> What is Krebs' false positive rate? I think low enough that a simple, clear explanation of why it happened is sufficient.
Pretty damned high. From doxxing completely incorrect people over Twitter beef to over-trusting sources like this, he's had a number of controversies over the years and has demonstrated his unreliability as a source of information.
> There's no weasel words or evasion here - he owns up to the error, apologizes to affected parties, and retracts all original posts.
Actually he carefully does not own up to the error:
> Last year, I posted a series of articles about a purported “breach” at Ubiquiti. My sole source for that reporting was the person who has since been indicted by federal prosecutors for his alleged wrongdoing – which includes providing false information to the press.
By including "which includes providing false information to the press" he's effectively saying it wasn't his fault. Did other press report on it? Did other press ignore the follow-up for nearly a year after it became apparent the source of this information was the person committing the crimes? It would seem to me that owning up to the error wouldn't look so devoid of any responsibility.
He then writes:
> As a result of the new information that has been provided to me, I no longer have faith in the veracity of my source or the information he provided to me. I always endeavor to ensure that my articles are properly sourced and factual.
> This time, I missed the mark and, as a result, I would like to extend my sincerest apologies to Ubiquiti, and I have decided to remove those articles from my website.
"This time, I [failed to ensure my articles are properly sourced and factual], and as a result, I would like to extend my sincerest apologies to Ubiquiti, and have decided to remove those articles from my website."
The paraphrasing I've done is a more direct way of taking responsibility than Krebs has done. Note in his version the complete lack of ownership, passive voice, and key -- the separation of the problem from where the failure occurred by a paragraph. That's all designed to essentially shirk responsibility here.
Given Krebs' other tendency to get things really wrong, I think it's time people actually viewed him as an unreliable reporter. Especially given he seemingly ignored/dug his heels in about being taken for a ride on this and that then begs the question: How many other instances like this are there that we just haven't heard of or seen?
Pretty damned high. From doxxing completely incorrect people over Twitter beef to over-trusting sources like this, he's had a number of controversies over the years and has demonstrated his unreliability as a source of information.
> There's no weasel words or evasion here - he owns up to the error, apologizes to affected parties, and retracts all original posts.
Actually he carefully does not own up to the error:
> Last year, I posted a series of articles about a purported “breach” at Ubiquiti. My sole source for that reporting was the person who has since been indicted by federal prosecutors for his alleged wrongdoing – which includes providing false information to the press.
By including "which includes providing false information to the press" he's effectively saying it wasn't his fault. Did other press report on it? Did other press ignore the follow-up for nearly a year after it became apparent the source of this information was the person committing the crimes? It would seem to me that owning up to the error wouldn't look so devoid of any responsibility.
He then writes:
> As a result of the new information that has been provided to me, I no longer have faith in the veracity of my source or the information he provided to me. I always endeavor to ensure that my articles are properly sourced and factual.
> This time, I missed the mark and, as a result, I would like to extend my sincerest apologies to Ubiquiti, and I have decided to remove those articles from my website.
"This time, I [failed to ensure my articles are properly sourced and factual], and as a result, I would like to extend my sincerest apologies to Ubiquiti, and have decided to remove those articles from my website."
The paraphrasing I've done is a more direct way of taking responsibility than Krebs has done. Note in his version the complete lack of ownership, passive voice, and key -- the separation of the problem from where the failure occurred by a paragraph. That's all designed to essentially shirk responsibility here.
Given Krebs' other tendency to get things really wrong, I think it's time people actually viewed him as an unreliable reporter. Especially given he seemingly ignored/dug his heels in about being taken for a ride on this and that then begs the question: How many other instances like this are there that we just haven't heard of or seen?