It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Konduit
They find malware on a laptop not even connected to the grid system, and instantly the Washington Compost starts pushing the Russian hacker narrative.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Christosterone
Not sure what [The Washington Post] has to do with the Democrats??? Seriously???
That is not what I asked. I asked what the admin had to do with this factually incorrect news bit. Specifically, what does this story tell us that would compel the OP to question the admin's transparency?
If we follow that logic, and your's, the admin (read democrats) are honest and transparent enough to correct their mistakes publicly...despite knowing such honesty will be lost in the overbearing cries of "fake news" by the Right.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: network dude
Dude that article in the guardian was not proven false.
originally posted by: Liquesence
But it does offer validity. Regardless of whether the grid was hacked (it wasn't, hence the issued correction after incorrect report), there WAS (likely Russian) malware on a utility laptop that, had it been connected to the grid, would allow for potential hacking of the grid. Luckily is wasn't connected, but the means (malware) was still present.
If the malware is present, even if unconnected, there is still a likelihood that there could be...wait for it: hacking, in the event it was connected.
originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: network dude
Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post. The CIA paid Bezos $600 million for some kind of contract.......connecting dots yet?
Washington Post Urged to Disclose New Owner’s CIA Ties
I wonder if it is related to the US government making it legal to lie to the people?
“[Jeff Bezos] recently secured a $600 million contract from the CIA. That’s at least twice what Bezos paid for the Post this year. Bezos recently disclosed that the company’s Web-services business is building a ‘private cloud’ for the CIA to use for its data needs.”
“The Post often does reporting on CIA activities. The coverage should include full disclosure that the owner of the Washington Post is also the main owner of Amazon — and Amazon is now gaining huge profits directly from the CIA.”
Robert McChesney of the Institute for Public Accuracy pointed out the glaring conflict of interest:
“If some official enemy of the United States had a comparable situation—say the owner of the dominant newspaper in Caracas was getting $600 million in secretive contracts from the Maduro government—the Post itself would lead the howling chorus impaling that newspaper and that government for making a mockery of a free press. It is time for the Post to take a dose of its own medicine.”
originally posted by: introvert
What does the administration have to do with a factually incorrect news story?
From Russian hackers burrowed deep within the US electrical grid, ready to plunge the nation into darkness at the flip of a switch, an hour and a half later the story suddenly became that a single non-grid laptop had a piece of malware on it and that the laptop was not connected to the utility grid in any way.
However, it was not until almost a full hour after the utility’s official press release (at around 10:30PM EST) that the Post finally updated its article, changing the headline to the more muted “Russian operation hacked a Vermont utility, showing risk to U.S. electrical grid security, officials say” and changed the body of the article to note “Burlington Electric said in a statement that the company detected a malware code used in the Grizzly Steppe operation in a laptop that was not connected to the organization’s grid systems. The firm said it took immediate action to isolate the laptop and alert federal authorities.” Yet, other parts of the article, including a later sentence claiming that multiple computers at the utility had been breached, remained intact.
The following morning, nearly 11 hours after changing the headline and rewriting the article to indicate that the grid itself was never breached and the “hack” was only an isolated laptop with malware, the Post still had not appended any kind of editorial note to indicate that it had significantly changed the focus of the article. This is significant, as one driving force of fake news is that as much of 60% of the links shared on social media are shared based on the title alone, with the sharer not actually reading the article itself. Thus, the title assigned to an article becomes the story itself and the Post’s incorrect title meant that the story that spread virally through the national echo chamber was that the Russians had hacked into the US power grid.
Only after numerous outlets called out the Post’s changes did the newspaper finally append an editorial note at the very bottom of the article more than half a day later saying,
“An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid.”
Yet, even this correction is not a true reflection of public facts as known. The utility indicated only that a laptop was found to contain malware that has previously been associated with Russian hackers. As many pointed out, the malware in question is actually available for purchase online, meaning anyone could have used it and its mere presence is not a guarantee of Russian government involvement. Moreover, a malware infection can come from many sources, including visiting malicious websites and thus the mere presence of malware on a laptop computer does not necessarily indicate that Russian government hackers launched a coordinated hacking campaign to penetrate that machine – the infection could have come from something as simple as an employee visiting an infected website on a work computer.
Moreover, just as with the Santa Claus and the dying child story, the Post story went viral and was widely reshared, leading to embarrassing situations like CNBC tweeting out the story and then having to go back and retract the story. Particularly fascinating that the original Post story mentioned that there were only two major power utilities in Vermont and that Burlington Electric was one of them, meaning it would have been easy to call both companies for comment. However, while the article mentions contacting DHS for comment, there is no mention of any kind that the Post reached out to either of the two utilities for comment. Given that Burlington issued its formal statement denying the Post’s claims just an hour and a half later, this would suggest that had the Post reached out to the company it likely could have corrected its story prior to publication.
originally posted by: BeBoo
Geez, more of this "fake news" crap at ATS. The WaPo got it wrong in the hustle to get out the story. They corrected it ASAP -- right at the top of the original article. It's still there. There were no nefarious intentions. Get over it. Stories are corrected and updated in the heat of reporting all the time. News comes out at break-neck speed now... It is not a sinister plot by the Illuminati or the Liberals. Just please. The only thing "fake" are these stupid posts here at ATS saying they are "fake."
originally posted by: loNeNLI
originally posted by: BeBoo
Geez, more of this "fake news" crap at ATS. The WaPo got it wrong in the hustle to get out the story. They corrected it ASAP -- right at the top of the original article. It's still there. There were no nefarious intentions. Get over it. Stories are corrected and updated in the heat of reporting all the time. News comes out at break-neck speed now... It is not a sinister plot by the Illuminati or the Liberals. Just please. The only thing "fake" are these stupid posts here at ATS saying they are "fake."
you dont get the point.
the SCRIPTED Lie of 'russian hacking' is the Fake here.