Aaand, In Other News...

[eny]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60218573

[eny]

https://deadline.com/2022/02/rudy-giuli ... 234925291/

[Achtung Englander]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-60230077

aaaaaaaaggggghhhhh - I cannot take it anymore

[Animalmother]

Belgium and Germany's biggest oil depots got hit with a ransomware attack today as well. I'm not pointing fingers at Russia but it was definitively the Russian's.

[Achtung Englander]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-60293057

Better start subscribing to a VPN service

[Mantis]

This already fell on its arse once. I don't see them following through with it again.

[Achtung Englander]

it keeps on coming back. This is the 3rd time. I think this time it might actually get passed.

[Raid]

If the goal is to protect children, it's ridiculously clunky and unfit for purpose. It might be acceptable if you were able to contact your ISP and confirm that there were no people under the age of 18 at the premises to avoid all of this, but it sounds like that's not possible. The British (maybe just the English, not sure) already have a reputation as prudes, and this isn't exactly going to help with that, regardless of the reasoning behind it. It just feels like a lack of parental responsibility and Helen Lovejoy shrieking "Won't somebody please think of the children?!"

[Achtung Englander]

What is my driving instructor doing.



Everyone knows you first lick than roll

[Wrathbone]

This is an interesting exchange and a great example of what journalism should be at its most fundamental level.



It’s very telling that the response to a basic question about the evidence to confirm a serious claim is met with “we’re the US Government and we’re saying it, so why on earth would you need more proof?”

[Raid]

Urgh, that reporter must have been tearing his hair out with frustration. That spokesperson is either wrong about his department releasing evidence or genuinely doesn't understand what the word "evidence" actually means.

As much as I dearly wish journalists in the UK would have that level of tenacity when dealing with politicians blatantly lying, that exchange is just a perfect example of what would happen. They'd just keep reiterating the lies until the reporter got fed up or had their microphone removed. What should then happen is the reporter goes away and reports to his readers that the politician repeatedly lied, but given how so much of the media in our country is owned by people supporting the government, that just wouldn't happen.

[Snowy]

Mmmm not sure on that one. Sure the journalist is attempting to secure proof, but as the guy says they declassify information in such a way as to protect sources which I can totally believe. I can also completely believe that false-flag attacks are just the kind of thing Putin would use as a pretext, but unfortunately the journo banging away with his "prove it" requests kinda undermines the whole delivery

[eny]

He's no Jen Psaki, I give you that, but I agree with Snowy, it's more his communication that is at fault than any sort of dubious info thing. He will not divulge anything of the process or material, only that they have reasonable suspicions...which is a bit of an anti-climax really without something tangible to judge.

[Raid]

He's a government spokesperson speaking to a room full of professional journalists about a critical international incident, his communication should be faultless. All he had to say was that his department was not releasing evidence for the claim at this time in order to protect sources, but what he actually said was that his statement was the evidence. That's nonsense, and I really think the journalist was right to call him on it. The journalist even says that he has no reason not to believe the allegation, but that's all it is, an allegation.

[Wrathbone]

Yeah, the spokesman says that they have declassified evidence which proves the claim, then refuses to state what the declassified evidence is (other than the claim itself). If the evidence is declassified then he should have had no problem in providing it, or at least stating the nature of it. Or even saying that it can be revealed to journalists behind closed doors after signing an NDA, for the purpose of verifying the claim.

And like you say, that’s not even the problem - it’s that he implies that him making the claim is evidence in itself. Facts held up by their own bootstraps.