Hacker News Reader

Comment by rla3rd | Hacker News Reader

not hacking. having access to an audio feed over a video feed that requires buffering is hardly news. kudos to whoever realized that you could get the information faster over audio when the information was released at the same time across both channels.

View on HN

>kudos to whoever realized that you could get the information faster over audio when the information was released at the same time across both channels.

According to the article, the audio feed was a backup, and a third party supplier misused it. It definitely wasn't someone "realizing" that there was a public audio feed with a lower delay.

>the Bank confirmed that a third party supplier “misused” an audio feed of certain of the Bank press conferences since earlier this year. The audio was installed to serve as a back-up in case the video failed.

What does a “backup” mean, really? When a site posts multiple links to a stream, latter ones are “backups” but I’m not forbidden from using them. Most of the time, backups are just less good alternatives. Ostensibly, a non-video stream should fit the bill...

>When a site posts multiple links to a stream, latter ones are “backups” but I’m not forbidden from using them.

That analogy only works if the BOE makes both streams available on a public basis. If the company is contracted only to provide a backup stream in case the primary failed, it stands to reason that they do not have the rights to stream/broadcast during normal circumstances. From a legal standpoint, it would be similar to eavesdropping on the live press conference using a bug.

“Failed” is interesting in this context as it could be argued that only the backup feed was “working” 10 seconds before the other went live.

It's a public press conference, you can't eavesdrop on it.

Presumably it's not the type of press conference where the announcement in made in front of multiple journalists and news station cameras. If it was, well... I doubt banks would be paying £2,500-£5,000 (as claimed by the guardian) because they could just send an intern with a microphone for less.

This is like leaving important information open and then blaming someone else for not auditing you.

Both parties have blame and one of them is trying to throw the other under the bus.

What gives you the impression that's the case? The impression I got is that the "third party supplier" was the company contracted to operate the backup stream, and thus was entrusted not to divulge the information (similar to how employees of public companies can't divulge or trade on confidential information they have access to). This isn't a case of BOE leaving information unguarded, this is a third party abusing information that they've been entrusted with.

It's reasonable to suspect that the party in charge of handling the audio wouldn't have considered that latency to the end user between the two streams would make their release not synchronous.

They may even have thought that a few seconds could still be called synchronous, unaware of the advantage this presented in this particular case.

Why would they not divulge audio from a public, live streamed announcement?

Because the public feed has latency, and their feed (that's only supposed to be used for backup purposes) doesn't?

It wasn't supposed to be available ordinarily, it was a backup feed they could switch over to if required.

The supplier was selling access to it without the right to do so, and knowing full well what they were selling.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com