> ... perhaps he shouldn't be a leading contributor to one-sided news coverage ...

> ... Or is hype in news coverage only a problem when ...

In fact it is only a problem when it's from the other side; and that's an understanding that separates the people who know what they're talking about here from the people who don't.

One flaw suffices to break security. Any number of paranoid suspicions can be held without harm (...to the security).

That's why you don't cheerlead for new systems. Maybe she should've asked, oh, I don't know, any security researcher at all, besides apparently Patterson?

I don't know what Patterson said. If Patterson didn't warn her then Patterson deserves a drubbing, too.

While I wasn't privy to Meredith and Quinn's conversation, Meredith is a world-class security researcher, as you can verify with DBLP; and she has a strong interest in protecting political dissidents. So I strongly suspect that she covered all the relevant issues.

Quinn knows plenty of security researchers.

Isn't that a Tu Queue fallacy?

It would be if I was trying to invalidate the author's argument, which I wasn't - I was just pointing out his hypocrisy.

That's fair I suppose.

ack. And additionally, this "tu quoque" accusation also insinuates that WSJ reporting focuses on hype - whereas the author explicitely mentions their reporting as a example of high-quality journalism (and other commenters here seem to agree).