Where does media punditry get off on making absolutist calls for heads to "roll"? I mean, imaging if random non-experts had a journalist fired for every failed-prediction or embarrasingly wrong policy analysis penned in an op-ed? There would be no journalists left !
Journalists for the most part are attention-whoring nobodies with no expertise in any particular subject, who hide behind overly aggressive and opinionated words. Watch pundits on any news channel, or read any massively circulated news source and it's pretty clear to confirm what I'm saying. They jiggle their jowls with such empty emotion and intensity.
Journalists provide an important check on politicians and business leaders. Not every journalist is intelligent, but to dismiss journalism as "media punditry" writ large is a gross overstatement.
Specific to this case, I consider Dan Primack to be an informed technology/finance writer whose opinions are well-researched and who is highly plugged-in to the tech sector (which is a sign that others trust his judgment).
Um.. That's sort of their job? Why the outrage here? It's not like the story actually calls for Snapchat's CEO's head to really be severed. That might be offensive.
I think the author's point is a good one. If CEO is really so obtuse he should go. If he is being coached to act this way then his coach should be fired[1].
Pretty straight forward business journalism. It's not like the business journalist went on a long diatribe about API security. That would be out of place.
[1]Unless your argument is that in order to criticize a business leader's actions you must outline each of the myriad possible corrective steps between "Do Nothing" and "Terminate".
For a meritocracy to work there must be consequences for both good and bad actions.
A pundit's merit is judged by their page views; not by their correctness. Their salary is based off their readership. If their readership wants to be fed convenient lies that reenforce their world view that's their perogative.
Accuracy is not the point. It's sensationalist and it gets clicks, which generate money for the website. Why would you fire your most profitable content generators (i.e. journalists)? That would be insane.
Any idea how many disagreeable (and absolutist) things are published or broadcast every day in radio, newspapers, magazines, tabloids, and online?
Why should media punditry be bound to any requirement as to what they express, external to their boss / editor?
They don't get off anywhere in fact, they don't require your permission, as fortunately we still have a mostly intact free press and freedom of speech.
Thoughtful, nuanced commentary doesn't get as many eyeballs. This is part of the problem from journalist's personal brands becoming part of the news story. When I was growing up I had no idea what any of the people who wrote for the newspaper looked like, or what their names were for all but the very largest stories.
it was a massive and anticipated security flaw. the CEO's reaction was not to fix it, not to apologize, but to arrogantly lie about the severity of the threat.
less than a week after the CEO deemed the attack theoretical, it happened. the CEO's reaction was not to fix it, not to apologize, but to offer an opt-out after the damage had been done.
not sure why snapchat is getting a free pass on this, but it's horrifying.
What I can figure out is why more hasn't been made of how the snapchat app doesn't delete viewed photos at all: it stores them in the phone permanently.
Apparently, it's because a lot of HN commenters think that this kind of behavior is okay, because -- and I quote -- "he created an apparently billion+ dollar company almost overnight."
It's the same "high court, low court" inequality dynamics we see in the rest of the society, but this time in disguise of meritocracy.
I'm not attempting to defend Snapchat here, but it's probably because their primary user base is compromised of teenagers and college kids. I think it's fair to say that people don't value their privacy as much until they get older and experience the world for what it is.
well, I guess the severity is in the eye of the beholder, or victim. A phone number identifying my name to a screen name isn't a big deal...It's unfortunate, but the world hasn't come to an end, it's not like the hackers were code breakers of the Enigma machine, where thousands would live and die as a result. I for one would call that 'massive' and 'severe'.
So the more interesting article here is "Do people even care any more?" Is Snapchat's CEO making an educated guess that his users are on the cutting edge of SN users and are already sharing a boat load of information and just don't care that much about the breach? Whenever FB makes any privacy changes there's usually a huge uproar. But not many of those complaining are high schoolers or college kids. Maybe they know their user base better than we think.
It makes sense: I have seen many security professionals complain on the principle, but not one user publicly state they are going to abandon SnapChat for that. These are roughly the generation that threatened to leave when Facebook rearranged buttons.
I'm not sure I got the extend of the issue, but: there is now an accessible database of phone numbers to SnapChat handles, right? I get how large scale hackers might use it (but presumably already have); or how a large marketing operation could use that to associate phones numbers that they have with handles, that are presumably unusable for the moment, unless SnapChat users would accept an friend invitation from a branded account.
However, the kind of spying that worries most SnapChat users should be from close relatives (parents, teachers, exes, cf. danah boyd’s research), people who already have your phone number, and already have seen your handle appear when they installed SnapChat, and were already denied access. That breach doesn’t change that. The social discovery feature functioning as it is was the issue, and that was already widely accepted.
You would assume CNNMoney would be more concerned with the CEO's lack of a business plan rather than his lack of apology. Let's get our priorities straight here. I mean, if you're not making money, do you really have a business? Does any of this even matter? If a tree falls in the forest...
It takes a certain type of person to use Snapchat. A person that believes in unicorns. That is, someone that believes you can erase things you send over the internet. I suppose if you believe in that absurdity, then you may also believe in whatever nonsense the CEO might tell you about their enhanced security that will prevent this type of breach from ever occurring again.
Or you could just stop using the damn thing. Vote with your wallet, er, eyeballs.
Sorry is an emotion and this is a business. I don't care about how Snapchat "feels," I care about what they've done to fix the security issues and how successful that effort is.
It's a little strange how much vitriol that article contains. It's as if the author is just itching for someone to finally put one of those 20-something entrepreneurs who didn't have to climb the corporate ladder for decades in his place.
Asking for a person's head every time a mistake is made isn't something a mature person would do. Maybe Dan Primack (the writer) should be fired and replaced by an "adult" that won't make those claims... Now doesn't that sound ridiculous?
its funny how when things go wrong in private companies, how quickly the general public thinks they can weigh in on how someone needs to stay with that entity.
Imagine building something and losing your influence over it to the rest of the world.
apology? these are two kids from Stanford who made a fun project and it just so happen to take off. Give them a break, their team of less than 5 people could careless what the public thinks!
Lawsuits don't care what you are, but they tend to happen to startups and business which have cash on the balance sheet. This is no joke. Investors have a fiduciary duty to their LPs, and even if its the wrong move, a managerial "change" transmits investor diligence to the LPs.
Seems the journalist and a lot of commenters here are saying that a service like this needs to be regulated so that there are consequences for negligence or carelessness. There's probably something in that, but in the absence of a regulatory framework for social media systems, snapchat surely has no liability or requirement around data security (beyond existing regulations).
[+] [-] 001sky|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kyro|12 years ago|reply
May be harsh, but I think it's pretty accurate.
[+] [-] twelvedigits|12 years ago|reply
Specific to this case, I consider Dan Primack to be an informed technology/finance writer whose opinions are well-researched and who is highly plugged-in to the tech sector (which is a sign that others trust his judgment).
[+] [-] RokStdy|12 years ago|reply
I think the author's point is a good one. If CEO is really so obtuse he should go. If he is being coached to act this way then his coach should be fired[1].
Pretty straight forward business journalism. It's not like the business journalist went on a long diatribe about API security. That would be out of place.
[1]Unless your argument is that in order to criticize a business leader's actions you must outline each of the myriad possible corrective steps between "Do Nothing" and "Terminate".
[+] [-] spamizbad|12 years ago|reply
A pundit's merit is judged by their page views; not by their correctness. Their salary is based off their readership. If their readership wants to be fed convenient lies that reenforce their world view that's their perogative.
[+] [-] enraged_camel|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adventured|12 years ago|reply
Why should media punditry be bound to any requirement as to what they express, external to their boss / editor?
They don't get off anywhere in fact, they don't require your permission, as fortunately we still have a mostly intact free press and freedom of speech.
[+] [-] anigbrowl|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimsilverman|12 years ago|reply
it was a massive and anticipated security flaw. the CEO's reaction was not to fix it, not to apologize, but to arrogantly lie about the severity of the threat.
less than a week after the CEO deemed the attack theoretical, it happened. the CEO's reaction was not to fix it, not to apologize, but to offer an opt-out after the damage had been done.
not sure why snapchat is getting a free pass on this, but it's horrifying.
[+] [-] code_duck|12 years ago|reply
http://m.ksl.com/index/story/sid/25106057?mobile_direct=y
http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/partner-zone-infose...
Seems to me like a massive breach of trust which defies the entire claim of the app.
[+] [-] CodeMage|12 years ago|reply
It's the same "high court, low court" inequality dynamics we see in the rest of the society, but this time in disguise of meritocracy.
[+] [-] jkelsey|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samiur1204|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joyeuse6701|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] octatone2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jusben1369|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bertil|12 years ago|reply
I'm not sure I got the extend of the issue, but: there is now an accessible database of phone numbers to SnapChat handles, right? I get how large scale hackers might use it (but presumably already have); or how a large marketing operation could use that to associate phones numbers that they have with handles, that are presumably unusable for the moment, unless SnapChat users would accept an friend invitation from a branded account.
However, the kind of spying that worries most SnapChat users should be from close relatives (parents, teachers, exes, cf. danah boyd’s research), people who already have your phone number, and already have seen your handle appear when they installed SnapChat, and were already denied access. That breach doesn’t change that. The social discovery feature functioning as it is was the issue, and that was already widely accepted.
[+] [-] j2labs|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aryastark|12 years ago|reply
It takes a certain type of person to use Snapchat. A person that believes in unicorns. That is, someone that believes you can erase things you send over the internet. I suppose if you believe in that absurdity, then you may also believe in whatever nonsense the CEO might tell you about their enhanced security that will prevent this type of breach from ever occurring again.
Or you could just stop using the damn thing. Vote with your wallet, er, eyeballs.
[+] [-] aubreyjohnson|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mathattack|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thenmar|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baldajan|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iLoch|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uladzislau|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NN88|12 years ago|reply
Imagine building something and losing your influence over it to the rest of the world.
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|12 years ago|reply
Happens a lot more often than you'd think.
[+] [-] ugexe|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mhurron|12 years ago|reply
People are very quick to punish others, this shouldn't be surprising.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] octatone2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onedev|12 years ago|reply
When is the last time a company owned up to their mistakes and fixed them like that?
[+] [-] johnrob|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iluvuspartacus|12 years ago|reply
Data breaches can have very serious consequences for individuals.
[+] [-] enraged_camel|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adamsrog|12 years ago|reply
If I were a Snapchat user, I'd primarily be interested in what they're doing to prevent anything of the sort from happening in the future.
[+] [-] mbloom1915|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antr|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] minimaxir|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nilkn|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dreamfactory|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] metaphorm|12 years ago|reply
snapchat is the pogs of 2013. its already 2014. clock is ticking.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] just_stop|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kyberias|12 years ago|reply