NEA: Online PSI figure wasn't edited

[wendychan]

www.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20130624-431793.html


Is nea saying that a member of the pulic changed the figure, not them?



By Lisa Oon
My Paper
Monday, Jun 24, 2013
Some doubts were cast on the accuracy of the Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) when a photo with a PSI reading of 393 at 10pm last Wednesday was purportedly taken off the National Environment Agency's (NEA's) website.


The actual reading on the site was updated as 321 instead. This led some people to think that the NEA had edited the three-hourly PSI reading to a lower figure.

When contacted by My Paper on this, the NEA clarified last Friday that the reading was not edited nor tampered with.

Said a spokesman on Wednesday evening's PSI reading: "NEA has checked its website records, which confirm there was no PSI value posted higher than the three-hour PSI reading of 321."

She added that the 321 value for 10pm last Wednesday was correct and that "our records also show that there had been no editing or deletion of that PSI reading on the website".

My Paper understands it is possible to manipulate browser settings on a computer to edit text or values displayed on a website.

A My Paper test showed that the 2pm onscreen PSI reading yesterday could be edited to an astronomical figure on a Web browser (see screenshot).

But this was not a change to the website itself as refreshing the webpage restored the PSI reading to its actual value of 78.

On communication with the ground, Foreign Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam acknowledged yesterday at a community event that with many air-quality figures, it can be confusing.

But he added: "Unfortunately, there has been some deliberate misinformation put out in other media sources, I think, in an attempt to confuse people."

He did not want to comment further on this but said it was not done by the Government.

 

[greenies]

Will NEA investigate and sue the one who posted the wrong PSI figures.
If not, NEA reputation could be tarnished???

 

[wendychan]

They have to actaully PROVE It first their accusation
Unless got court where can just accuse , with no proof

 

[wendychan]

Very easy to acuse the public of spreading mis information.... Must be getting desperate

 

[PrinceCharming]

Beijing residents don't trust the pollutants' index published by their government agency.

Did you know that the US Embassy in Beijng lend equipment to Beijing NGOs so the latter can monitor air pollution themselves? Each equipment costs about US$6,000.

Since Sinkies don't trust what NEA publishes, it would be good if some rich Sinkies or NGOs were to buy the equipment and do the monitoring of air quality themselves.

 

[batman1]

If u believe No Ethics Agency,then pigs can fly !

 

[Confuseous]

Will NEA investigate and sue the one who posted the wrong PSI figures.
If not, NEA reputation could be tarnished???

I think what they are saying is that some mischievous soul messed around the site, changed the figure and then posted to smear NEA. And that in fact the high figure did not appear at all. A bit confusing, isn't it.

But let's assume that someone did do that - what does it mean? That the security of the site is so loose that anyone can go in and change the numbers, even if for a few seconds, long enough to grab a screen shot? Can someone change other data and then start viral-ling them?

 

[halsey02]

Typical can not trust these people...paid liars!

 

[wendychan]

so now any screen capture or photo of computer screen, can suka suka say someone messed with it , to spread " deliberate misinformation"....

 

[greenies]

Very easy to acuse the public of spreading mis information.... Must be getting desperate

Exactly.
They should come out and show the proof that on-line media news have deliberately misinformed the public.
Otherwise, their words are mere accusation.

 

[greenies]

I think what they are saying is that some mischievous soul messed around the site, changed the figure and then posted to smear NEA. And that in fact the high figure did not appear at all. A bit confusing, isn't it.

But let's assume that someone did do that - what does it mean? That the security of the site is so loose that anyone can go in and change the numbers, even if for a few seconds, long enough to grab a screen shot? Can someone change other data and then start viral-ling them?

Ya loh...
They should catch the culprit who messed up PSI data and misinformed the public deliberately.
Average man in street knows that screen shot cannot be captured or change the data easily.
Who is lying???

 

[Sinkie]

Screen caps can be edited.

However, if I'm the one taking the screen cap, I can prove it was not edited. So, I always tell anyone who screenshot anything to be used as evidence, always consult someone who knows how to do it correctly. But almost everyone do not know how, that's why NEA dare to say screenshot can be edited.
Of course it can be edited. But if I'm the one taking it, I do not use a screenshot. I use an evidence-based method to capture the page, then take a screenshot.

I know how to do it and my screenshot can be used as evidence in any court of law. If I'm the I who took the screenshot, NEA would be in deep shit, if it is the truth the PSI was 393.

99.999% of IT users are hopeless noobs. Shame on them.

 

[wendychan]

so how to take a screen shot the "correct" way?

 

[Sinkie]

so how to take a screen shot the "correct" way?

Cannot tell everything so detail here....