left to
resort to? Deliberate alteration of facts or events to produce
a more desirable product.
Action
On 3/19/99, Adam Penenberg wrote an article on a cracker known
as 'MagicFX' and his intrusion of E-Bay Online (ebay.com). The
article is a result of communication between Penenberg and the
system cracker. Quotes in the article are directly from the
cracker and the details were verified. In the article(link to
below), Penenberg states the following:
#1 "...to prove his point, took down eBay's home page for
two minutes..."
#2 "This means he could change prices or place fake ads,
divert traffic to other sites or even take down the
entire network."
Note in quote #1, Penenberg explicity states what the cracker
did on the site to prove the events transpired. In quote #2, he
describes what the cracker *could* do with the access he
has.
On 3/22/99 ZDNet put a quick blurb in their "it news" section.
In the blurb, there is no mention of the Forbes article, yet
that is the only source the information could have been gleaned
from. In the blurb ZDNet goes on to say "Magic has reportedly
taken down the site, altered auction prices, displayed fake
items, and sent traffic to other sites." In this sentence the
use of the word 'reportedly' points to the Forbes article as it
was the only report out at the time. It goes on to leave off the
word 'could', stating that the cracker *did* commit
malicious activity on Ebay's system. This is a clear case of the
author blatantly ignoring the facts presented in the only
article on the subject.
On the same day, CNN posted an article from Newsbytes written
by Bob Woods. While CNN did not author this piece, they were
responsible for the wide distribution of the article as well as
some responsibility in reprinting of inaccurate material. In the
article Woods writes "Forbes' Digital Tool Web site reported..
The cracker reportedly removed the site from the Internet,
changed auction prices, displayed fake advertising, and
re-directed traffic to other Web sites." Unlike ZDNet,
Woods directly attributes his information to Penenberg's
article. Unfortunately, Woods seems incapable of reading
(doubtful), or deliberately altered the facts for unknown
reasons. Like the ZDNet article, Woods claims the cracker
*did* re-direct traffic, change prices, and more. Worse,
Woods claims the cracker "removed the site from the Internet". I
don't understand how a cracker could feasibly do this,
especially in the same sentence where he supposedly altered
prices and redirected traffic.
These glaring errors are nothing short of ludicrous. That
not one, but two different media outlets could butcher such a
simple article. Looking at the size of the ZDNet article, one
could imagine how dry the piece might have been if they only
reported "Ebay was hacked". The Newsbyte/CNN piece goes into a
little more detail and even quotes the referring article. This
makes it all the more inexcusable for such errors to happen.
Reaction
What can you do? First off, write to the offending media
outlet. In most cases, they list an email contact address for
questions or gripes. Since it takes only a minute to fire off a
piece of email, do it. Even if it is a single line, just get it
on the record that you don't approve of their shoddy journalism.
The more complaints they receive, the more they must consider
what they print as it begins to represent a larger
representation of their readership.
It is such a small effort to play a role in correcting a
serious problem. Think of how many thousands of people read
these news outlets and don't realize they are reading garbage.
Appendix 1 - Forbes Article
3/19/99 Going once, going twice ... HACKED!
By Adam L. Penenberg
EBay (nasdaq: EBAY), the hot one-to-one auction site, was
hacked on Saturday, March 13 by a 22-year-old college student
who goes by the handle MagicFX. But the story doesn't end there.
The hacker maintains access to the site and can return at will.
He has "root" access to eBay's computers, the same kind the
legitimate administrators enjoy. This means he could change
prices or place fake ads, divert traffic to other sites
or even take down the entire network.
[snip...]
Appendix 2 - ZDNet Article
3/22/99 it news blurb
Online auction site Ebay finds itself at the mercy of a
22-year-old hacker who calls himself Magic-FX. Magic has
reportedly taken down the site, altered auction prices,
displayed fake items, and sent traffic to other sites.
Appendix 3 - CNN Article
3/22/99 "Hacker Cracks Ebay's Web Site"
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, U.S.A. (NB) -- By Bob Woods, Newsbytes.
A hacker reportedly infiltrated the Web site of Internet
person-to-person auctioneer eBay Inc. [NASDAQ:EBAY], taking down
the entire site and gaining access to other content in the
process, a press report said.
Forbes' Digital Tool Web site reported the hacker, more
accurately known as a "cracker," identified himself as a
22-year-old college student going by the name "MagicFX." The
cracker reportedly removed the site from the Internet, changed
auction prices, displayed fake advertising, and re-directed
traffic to other Web sites.
[snip...]
Brian Martin
Copyright 1999 Brian Martin
-EOF
|
|
|
