[seanica]

“A 384-bit key I can factor on my laptop in 24 hours,” he says. “The 512-bit keys I can factor in about 72 hours using Amazon Web Services for $75. And I did do a number of those. Then there are the 768-bit keys. Those are not factorable by a normal person like me with my resources alone. But the government of Iran probably could, or a large group with sufficient computing resources could pull it off.”

"But the government of Iran probably could"...At this point I stopped reading, as this article became propaganda.

Did you know this month is National Cyber Security Awareness Month, as advertized by the DHS?

http://www.dhs.gov/national-cyber-security-awareness-month

[philh]

> At this point I stopped reading, as this article became propaganda.

Even if that was true (it's not), how could you know it without reading further?

[seanica]

What's not true? (what's 'it' that you talk about)

[philh]

The article did not become propaganda.

[seanica]

The article up to that point was great.

However, that sentence "But the government of Iran probably could" made the preceding paragraphs appear to be a vehicle to deliver a meme (like a shaggy-dog story). The rest of the article could have been great, I just stopped reading.

The journalist could have made a neutral statement about what entities have the resources to crack a 768-bit key. But they or their editor chose not to.

Instead, everyone that reads the article will go away with the meme "Iran, if they wanted to, could crack 768-bit keys". Which is, by common definition, propaganda.

It might be unintentional, i.e. the journalist is riding a wave of popular opinion, which they should not do; or it might be an attempt to load the article with link bait.

[stanleydrew]

I don't understand. That statement was part of a quote during the interview. A single, continuous quote. Do you consider reporting what someone said to be propaganda. Should the journalist have left out that part of the quote?

[seanica]

Good observation. I stand corrected. I wonder how Zachary Harris would defend the lack of neutrality of that quote, if he was asked to do so.

[willvarfar]

Hasn't (hackers in) Iran been behind hacking registrars and intercepting social networks etc? I thought it was a nod to that.

[Evbn]

Unintentional still feeds into the problem. Journos should be extra careful, the have a microphone.

[Aardwolf]

That's your choice if you don't want to read information if it contains certain sentences. No need to tell the rest of the world about it.

[seanica]

The same could be said about your comment. Touché.

[darkarmani]

> "But the government of Iran probably could"...At this point I stopped reading, as this article became propaganda.

How is that propaganda? You don't think most countries have that kind of computing power?

[seanica]

> How is that propaganda?

defn: "Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view"

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda

2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

> You don't think most countries have that kind of computing power?

The quote itself states that: "...or a large group with sufficient computing resources could pull it off."

I think you may have misunderstood my point of view. The point is, in his quote, the interviewee (Zachary Harris) singled out Iran. As it stands it is an out-of-the-blue assertion.

[Dylan16807]

How is it misleading? Iran has shown willingness to use fake certificates and the US has been cyber-attacking them. It's a reasonable example for a country. The point here is to make the threat less abstract by using a scenario, not to rally political sentiment.