http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/ Engadget Comments for The NY Times fumbles Bluesnarfing at the Oscars http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/
You have, however, managed to contradict yourself:

"Bluesnarfing is only possible under specific circumstances...discoverable mode"

"it’s possible to Bluesnarf without a phone being in discoverable mode"]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/Dec 19th 2005 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/Dec 19th 2005 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/Dec 19th 2005 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/Dec 19th 2005 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/Dec 19th 2005 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/Dec 19th 2005 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/Dec 19th 2005 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/
I'm tired of journalists who don't do the research necessary before publishing incorrect information, particularly when it comes to Bluetooth Security.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/Dec 19th 2005 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/Dec 19th 2005 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/Dec 19th 2005 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/
Unless people keep the press honest, they'll just publish whatever it takes to sell papers]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/
I just get a little sick of the traditional news bashing that goes on all over the net sometimes. I mean it was right here on this site that I first saw suggestions that T-Mobile's servers themselves had been hacked when the Paris Hilton thing happened... only later was that corrected, when we learned it was just her password that had been compromised. Net journalism is not beholden to any higher standard of accuracy than traditional news media, that's for sure (just read half the stories Drudge comes up with for proof of that).

Not every article is a "research" piece, nor does every article have to be. All the Times is doing is reporting what this security firm told them - that's the news. They are completely up front about it too - it says right in the first paragraph: "According to a Los Angeles security consulting firm that went skulking outside the Academy Awards ceremony in Hollywood on Sunday..."

I'm sure the Times did enough research on this company to know that they're not a completely bogus company; that they are, in fact, a security firm. That makes the source good enough to quote. And they were apparently the only security firm standing outside the Oscars, so they are really the *only* quotable source.

Not to mention, how many outright press releases do you see parroted as "news" all over the net (including here)?]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/
PS - I don't have any sort of grudge against the NY Times. I've actually written for them a few times, and it's the only newspaper I'll bother to read in its physical form. This isn't about bashing traditional media, I'd have written the same response no matter who had published this.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/Dec 19th 2005 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/
"They are accurately reporting the news: that a security firm believes a lot of bluetooth phones owned by celebrities are insecure. Whether the security firm is wrong is not up to the Times to figure out, any more than it's up to the Times to figure out if Iran really is developing nukes, or if China really wants to invade Taiwan."

that's b.s., and it's a wrong analogy. The Times isn't simply reporting what the security firm is saying or doing, it implicitly is putting its weight behind it. I as a lawyer have something to say about a lot of things. The Times won't cover my thoughts, unless it believes there really is a underlying concern or problem that underscores what I'm saying.

Secondly, it IS the Times' responsibility to check the basic facts. If the Times reports that some state official claims Iran has nukes b/c it's importing a lot of "platinum" for nuke manufaturing, or that China is planning to invade Taiwan by going through the "Bering" Strait, it has the responsibility to find out that this just ain't possible.

It's exactly the same kind of shoddy journalism and lack of fact-checking re: Iraq's WMD that the Times was forced to apologize for (e.g. Iraq importing "tubes"), etc. And I'm a Times subscriber, BTW.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/
This is not hype. With increasing reports of vulnerabilities in mobile devices and service provider architectures, it’s pretty clear that mobile service providers and cell phone manufactures need to place a greater focus on security. Markhoff makes note of this key issue in his article and it would be a shame to overlook this talking point because of an unclear and non-technical description of two different types of hacks.
]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/
And regarding fact-checking, as Peter mentioned (and suggest you read again), a bit of fact-checking would've shown 'em that Hilton's case could NOT have been done through Bluesnarfing. To not mention this is misleading and speaks of laziness - shoddy journalism is what I'd call it.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/
In this case, the writing was not precise. Will this matter to the paper's mostly non-techie audience? Likely not: the issue will scare them, and digging deeper into the technical differences likely won't change that fact.

I think we need to understand who the audience is here, and what the paper is delivering to that audience. It's a decidedly different focus than, say, PC Magazine would take.

I'm not defending, opposing, or supporting any one perspective. Merely trying to show that there are many ways to look at this, and all are equally worthy of consideration.

Carmi
http://writteninc.blogspot.com]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/
Articles need not be dumbed down, leaving out the technicaol jargon. That's what the journalists do, they write up articles that informs the readers, not parroting off what someone is saying.

If the IQ situation is that serious over there, there's always diagrams or cute faced cartoons so as not to scare the readers. I don't know, but just a suggestion...]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/
Because of an editing error, an article in The Arts on Wednesday about a security company's test of the vulnerability of cellphones to privacy invasion at the Oscar ceremony on Sunday made an erroneous comparison to the recent hacking of Paris Hilton's phone. Data from that phone was obtained by someone who tapped her service provider's central computers. At the Oscars, the test conducted by the security company determined that data stored on as many as 100 phones carried by people who walked the red carpet could have been intercepted directly.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:11AM