[Boston-editorial] Proposal: hide half-assed hacking coverage

[Matthew Williams]

What, this post: 
http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display/35859/index.php ?

I agree it's not terribly detailed, but it doesn't violate policy and 
as long as that's the case, I can't see how we can stop collective 
members from posting what they want.

If Sofia hadn't posted it, someone else would have. People who try 
getting to the hacked sites, get redirected to US Indy Media, where 
there's a feature about technical difficulties--with plenty of comments 
about it being a case of hacking, not technical difficulties. So the 
word is already out. If you can give me a pressing security reason to 
hide it, then I would support doing so, but as is it seems pretty 
harmless to me. Indeed, it seems good to let people know that Indy 
Media sites are being hacked.

I do agree we shouldn't feature anything until there is some consensus 
among the various affected IMCs about how they want to cover it.

-- Matt

On Apr 30, 2005, at 11:08 AM, Pete Stidman wrote:

> no offense to sofiushka on that half-ass comment, but
> the coverage of the hacking of indymedia's is
> something that US indymedia is still discussing how to
> do.  I think it would have been better if this was
> discussed in at least the listserv before publishing
> articles on our website about a security breach.
>
> Sofiushka's article contains merely a list of sites
> downed, and is a magnet for trolls as we can already
> see from the comments.  Since we are a small group, if
> someone agrees with me can they take them both down
> (also gromit, who says hacking NYC was a good thing!)
> and post to this list?
>
> -Pete
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Boston-editorial mailing list
> Boston-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-editorial
>