Re: NY Times: Time to build a new Internet?

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: David Akin <jdakin () gmail com>
Date: February 16, 2009 8:30:13 PM EST
To: Dennis Allison <drallison () gmail com>
Cc: dave () farber net, ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] NY Times: Time to build a new Internet?

Hi Dennis --

Thanks for your note -- and thanks to all the others here who chipped  
in on this conversation.

Just to put a finer point on my initial response: My thoughts about  
Markoff's piece were not so much a critique of Internet security or  
electrical engineering or the state of research into security  
protocols as they were a critique of the practice of my craft (and  
yours, apparently - I do note, as should IP readers, that your work  
includes publishing/editorial work.)

One of the things, of course, that distinguishes professional  
journalists from amateur journalists/bloggers/etc. (or ought to) is  
the care we take to avoid even the perception of a conflict of  
interest -- perception being the key word there -- when presenting our  
work. When a reporter and a source in a piece collect a paycheque from  
the same employer, at the very least the reader ought to be told about  
it and then the reader can make his or her own judgements. Markoff -  
the reporter -- and one of his sources both collect a paycheque from  
Stanford. That's just weird and ought to have raised a red flag  
somewhere on the Times desk. But I'll bet it didn't because the desker  
(like me) probably has such a high regard for Markoff's work that we  
both overlooked the appearance of a conflict confident in the  
assumption that there was no real conflict of interest. Other readers  
of the New York Times, however, may not have that background knowledge.

What about the researcher, Nick McKeown? Anyone looked at his bio? [http://yuba.stanford.edu/~nickm/biography.html 
] Again -- as a reporter who has no idea who Nick is -- his bio raises  
some red flags, as well, for his close association with companies --  
Cisco, notably -- that stand to make a lot of money selling gear for  
whatever this new Internet is. Nick was the CTO of a startup "fabless  
semiconductor company building high-performance switching silicon for  
IP routers, ATM switches and TDM cross-connects" that was eventually  
acquired by a publicly traded Canadian company. It was a while ago,  
mind you, but surely a CTO would have had some equity in the startup  
that would have been swapped for equity in the acquiring company. I'm  
just sayin', is all.

Another perceived conflict of interest? Perhaps. But a reporter ought  
to demonstrate to a reader that he has challenged a source on that  
perceived conflict. Or found another source.

Journalists, too, ought to be a little more sceptical about those who  
say it will rain every day for the next year and who make a living by  
selling umbrellas. This is not an academic issue. For example: As a  
journalist who has reported on the work of the UN-sponsored  
International Panel on Climate Change, one of the most important  
'tests' for journalists who are not scientists and yet are trying to  
make sense of the important and sometimes controversial conclusions of  
the IPCC is to look for this kind of motivation amongst those who  
claim global warming is responsible for climate change. Indeed, the  
first line of attack used by many of what are called "climate change  
deniers" is to claim that the scientists or governments who believe  
climate change is a real threat somehow stand to gain by the actions  
we all must take to reduce global warming. Neither I nor the hundreds  
of reporters following that story have been able to establish a  
credible conflict-of-interest -- or even a perceive conflict-of- 
interest -- on that issue. But if enough of us could, then I'll bet  
that might give policymakers a reason to pause or put off action on  
climate change.

And yet here, in a piece that has implications for policymakers, we  
have not one but two clear situations where there is a perceived  
conflict-of-interest. First, a reporter and his source collect a  
paycheque from the same source and, second, a vendor/consultant of  
computer security solutions tells us the Internet is not a safe place  
and needs to be fixed. Is this a disinterested observer? Nope.

Finally Markoff quotes Spafford. I think Spafford qualifies as a  
disinterested observer. To be honest, Spaf could be blowing smoke for  
all I know as I don't have anywhere close to the ability to be able to  
evaluate his background [http://spaf.cerias.purdue.edu/narrate.html].  
But looking through his c.v., I can't see anything that jumps out that  
ought to force a journalist to challenge him on any perceived bias.

And Spafford does not suggest that he has been misquoted or had his  
views taken out of context. But it's clear from Gene's posts here and  
today on his own blog that he has some different conclusions when it  
comes to the issue of solving the problem of Internet security. In the  
piece, though, Markoff seems to bring Spafford in to the piece to try  
to back up the observations made by others.

In any event --
Earlier today, I sent a note to David Isenberg, observing that, during  
the decade or so that I too was a technology reporter, I got a lot of  
"bumpf" from security and privacy firms and, as a result, I worried a  
lot more about, well, security and privacy. I've been happily  
reporting on federal politics (in Canada) for the last three years  
and, since I don't get PR from the security industry any more, I don't  
worry as much about security.

Instead I worry about our federal government and, lo and behold,  
they're ready to "do something" about the Internet this week: [See:  
"CRTC Takes on the Web: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Technology/CRTC+takes/1294111/story.html 
 ] But that's another story! . .



On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Dennis Allison <drallison () gmail com>  
wrote:
Dave Farber: For IP if you think appropriate.

David Akin,

I think your post in response to John Markoff's "Time to build a new  
Internet?" article contains several errors and misconceptions.

---snipped

--
David Akin
-------------------
http://www.davidakin.com





-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com