> ... perhaps he shouldn't be a leading contributor to one-sided news coverage ...
> ... Or is hype in news coverage only a problem when ...
In fact it is only a problem when it's from the other side; and that's an understanding that separates the people who know what they're talking about here from the people who don't.
One flaw suffices to break security. Any number of paranoid suspicions can be held without harm (...to the security).
That's why you don't cheerlead for new systems. Maybe she should've asked, oh, I don't know, any security researcher at all, besides apparently Patterson?
I don't know what Patterson said. If Patterson didn't warn her then Patterson deserves a drubbing, too.
> ... Or is hype in news coverage only a problem when ...
In fact it is only a problem when it's from the other side; and that's an understanding that separates the people who know what they're talking about here from the people who don't.
One flaw suffices to break security. Any number of paranoid suspicions can be held without harm (...to the security).
That's why you don't cheerlead for new systems. Maybe she should've asked, oh, I don't know, any security researcher at all, besides apparently Patterson?
I don't know what Patterson said. If Patterson didn't warn her then Patterson deserves a drubbing, too.