Washington Post Falsely Claims Russia Hacked Vermont Utility, Because OMG RUSSIANS!
from the show-your-math dept
When a mainstream press that isn't always good at what it does meets technology it doesn't understand, the end result is often frustrating, if not comedic. Hacking is certainly no exception, given it's a realm where perpetrators are difficult to identify, hard proof is often impossible to come by, and hackers worth their salt either leave false footprints -- or no footprints at all. Throw in a press that's incapable of identifying and avoiding its own nationalism, and often all-too-gullible to intelligence industry influence, and you've got a fairly solid recipe for dysfunction when it comes to hacking-related news coverage.Some of the resulting coverage has been highly entertaining -- such as CNN using a screen shot from the popular game Fallout 4 in a story about hacking and hoping nobody would notice. Other examples have been decidedly more troubling, such as the Washington Post's epic face plant over the holiday break.
Last Saturday the Post ran a story claiming that Russia was responsible for the hacking of Burlington Electric, a Vermont utility. According to the original Washington Post story, government sources claimed that code "associated with the Russian hacking operation dubbed Grizzly Steppe" was detected at the utility. The story was stuffed to the gills with all manner of pearl-clutching and outrage among politicians convinced Putin was actively trying to bring down the grid:
“Vermonters and all Americans should be both alarmed and outraged that one of the world’s leading thugs, Vladimir Putin, has been attempting to hack our electric grid, which we rely upon to support our quality-of-life, economy, health, and safety,” Shumlin said in a statement. “This episode should highlight the urgent need for our federal government to vigorously pursue and put an end to this sort of Russian meddling."Unsurprisingly, the story quickly gained traction in the media, with numerous reports pouring gasoline on the idea that Russia has escalated its cyber offensives to include targeting sensitive American infrastructure. Many broadly speculated that other utilities had been compromised and that we were at the brink of war.
"An employee at Burlington Electric Department was checking his Yahoo email account Friday and triggered an alert indicating that his computer had connected to a suspicious IP address associated by authorities with the Russian hacking operation that infiltrated the Democratic Party. Officials told the company that traffic with this particular address is found elsewhere in the country and is not unique to Burlington Electric, suggesting the company wasn’t being targeted by the Russians. Indeed, officials say it is possible that the traffic is benign, since this particular IP address is not always connected to malicious activity."That's obviously a pretty far cry from the hysteria bouncing around the news wires as the new year arrived. Thanks, again, to news outlets that are all too eager to take the breathless claims of a few anonymous officials as gospel without doing the heavy lifting required to first ensure the information is useful, or accurate. As it turns out, the Post hadn't even bothered to contact Burlington Electric, which was forced to issue its own statement to the Burlington Free Press clarifying what happened, and making it clear the laptop was never in contact with any electrical system.
All told, Burlington Electric had simply received a notification from Homeland Security sent to all utilities warning them to keep an eye out for particular malware. The company only found the malware and laptop in question after doing a scan off all of the company's systems. And as it turns out, the "Russian malware" in question could have simply been made by a Russian and purchased by anybody. Needless to say, the Washington Post then spent the lion's share of the next few days editing the story, changing the headline repeatedly, and walking back the story's claims.
But most of the stories regurgitating the Post's original claims were never updated or corrected.
Reporting on hacking isn't easy. Disinformation is everywhere, and many outlets continue to illustrate they're easily manipulated, thanks to a nationalism bias they're somehow still unaware of. But the Washington Post simply failed to do even the basics, inflaming notable tensions between two giant countries because it couldn't bother to pick up the phone. Yes, Russia hacks us (and uses propaganda against us and other countries) constantly. The United States does the same. Proof of either is often impossible to come by, but that still doesn't mean it's not required before jumping to conclusions.
As tensions rise facts matter more than ever, and sloppy reporting only fuels those quite intentionally looking to take these often-dangerous and idiotic cyber-offensive policies to an entirely new level.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: electrical grid, hacking, journalism, russia, russians, technology, vermont
Companies: burlington electric, washington post
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There... fixed it for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The War on Drugs lost credibility, and the War on Terror was the perfect substitute. Now it's the Russians. Once Trump takes office he'll shift the focus to a new boogeyman. Canada perhaps, just to see the look on their faces.
BTW, before drugs we were at war with ring around the collar. Did we win?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
War on Libel?
I don't know about ring around the collar. I couldn't be arsed to contact Whisk, and they probably fudge their stats anyway. So no, this is the insidious terror from which the nation has been distracted too long! Fire up the $17bn Pretreatment And Detergent budget. Deport the dirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We are too old!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At least you younger ones. :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fake News in the Mainstream
As soon as people realize it's ALL fake news, the better.
There is no objective news reporting anymore... ANY WHERE. Everything has a spin and thus, is no longer really a NEWS story but an editorial or commentary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fake News in the Mainstream
Yes it may have a twist or a bias, but there was never such a thing as unbiased news. Everyone has bias, it is just a fact of life. Just the act of deciding what is and is not news worthy creates bias.
If a station wanted to be truly unbiased, they would report on every living thing that came across their desks that they could verify as reasonably accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fake News in the Mainstream
The lifting of the propaganda ban has done wonders for the world of journalism. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fake News in the Mainstream
That said, I look at these as the same way a lawyer will try to poison a jury by saying something that is not factually true to trick the jury. Sure the Judge may say it has to be stricken from the record and even command the Jury from considering it, but the damage is already done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fake News in the Mainstream
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fake News in the Mainstream
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fake News in the Mainstream
During the modernist movement, there was a brief window where people reporting/publishing news pushed the idea that what they were doing was objective... but anyone who was actually a part of the news being reported usually saw things otherwise. However, THEY weren't the ones announcing objective reporting the world.
"Cat found in tree" isn't even objective reporting, since someone chose to make a news item out of THAT cat in THAT tree, despite the fact that thousands of cats are found in trees every day. And that's just the headline, without the editorial content.
There's always an agenda, and always has been. The trick is to get a balanced set of agendas that try to base articles on actual facts and not just make up stories out of whole cloth a la National Enquirer -- articles that provide enough information so that you can do your own research to figure out why this bit of information is important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fake News in the Mainstream
Sorry it now goes beyond that. The culture of journalism has become the main problem. Here is James Mitchell on the approach journalists took to interviewing him - and bear in mind that they quite brazenly admitted these things.
I was told by someone who wanted to interview me ‘I am not looking for the truth, but am looking for a quote.’ Another journalist ran something by me she intended to publish. When I told her what she was saying was not even remotely true her response, ‘what I’m going to write about you speaks to a larger truth that may not come across if I stick to the facts of the situation.’”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fake News in the Mainstream
I do not in any way endorse James Mitchell's approach to interrogation or his opinions on healthcare, global warming etc - but on the other hand - given the approach taken by joirnalists - how do I know that my opinion of his opinions is actually grounded in truth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fake News in the Mainstream
There is no objective news reporting anymore..."
This is a ridiculously extremist and ignorant point of view. There's a big difference between biased or non-objective reporting and actual fake news. Highlighting stories that fit your worldview and ignoring those that don't, or expressing mainly positive opinions about one particular political party and mainly negative opinions about another is NOT fake news. If you're really concerned about biased reporting, calling it fake news is a stupid and counterproductive attempt to fix the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fake News in the Mainstream
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fake News in the Mainstream
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Previously, this was the kind of thing we've heard of from North Korea's media (specifically, video game clips of missile launches). Sad to see our media follow those propaganda footsteps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why people still think CNN is credible is an even bigger one. It's not like they had one of their talking heads lie about your ability to read information that implicated them in journalistic malpractice or anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Did you remember the part during the campaign where Chris Cuomo lied to you about your right to read wikileaks?
Lied?
The same thing was said after the Chelsea Manning leaks. I don't remember there being so much as a whimper about our rights when it came to them releasing classified documents.
But now? Read away! It's your right!
And before anyone dares call me a liberal/Dem/lefty/whatever-else-you-got, here's one of the sources:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/05/administration-fed-workers-dont-read-wikileaks.h tml
So what's the difference now?
We want transparency with respect to the DNC, but not on what our own government is doing? What if there was classified information in those emails?
Would we be cheering Wikileaks then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Would we be cheering Wikileaks then?
YES... If government did not lie then we would not need wikileaks... but all government lie and always will... so we need all information to be public to hold the liars accountable... regardless of what the cheerleaders think!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Would we be cheering Wikileaks then?
YES...
Then I'd like to point this out for the folks concerned with Hillary's emails that share your opinion - you're hypocrites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And what exactly would that difference be?
What you described is simply cause and effect. How would the public learn about dirty laundry without a leak?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How does one show a negative element? What would the negative elemetn represent? This is silly, perhaps you were joking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
love those flip flops, they make that lovely noise when you walk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The story was about russian hacking. Perhaps they were attempting humor by implying that the russion hacking was as sophisticated as the "hacking" found in FallOut. It would be a nice burn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They were just trying to help Obama
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!
Bizarrely, these same people are now finding Russians under every bedcover.
The US (lately in the form of the CIA) has practiced for 100 years how to fight Russians, so they really don't want to have to learn any new tricks.
E.g., the US finds it a little embarrassing to take on the Chinese when they own ~$1 trillion of US debt, and the US has outsourced nearly every manufactured item to China. It also isn't clear whether the US could sustain any war against China for more than a few weeks -- the length of time since the last freighter from China unloaded.
It's amazing how prescient Orwell was!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bigger nations just have more. Does not mean they are more corrupt % wise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As someone further up said, "Christ you Russian trolls are predictable." A Russian would see borders as militarized. Americans, Canadians and those from the EU would not.
Dunno about that visitor from Christmas Island.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
American or Russian, but I've crossed the borders of both countries in multiple places. The Russian borders were heavily militarized; American borders are not.
American borders with Mexico and Canada.
Russian borders with North Korea, China, Mongolia, Kazakstan, Ukraine.
In those places I'd rather be on the Russian side of the border.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WaPo is at it again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just wait for the next half-baked script kiddie to poke some other completely un-baked (in fact we haven't even bothered to mix the ingredients yet) system security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]