new social attack vector

[dsrtao]

Let us suppose that our target, Tom, is a habitual user of an RSS aggregator. Early on Tom used the service as a fast browser selector, making filtering decisions but ultimately viewing the content by clicking the links. Soon, however, he starts reading some sources right in the aggregator. Eventually Tom relies on the aggregator for leads, filtering and the majority of reading.

Now Mallory gains control of the aggregator in such a fashion that she can insert, edit and delete stories. Tom has a high degree of unwarranted trust in his news source. I don't see any standard verification mechanisms in place for Tom to assure authenticity...

Google is perfectly positioned to be Mallory.

Comments

[dlevey.livejournal.com]

ANY news outlet is positioned, in some way, like this. As you point out, the issue is trust - do you trust your source? There are some news sources known to be biased (known by some, anyway), and to many that lessens the trust because there is distinct chance that an editorial Mallory will come along and alter the facts or the implication of the story. An RSS aggregator simply adds another layer to that already complicated news onion. Unless you are able to get all of your news first-hand, you must trust someone; it's simply a question of who you trust. A reputation helps to make the decision, but some might say that those with good reputations simply haven't been caught yet...

[sareena99.livejournal.com]

But news given first hand carries the reporter's biases. Even when we see something for ourselves we automatically run it through our own filters, don't we? For example, we see a person stumble and fall. Did he trip accidently? Was he pushed by an unseen assailant? Was he drunk or ill?
Which brings up a whole new question: is there any such thing as an unbiased witness?

[dlevey.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, and that takes it to the very extreme. A first-hand observer will see something and *know* it happened, and how - even though their own glasses colour their observations. At least that way they also *know* that no-one else's biases are altering the story.

I'd say that a completely unbiased witness is also a completely uninterested witnesses; so uninterested that they aren't really paying attention anyway. But now we're getting into solipsism.