每日英語跟讀 Ep.K147: When Spies Hack Journalism界
For decades, leakers of confidential information to the press were a genus that included many species: the government worker infuriated by wrongdoing, the ideologue pushing a particular line, the politico out to savage an opponent. In recent years, technology has helped such leakers operate on a mass scale: Chelsea Manning and the WikiLeaks diplomatic cables, Edward Snowden and the stolen National Security Agency archive, and the still-anonymous source of the Panama Papers.But now this disparate cast has been joined by a very different sort of large-scale leaker, more stealthy and better funded: the intelligence services of nation states, which hack into troves of documents and then use a proxy to release them. What Russian intelligence did with shocking success to the Democrats in 2016 shows every promise of becoming a common tool of spycraft around the world.
數十年來，向新聞界揭露機密情報的洩密者，多為同一屬但涵蓋許多種的人物：被不法行為激怒的政府工作人員，推動特定路線的意識型態者，試圖攻擊對手的政治人物。近年來，科技成為這些洩密者採取大規模行動的助力：雀兒喜．曼寧和「維基解密」的外交電報，愛德華．史諾登和被竊的國家安全局檔案，以及「巴拿馬文件」和它仍是無名氏的消息來源。然而現在這個由各不相同的角色構成的卡司，又增加了另一種迥然不同的大規模洩密者，更隱密，銀彈也更足：他們是各國的情報部門。這些情報部門駭得大量文件資料，再利用代理人發布出去。俄羅斯情報部門2016年驚人成功地駭入美國民主黨這件事，顯示這種作法肯定會在未來成為通行全球的間諜活動工具。
In 2014, North Korea, angry about a movie, hacked Sony and aired thousands of internal emails. Since then, Russia has used the hack-leak method in countries across Europe. The United Arab Emirates and Qatar, Persian Gulf rivals, have accused each other of tit-for-tat hacks, leaks and online sabotage. Other spy services are suspected in additional disclosures, but spies are skilled at hiding their tracks.“It’s clear that nation states are looking at these mass leaks and seeing how successful they are,” said Matt Tait, a cyber expert at the University of Texas who previously worked at Government Communications Headquarters, the British equivalent of the National Security Agency.
2014年，對某部電影怒不可遏的北韓，駭入索尼公司，並公布了數千封內部電子郵件。此後，俄羅斯在歐洲各國也採用了這種駭入─洩露方法。波斯灣的對立國家，阿拉伯聯合大公國和卡達互控對方肆行以牙還牙的駭客攻擊、洩密和網路破壞。其他情報單位也被懷疑是另一些洩密事件的主謀，只是這些間諜擅長隱藏他們的蹤跡。德州大學網路專家馬特．泰特說：「顯然，各國正在審視這些大規模洩密行動，且目睹它們是多麼成功。」泰特之前在英國等同於美國國家安全局的政府通信總部工作。
What does this mean for journalism? The old rules say that if news organizations obtain material they deem both authentic and newsworthy, they should run it. But those conventions may set reporters up for spy agencies to manipulate what and when they publish, with an added danger: An archive of genuine material may be seeded with slick forgeries.This quandary is raised with emotional force by my colleague Amy Chozick in her new book about covering Hillary Clinton. She recounts reading a New York Times story about the Russian hack of the Democrats that said The Times and other outlets, by publishing stories based on the hacked material, became “a de facto instrument of Russian intelligence.” She felt terrible, she reports, because she thought she was guilty as charged.Others hurried to reassure Chozick that she and hundreds of other reporters who covered the leaked emails were simply doing their jobs. “The primary question a journalist must ask himself is whether or not the information is true and relevant,” wrote Jack Shafer, the media critic for Politico, “and certainly not whether it might make Moscow happy.”
這對新聞界而言意味著什麼？按照老規矩，新聞組織一旦取得他們認為具有真實性和新聞價值的材料，就認為應該公諸於世。但是這些慣例可能導致記者遭到間諜機構操縱他們所發布的內容以及時間，而且還有一項風險：真材實料的檔案可能暗藏巧妙的造假。我的同事艾咪．丘齊克在她談採訪希拉蕊．柯林頓的新書中，情緒激動地說明了這項窘境。她描述看過紐約時報與俄羅斯駭入民主黨相關的一篇報導，文章指出，紐時和其他媒體根據被駭資料做報導時，「實際上也成了俄羅斯情報單位的工具」。她報導說，她感覺糟透了，因為她自覺犯了這樣的錯。其他人急忙安慰丘齊克，她和數百位採訪外洩電子郵件新聞的記者，只是盡職而已。 Politico媒體評論家傑克．薛佛寫道：「記者必須問自己的首要問題是，這些資料是否屬實以及是否相關，絕不會是這樣做會不會讓莫斯科高與。」Source article: https://paper.udn.com/udnpaper/POH0067/327698/web/
更多Podcast單元:
每日英語跟讀Podcast，就在http://www.15mins.today/daily-shadowing
精選詞彙 VOCAB Podcast，就在https://www.15mins.today/vocab
語音直播 15mins Live Podcast, 就在https://www.15mins.today/15mins-live-podcast
文法練習 In-TENSE Podcast，就在https://www.15mins.today/in-tense
用email訂閱就可以收到通勤學英語節目更新通知。