Not sure if anyone else has noticed this pattern but I've seen it in a number of NYT articles that I would like to aggregate. There are seemingly offhanded paragraphs that ignore the issue at hand and insert something pro-NSA/pro-weak crypto.
From this article take the second to last paragraph.
At the least, readers of “Chaos Monkeys” will think twice before taking at face value tech leaders’ high-minded arguments for refusing to assist our national security apparatus in fighting terrorist threats. Even in the area of advertising, important social and public policy questions are implicated.
This comment hardly fits into the theme and flow of the rest of the review.
Yep, I noticed that. A completely biased view to a very important matter. Completely overlooking the dangers of weak crypto, government invasion of privacy and safe control of access to information.
From this article take the second to last paragraph.
At the least, readers of “Chaos Monkeys” will think twice before taking at face value tech leaders’ high-minded arguments for refusing to assist our national security apparatus in fighting terrorist threats. Even in the area of advertising, important social and public policy questions are implicated.
This comment hardly fits into the theme and flow of the rest of the review.