It emphasises the impacts rather than the mechanisms, but for a mass-circulation general-interest publication, that's an appropriate pitch.
You might care to consider that The New York Times seems to be souring on email.
>You might care to consider that The New York Times seems to be souring on email.
You might be able to infer that I already have from my characterization of the article as a hit piece.
But that would be mediated, regulated, and uniform, not capriciously applied at the will and/or luck of hackers trying to break into services.
Which is what this story is about. It's not that it's Clinton's campaign, specifically, that's been hacked. It's that this can happen to any of us, at any time.
Data are liability.
"An exceptionally peculiar aspect of digital data is that, while it may remain in the boxes and cages provided for it, it's got a notable tendency to find itself liberated. Often without warning, and not detected for days, weeks, months, or longer, afterward (as in this case). In the real world we've got friction, especially associated with data processing and transfer. In digital form, far less so. Sometimes friction is good."
https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/3hn4r5/on_the_...
Dan Kaminsky's response to the Fappening, an earlier incident, was absolutely dead spot on:
http://dankaminsky.com/2014/09/03/not-safe-for-not-working-o...
You Don’t Necessarily Know When You’ve Been Hit, Let Alone What’s Gone: A hugely underappreciated aspect. Paul Vixie's had similar comments along these lines, see "Internet Security Marketing: Buyer Beware":
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150420_internet_security_mar...
The problem with email is that far too much data exist in far too many places with far too little protections, and for which every single last email (and how many are sent a year?) becomes a potential ticking time bomb. That is why email really needs to be buried.
I'll miss it. It's been quite a good and long-term friend. But it's dead.