When an organization presenting itself as ad-hoc, faceless and omnipresent puts out a press release stating that they did not take the actions presented in a previous press release by one of thier ad-hoc, faceless, omnipresent members in Mexico, how does one verify either source?
A quick survey of recent news stories reveals numerous accounts, seemingly disconnected save for one common bond - the 'net. eg: the compromising of hundreds of thousands of encrypted personal data files in gaming and business sectors, a percieved war on the web stemming from Congress, a US firm supplying net snooping hardware to Iranwhich has turned up in Syria, Metro police in the UK openly monitoring mobile phone traffic, the pressuring of Google to turn over email data, the increased presence of Anonymous...
As the on-line world evolves, we are witness to a startling rush of changes, threats, compromises to the security of the internet and it's users. To the average user, email, webbrowsing, basic encryption, social networking are appliances that we use in our daily lives. To the average reporter, they are tools. When the rules surrounding the use of those tools, and specifically the information transferred by them is restricted, controled and spied upon the game changes. The game has changed. How will journalism react?
"An international group of online hackers is warning a Mexican drug cartel to release one of its members, kidnapped from a street protest, or it will publish the identities and addresses of the syndicate's associates, from corrupt police to taxi drivers, as well as reveal the syndicates' businesses."
UPDATE: Stratfor and Wired weigh in on the story with more detail, links.