This is Quinn Norton's, the original reporter's, response.
I disagree with Norton (and Singel) and believe if Soghoian' original response had been sexist, Norton would have been able to quote from it. As it is, she can only make a tone argument.
>> I can explain that a hosted Javascript application is vulnerable to a deep structural attack better than any of them — I explain things for a living.
Doing something for a living doesn't necessarily imply that you're good at it.
Conversely, not doing something for a living (i.e., "explaining things") doesn't mean you're not good at it either.
"Explaining" things that they don't understand is a hallmark of journalists, especially the so-called professional ones. Their knowledge of firearms, to take a really long-running example, was apparently acquired by watching made for TV movies.
Chris Soghoian criticized that article and articles like it here that overly hype their subjects. He compared it to the unwarranted hype for Haystack. http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2012/07/tech-journalists-stop-hy....
Ryan Singel, editor of Wired's Threat Level, called Soghoian's article a sexist attack on Norton here: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/08/security-researcher...
Soghoian replied here: http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2012/08/responding-to-wireds-ad-...
This is the news.ycombinator thread that discussed Soghoian and Wired's responses: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4354959
This is Quinn Norton's, the original reporter's, response.
I disagree with Norton (and Singel) and believe if Soghoian' original response had been sexist, Norton would have been able to quote from it. As it is, she can only make a tone argument.