Slashdot Log In
Virus Scares and False Authority Syndrome
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon Aug 13, 2001 10:48 AM
from the so-so-true dept.
from the so-so-true dept.
Fifth of Five writes: "Ran across this article on the IS-IT-TRUE.org site regarding False Authority Syndrome and the spread of virus misinformation by the media, users and Folks Who Probably Ought To Know Better. If you've ever watched the TV news and gritted your teeth over what is being presented as 'fact' this may shine some light on just how it got to be like this."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
color me redundant.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not tryint to flamebait, but it was a pretty well known fact that in the clinton WH press corp, if you asked the pres a tough or 'offtopic' question, guess what, unless you were from one of the big 6, your pass got pulled and good luck getting a interview again.... basically what it boils down to is you can never tell when the press is full of it. hell, they cant even get traffic reports right (accident at main and elm with injuries....right after i just drove by and all i saw was some homeless dude...).... sorry, im ranting now
You either walk the walk, or talk the talk ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Fortunately we have some countervailing examples
LL
The economic models which are the equivalent of yelling "fire" as loudly as possible to rush people to newsfeeds are creating some really bad incentives
It's a pain, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
I set up filters, I block the sending and receiving of all
Know why? After the 4th one I send back to them with an URL [nai.com] and a "Thanks, but that one was a hoax", they start to catch on (well... many of them do). Some also start to forward any and all messages with attached files to me if they weren't expecting them. Again, many here may cringe, my email box is huge and I spend hours each day weeding through false alarms sometimes. But IMHO it's worth it.
Do you know how many actual FULL outbreaks this company has seen in the last year? One. Back in November of last year. It was Navidad [nai.com] and it was sent to a Hispanic employee (the CFO actually... hehehehe) from a relative, and since it was near Xmas, well, I forgave him. AFTER I made HIM clean out his own machine and then lambasted him in front of the entire company. But when people first saw the SIRCAM [nai.com] virus come in, even users who had not read my warnings yet spotted it instantly and sent it to me. This was before I'd set our mail server to send all messages with "I hope you like the file that I sendo you" in the body to
All things considered, though, seeing as this office is almost entirely Windows, I think my methods work. Yes, it's time consuming. Yes, it can be annoying. BUT, I rarely have to restore from backup, and we haven't had any major outbreaks.
Journalism (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Journalism.... (Score:2)
BTW, I'm an expert on Slashdotters.
blaming the "media" again (Score:2)
Everyone is blaming the media for not understanding computers. Are you making any effort to help them understand? I know it's popular to be cynical and claim that reporters are idiots/biased/bought, but in reality they are very busy and provide shallow coverage of many domains. Those who take the time to talk to reporters eventually get their ideas and viewpoint represented. Those who just sit there and chuck rotten vegetables will always be excluded.
We seem to be the only group that has not figured out how to communicate with reporters. Retired people, cops, farmers, insurance salesmen, teachers - all of these have taken the effort to establish communications with the press and make sure that their side of the story gets told.
So, if you give a damn, find out who the technology reporter is for your local paper and contact him. But first read some of his stuff so you understand what is and isn't interesting to him. See if you've got material for a story. If not, at least he might contact you for a quote on the next virus scare/whatever.
"hey. i got the file thanx." (Score:2)
Our domain of knowledge (Score:4, Funny)
Being knowledgable of technical stuff like "what viruses can really do" is the specific domain of knowledge we slashdot readers have. This makes me wonder, not being an expert on many other things, just how much mis-information is propagated through the news. I never watch the news anymore. All you see are disaster reports and attempts to make 40-year-old, middle-class americans paranoid of something.
Possible TV News Headlines:Re:Our domain of knowledge (Score:2, Interesting)
An example --
Might have been yesterday or the day before, but either NBC or CBS had a brief piece on some study regarding red wine. The anchor implied that the study showed that people who drink red wine tend to have better social status, higher intelligence, and what not...
...and, IIRC, completely ignored fundamental questions such as what variables were controlled for, such as whether non-drinkers could *afford* the red wine/dinner party/"cultured" lifestyle. Correlation versus causation went unmentioned, as if the anchor were merely reporting a press release.
Similarly, the editors of "Social Text" -- apparently, a left-leaning social studies journal -- were severely burned when they published the infamous Sokal Hoax; the editors claimed that they accepted it primarily on the basis of the reputation of the author (a physics professor). One suspects that they didn't bother reading the paper very much, since it's quite deliberately impenetrable nonsense. I highly recommend looking at it for amusement's sake.
Celebrity "experts" and False Authority Syndrome (Score:3, Insightful)
Scientists giving "expert opinions" outside their field of speciality is anouther common occurance (Carl Sagan comes to mind) in the media; perhaps because it is easier to know a handful of photogenic and cooperative scientists than to make a large number of contacts in different fields of research.
It seems to happen alot on slashdot, too.
Perhaps we should put useful biographical information in our sigs instead of cute sayings so that when someone with a degree in cognitive sciences is arguing with an aerospace engineer over spacecraft problems or adaptive behavior, we know which one to listen to at the time. I guess, perhaps that is what the User Info is for; but it doesn't seem to be used for that very often. Of course, if we get overly focused on "meatspace" identities, that might dampen otherwise productive discussions. Maybe different karma for different topics? Anyone have any ideas on how to minimize False Authority Syndrome on slashdot w/o introducing unneeded complexity or dampening useful dialog? Does it need worrying about?
What scares me the most (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What scares me the most (Score:3, Interesting)
You can't. Not only am I a geek, I'm a geek who flies planes. For both computer related stuff AND aviation related stuff, they get it completely and totally wrong. With aviation, they sensationalize even more than they do with anything to do with the 'net or computers, spouting opinions based on zero knowledge (and it shows).
I no longer watch the news on TV. Print news I feel is a little better depending on the source - it's not nearly as sensationalistic - but I still take everything with a big enough grain of salt that you could make a large livestock salt-lick out of it.
Google Cache of Pages. (Score:5, Informative)
Page 1 [google.co.uk]
Page 2 [google.co.uk]
Page 3 [google.co.uk]
Page 4 [google.co.uk]
Page 5 [google.co.uk]
Page 6 [google.co.uk]
Page 7 [google.co.uk]
Page 8 [google.co.uk]
90% of "Viruses" = Bad Software (Score:2)
"I can't print" != virus
"This brand new computer is running slow when I open Photoshop, IE, and Excel at the same time" != virus
However
"This .doc file won't open because we need to spend thousands for software we don't need" = virus
See the difference? [ridiculopathy.com]
Authority is effective (Score:5, Informative)
This experiment proves nothing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever criteria the subjects actually used, the compliant ones came to the correct conclusion that it was okay to keep pressing the buttons. The disobedient ones either came to the incorrect conclusion that they would commit some crime, or the correct conclusion that this is what was truly expected of them from the experimenters. Too little is known to draw any valid conclusions from this, especially since it was obviously a psychological experiment to the subjects themselves (it just wasn't clear which experiment it was).
At any rate, this experiment was torture of its subjects as much as it would be if they were really giving the shocks. "Psychological experiments" like these are crimes, pure and simple, not to mention scientifically invalid smartass cracks about human nature.
Re:This experiment proves nothing. (Score:2, Insightful)
Secondly, the fact that they thought they were taking a part in a different experiment is the perfect veil to administer this experiment without their knowledge or suspicion, or without them trying to think around the experiment, thereby skewing their reaction.
Totally missing the point. (Score:3, Insightful)
That was exactly what I was calling into question. They hesitated and protested because they thought they might have been causing damage. The fact was that they weren't causing damage, and you can't say with certainty that they believed, in the balance of things, that they were causing damage.
They had many reasons to believe they weren't causing damage. First of all, it's a psychological experiment run by a reputable university. You expect all manner of wierdness, you don't expect maiming and killing; normal standards of recognizing an emergency would be suspended. Secondly, the torture scenario makes no sense at all. If the experimenter wanted to torture the subject, he could simply press the button himself, he didn't need help, and he was certainly in a better position to judge whether the subject was in danger. Evil is not sufficient to explain the situation, it would take a very bizarre, unheard-of form of insanity (have you ever heard of anything remotely like a maniac who hired someone and stood by them and tricked them into activating a device which tortures or kills their victim?); even a practical joke is a thousand times more likely. In the board-operator's mind, we're really looking at a dilemma: it sounds like the person's being hurt, but nothing else about the situation allows the possibility that the person is really being hurt (the readings on the intensity scale are subject to many interpretations; it only sounds ominous because it is presented as such).
However, the root reason to doubt that they believed they were causing damage is that there was no damage. Deception is hard. People take in hundreds of subtle indicators when evaluating the honesty of a claim, and they were taking direction from a person who knew exactly what was going on. The above reasons are just two more particularly obvious flaws of a poorly planned deception, there would unavoidably be many more, when trying to create such a ridiculous perception in the mind of the subjects.
Those who quit didn't do so because they were certain that they would cause serious damage to someone, and decided they didn't want to contribute to it. Instead, they knew something very weird was going on, knew that they were being deceived in one way or another, and didn't want to play along any more.
Note: damage. A little non-damaging pain is not a big deal. We put up with it when we get a needle or when we exercise or for a hundred other routine things. If your doctor told you to hold your child's arm while he inserted the needle, you'd do it, and not worry because it was a little pain for a good reason. If these people could be offended at the idea of causing mere pain in a consenting individual, they would have left as soon as their role was revealed, and the decision to ever press the button would be the big .
This is simply not science. It's a political statement at best, psychological torture at worst.
ultracrepidarian (Score:5, Funny)
ultracrepidarian: (n., adj.) a person who gives opinions beyond his scope of knowledge.
I'll have to add this to my top ten words to use when talking over somebody's head.
Re:ultracrepidarian (Score:3, Funny)
Wouldn't sex with John Lennon count as necrophilia now? Dead people aren't really "a different race", are they? I guess brain-eating zombies are, though.
Good one!
Actually, I was thinking of John and Yoko.
Someone seems to have been offended by it. I can't understand why anyone would be offended by xenodubroticism; it's merely a description, not a condemnation or endorsement of the interest.
It was probably the fact that the word musicians was in quotation marks, thus demonstrating my denegration of the genre of alleged music. Jeez, you'd think I'd insulted Sailor Moon or something like that.
Where's my bulk tape eraser? [click-HMMMMMMMM] Problem solved.
Re:ultracrepidarian (Score:5, Funny)
In case you're ever the recepient of a reporter's questions, here are a few recommendations for your survival:
- if it is "off the record," then don't say it. Off the record is reporter code for "this will be really juicy stuff to print, but I'll have to slightly reword it."
- if it involves a competitor or other antagonist, don't say it (reporters have a field day on creating any emotional tension, e.g. making you out to be a fool)
- if it is not for release now, keep your trap shut and only mention it when it is for release. Reporters survive by getting new stories out and their loyalty to their editor (and interest in keeping their job) is greater than their loyalty to you.
- if it is at all technical, give them a written release and limit the story to that. If you absolutely must be interviewed beyond the release, give them 10 minutes, give them a couple of soundbytes that you've pre-prepared, and refer everything else to the release.
- and if you're the boss, tell your employees that speaking to the press is voluntary resignation (e.g. nobody does it except you).
This will help you survive these critters.
*scoove*
Parent
nonsense link (Score:2)
Where did common sense go? (Score:2, Insightful)
Be a skeptic. Demand proof and accountability from your information sources.
The Truth (Score:2, Funny)
Best story I remember... (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Interesting)
If that's the case... (Score:2)
As an aside, I'm a little perplexed by the claim that there are few qualified high-tech experts: the field of computers and networks seems to enjoy a huge population, vis-a-vis just about any other (i.e., chemistry, the environment, biology, public health, economics etc.)
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Funny)
No, no, no... read carefully: It says False Authority Syndrome. Slashdot editors select news from only authoritative sources[1], carefully check all facts[2], generate precise and accurate write-ups[3], and publish promptly[4]. Any story you read here can be trusted.
Notes:
1: Anonymous cowards
2: Asking on IRC, "Hey does this sound right?"
3: Including careful spell checks by CmdrTaco
4: Usually 2-3 months after news has appeared on Memepool, Slant-Six, K5, or similar sites.
It works the other way, too: (Score:4, Informative)
She told me she had heard of a new CD format that was supposed to copy-protect CD's by making them damage your stereo speakers.
Knowing quite a bit about the Red-book standard, I told her that such a format was impossible and that it was almost certainly a hoax.
Once I got back on the net and read about the Macro-vision scheme now in use in thousands of CD's, I had to call her and tell her that I was mistaken.
You mean to tell me... (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, it's little wonder that this is being codified into a syndrome since it seems that Joe Q. Public has it into his head that just because someone knows how to stick a card into a PCI slot, they must be a certifiable computer genius. I know as the most up-to-speed user in my small company, I get a daily barrage of questions about every computer related topic imaginable. While I have no hesitation in letting my coworkers know that I haven't a clue as to what it is they are talking about (which they read off reuters this morning and can never keep the details of straight), they still persist in thinking that the most computer saavy person in the room must be a network-sysadmin-31337-haxor-d00d-MCSE-Ph.d-in-co
OT: Exploding Water! (Score:3, Funny)
I got the email about superheated water from your microwave, and how it could explode. Wrote back explaining, "No, mom. It's just another one of those hoaxes I keep telling you about." Sheesh, when will she learn.
Fast forward two weeks, I'm watching TV and see this interesting video ...
Well damn, how about that. [dial dial dial ... ring ... ring ]
Umm yeah, Mom? Sorry. You were right ...
I called that number!! (Score:4, Funny)
The number was at Los Alamos national laboratory, and I decided that with my shiny new cell-phone with free long distance I would call the number.
Haha, much to my surprise, the woman picked up the phone, and I asked her if the email was true. She said it was and asked me to take the number off the mail if I sent it to anyone, because ever since that mail had gone out her phone had been ringing off the hook.
Parent
Re:OT: Exploding Water! (Score:2)
The 'exploding water' thing predates the e-mail by a few years. When we got our first microwave (a Toshiba, IIRC) the manual contained a warning that you should make sure that if you were boiling the water, you should vigorously fill the container with water or it may "erupt". In fact, I've seen this happen - boil the water in the microwave, then drop a teabag in and it will erupt (anything from just fizzing like a can of Coke to water being splashed out of the container).
Re:OT: Exploding Water! (Score:3, Insightful)
So i wouldn't have discounted that superheated water story anyway. But that also means, before accepting or discounting such a story one should think if one has expertise on the subject. By dismissing it all as a hoax you became the false authority. It's rather better to say "Well i don't know about that, i have to know more before making a statement", maybe followed by "but i don't believe in it". It's ok to have an opinion about the credibility of a statement, but it should be marked thus.
Re:It works the other way, too: (Score:2)
Redbook standard allows for massive dynamic range: CD's can represent sounds digitally up to about 300dB.
People who mix their own CD's will recognize this fact in that they have to 'normalize' their tracks if they want everything on the CD to play at the same approximate volume.
If a loud-enough, sharp-enough sound is pumped through your speakers, however, they will blow. While I'm certain that it's not common, no it's *not* impossible for 'Cactus' scheme to damage your audio equipment.
Re:It works the other way, too: (Score:2)
You know what they say... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's always a source of amazement to me how many people are capable of maintaining this perspective towards the media. I always try to think back to every single teeth-grinding, knee-gripping instance of media inaccuracy in a tech story whenever I'm exposed to a story on a subject on a topic which is unfamiliar to me.
Repeat after me: "Reporters are idiots" (Score:5, Funny)
Why do I say this? I work in a tech center. We do a lot of nifty complicated work usually involving a lot of computers and/or math. It's neat stuff, but not that hard to understand what it is even if you don't understand the details of it. (part prototyping, databases, 3d computer graphics, etc) Because of the kind of work we do, we are something of a showpiece for the company. We get reporters and TV crews coming through all the time. The visits usually go something like this:
Us: Here's this nifty complicated new piece of equipment that is going to help us make widgets faster, better and cheaper.
Then: Uh-huh. Can you turn the lights in the room down and stand over by the blinking lights? We need a picture.
Us: But those lights are the air conditioning system.
Them: Yeah but it looks cool and I didn't understand a word you said anyway.
They also have this peculiar fascination with taking pictures in low light conditions with glowing things. My wife worked in a lab where they used radioactive chemical markers for testing. They wanted to turn the lights down to get a picture of the spectrometer (which wasn't even in use) while showing someone handling radioactive chemicals in the dark. Very safe...
Needless to say, I don't watch the evening news anymore...
Here's a fun game (Score:3, Insightful)
Does this ever happen where you work or go to school? I can count on one hand the number of times I have gathered around co-workers (only on one side, wouldn't want to block the camera) while they pointed at a screen. Yet this image has become almost universal in the media's coverage of computers and science!
The Boston Globe did a feature on a place I used to work. They tore the place up, taking pictures and disrupting everything.. and then people read the story thinking they just took candid pictures while everyone was working!
Slashdotted - copy here (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache:ahVwga1Oq1
Re:Slashdotted - copy here (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Slashdotted - copy here (Score:2, Informative)
You need to take out the "ahVwga1Oq1o" stuff; whenever you do anything on Google involving a URL, they prepend it with a hash string to (I presume) speed up lookups in their database. If you change just the URL, Google will still bring up the original page if you leave that hash in.
Re:Slashdotted - copy here (Score:2, Informative)
Page 2 [google.co.uk]
Page 3 [google.co.uk]
Page 4 [google.co.uk]
Page 5 [google.co.uk]
Page 6 [google.co.uk]
Page 7 [google.co.uk]
Page 8 [google.co.uk]
I admit it. I should have checked first. Couldn't edit my post afterwards. *sniff* I'm sorry! =)
CODE RED!!!!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Or maybe this is that even more insidious virus/worm I've been hearing about, the /. effect...
for the last time, it's "viruses" (Score:2)
Re:Wait a sec (Score:3, Insightful)
True - the trick is figuring out how to make the media cover the really important stories of our time (DCMA, censorship, etc) in a way that'll benefit us instead of hinder us. If they make $$ covering the really important stuff, cool. Yeah - its a dream , but hey you gotta dream! :)
proposed solution much worse than actual problem (Score:2)
If I get a message that says "Make Millions in your spare time" signed Commander Taco, will I believe this? Not likely. The message is self invalidating.
But more to the point, many quite well identified actual persons on the internet are just as reckless with the truth as any anonymous spammer.
I don't see any virtue in your proposal. I don't see any desireable features. And I see a lot of the others. Telling me that it will protect me from the bogeyman doesn't impress me favorably, either.
(FWIW, my suspicion is that child molesters prefer to live somewhere near their targets. So the internet is pretty much irrelevant, except that it tends to keep kids indoors, where they are a bit less exposed.)
Re:Problem is obvious (Score:2)
If people keep spreading lies (which they will) then the outcome will be that people recieving advice get fed up with it and will actually have to think for themselves a bit and make a few checks instead of blindly soldiering on doing what they have been told by someone just because they sounded authoritative at the time.
This is a good thing; it will encourage independent thinking.
Who knows.. once people stop blindly believing rambling idiots and learn to think for themselves, maybe they will start to question some of the more experienced liars around on the internet. You know who I mean. The ones who ARE who they say they are, but because of their popularity, idiots just blindly believe everything they say as well.
No. This is not a problem. It is part of the solution to one.
Point of Approval (Score:2)
> board room, and I had suggested that the lack of accountability online
> could be olved by identification trackers, would you have stood up and called me a moron?
Why do you assume that all communications on the Internet needs to conform to business standards of etiquette? If you made such a claim on a street corner, and I resonded by calling you a rude name, would you ask me my name or other personal information? Would you ask me to prove myself if I told you my name? Would you have the right to force me to do so? The simple answer is that accountability in real life is not nearly as complete as you suspect, and identification online is subject to the same limitations as real life. If I want to lie about my identity online, I need only make sure I am careful about how my avatar presents itself, just as I could carry a fake ID in meatspace. Your solution of forcing proof of identity online smacks of the police stopping people on the street with "papers, please" requests, just to be sure everyone is polite enough to suit you.
Asshole.
Virg