In the News: Correcting Inaccurate Reporting by Washington Internet Daily
On June 10, 2008, Washington Internet Daily published a report about a June 9 panel that I spoke on at the ACLU Membership Conference. Included in the report were paraphrased statements that were incorrectly attributed to me. After discussing the problems with Washington Internet Daily staff, the newsletter agreed to publish a correction. The correction ran yesterday, but it does not adequately address the problems related to this story by Andrew Feinberg: “Net Neutrality, First Amendment Closely Linked, ACLU Members Told,” Washington Internet Daily, June 10, 2008. (The same report also was published in Communications Daily.)
On June 9, I joined with other panel members in discussing issues related to deep packet inspection (DPI). Here is the problematic paragraph from the story, which purports to paraphrase comments that I made:
Deep packet inspection can be used by anyone operating on the network, Ngo said. Of particular concern are search engines and e-mail providers such as Google, Yahoo and AOL, she said, because they collect massive histories of users’ search queries as well as communications. Of the three, Google does the most deep packet inspections — the heart of the contextual advertising system that produces most of the company’s revenue, she said.
The third sentence is impossible for me to know. I did not make such a sweeping statement; I did not declare that Google is conducting the most deep packet inspections out of all search engines and e-mail providers.
Also, the first sentence is factually incorrect. Not just “anyone operating on the network” can conduct deep packet inspection. This is not true, and I would not state the issue so broadly.
After much discussion about the story, Washington Internet Daily agreed to run a correction. Here is what Washington Internet Daily published yesterday:
Corrections: We mistakenly attributed to PrivacyLives.com’s Melisso [sic] Ngo the statement that Google’s revenue depends heavily on deep-packet inspection (WID June 10 p3); it was based on our own research…
This is an inadequate correction. It is unacceptable that Washington Internet Daily’s correction gives its readers the impression that I said, “Of the three, Google does the most deep packet inspections…” I never said that nor did I say anything that could be correctly paraphrased in that manner, yet the correction does not address that criticism. Also, a Nexis search shows that the correction was appended to the original story that ran in Washington Internet Daily, but not the same story that ran in Communications Daily.
I am disappointed that Washington Internet Daily’s staff members mischaracterized my statements at the June 9 panel and then compounded the problem by publishing a correction that did not accurately address the erroneous reporting, but instead minimized their mistakes.
Possibly related posts:
July 16th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Dear Ms. Ngo:
You don’t mention in your post that I have an outstanding offer to discuss this matter further with you. However, since you’ve decided to make the issue public, I’ll assume that you consider that your point of view is now fully on the record and that you’re not seeking a published correction to our published correction.
As to my point of view, it is not “factually incorrect” that anyone operating on the network can conduct deep packet inspection. Anyone with access to a network, be it a corporate LAN or an open Wi-Fi hotspot, can inspect packets flowing over it if they have the tools and intent. More to the point, our review of your remarks, of which we have a digital record, convinces me that, whatever your opinion then and now, our story represented a perfectly reasonable paraphrase of your words.
Sincerely,
Daniel Warren
Editor
Washington Internet Daily
Warren Communications News, Inc