The 25-year-old’s alleged actions in the days after the attack suggest he was not exactly a criminal mastermind. The U.S. Attorney’s Office said Council conducted a series of suspicious internet searches, for phrases like “SECGOV hack,” “telegram swap,” “how can I know for sure if I am being investigated by the FBI,” and “What are the signs you are under investigation by law enforcement or the FBI even if you have not been contacted by them.”
Clickbait title. Makes it sound like he was arrested for searching the term. He was arrested for hacking the SEC account. He later searched for “how do I know if the FBI is investigating me”.
I recently saw a thread fawning over regular posters without much critical thought to standards for editors in the age of meme-based reporting. The 90s yutes, upset about their aunts’ chain mail emails’ claims about artificial sweeteners and theology, ran to the Internet in search of Truth but stumbled into a breeding ground for misinformation. Oop!
I did read the article before I posted it. Hence my putting something from way down in the article in the body of my post.
And the headline might be a bit deceptive, but it’s not inaccurate.
The article was both amusing and it fit the criteria of news, so what’s the problem?
Standards for reporting on Internet forums are the same as for the grocery store tabloids that agitated the forum dwellers to begin with
What are you even talking about now?
You’re on a forum. You are a “forum dweller.”
I’m still talking about standards of reporting, and pointing out that Internet culture tends to be especially vocal about truth and science while amplifying the same ol’ sensationalism and romanticism.
Okay? Well I wasn’t doing that. I was posting a bit of news that I thought people would find amusing. It was clear from the headline that it was basically fluff news. You could easily have just skipped it.
The FOX standard 😂 news when it humiliates the opposition, levity in between
A better title would have been "Man arrested by FBI for SEC hack had searched ‘How to know for sure if you are being investigated by the FBI’."That would eliminate the incorrect implication.
I don’t disagree that there could have been a better headline. As I said, it’s deceptive. But it’s also not inaccurate.
OP used the title from the article. Is that not convention?
Yes, it is. But when the article’s title is bad, that’s more than enough reason to break convention.
So, I guess now we need a control group to do those searches without having hacked into government-owned social media accounts.
Any volunteers?
I volunteer you as tribute!
After that student got arrested in the EU for making a joke in his Snapchat group of friends before boarding a flight, I’ve always wanted to see someone do exactly this experiment to check which messaging apps are actually E2E secure lol.
It’d be interesting to try a phone call group too.
A person of the group chat simply reported it. There is no way for them to somehow monitor that chat.
Welp! Now he knows for sure!
What a ding dong.
Tech-savvy enough to “hack” the SEC, has to Google “How do I know if the FBI is on to me?”.
Being tech savvy doesn’t automatically bestow knowledge of good opsec.
I wouldn’t assume that a guy who builds top-fuel dragster engines could tell me how to avoid a speed trap.
He should. But no, you shouldn’t assume he does.
Not the answer he wanted, but it’s the answer he got.
