You may have heard of the Conficker computer virus. It's a type of malware -- or malicious software -- that has reportedly infected more than 10 million computers worldwide. No one knows for sure what the intentions are of the hackers who designed it, but since its first detection in the fall of last year, media outlets have made numerous guesses as to what they might be. Although some pointed out it could simply be an April Fool's joke, other speculation about the virus's purpose ranged from the launching of spam and information or identity theft to a host of doomsday scenarios reminiscent to the speculation over Y2K. Even 60 Minutes recently produced a scary 15-minute piece on Conficker:
One of the most dangerous threats ever, a computer worm known as "Conficker," is spreading through the Internet right now. ... So far, the bad guys who created it haven't triggered Conficker. It's just sitting out there like a sleeper cell. ... It's that ominous, because once the hackers issue instructions, Conficker could turn menacing in an instant. With one click, the worm's creator can instruct it to suck sensitive data, like bank passwords and account numbers, out of millions of computers, or launch a massive spam attack to clog up the works.
The phrases, "One of the most dangerous threats ever," "sleeper cell," and "menacing in an instant," certainly sound very frightening, but many think the dangers may be blown out of proportion in the media. Of course, there are legitimate threats, but to protect yourself, there are tools available to detect and remove Conficker. Yesterday, April 1, the latest variant of the virus, Conficker.C, was supposed to receive new commands from the hackers who control it, potentially unleashing one of the frightening scenarios speculated about in the media. Instead, the day went by uneventfully -- assuming you didn't have some other April Fool's joke pulled on you. Conficker did ask for new commands, but otherwise it remained largely silent. The potential threats remain, but it appears thus far that the fear drummed up over the virus was similar to Y2K -- media hype.
This brings me to my question: do technological issues like Conficker make it easier for the media to fear-monger? I would think that many people, and I include myself in this, don't have a detailed understanding of how computer viruses work. The same could be said about many other technological issues. The media has a responsibility to report on the dangers of the Internet to help people avoid them, but when does it cross the line into alarmism about a subject most people don't fully understand? Does the mainstream press do a fair job of explaining these technical issues so that we don't overreact? Obviously, the mainstream media will always play to our fears to a certain degree, but is it worse when technology is involved? Tell us what you think. We certainly want to avoid being alarmist on this project, but we also feel an urgent need to inform people about potential dangers of the digital technology we're covering.
-Jeff
RSS
Comments