Sorry, but it is about press now. It's a little naive to imagine that this wouldn't have gotten picked up and twisted; you're just the latest victim of being taken out of context.
I am very experienced with the press. I don't fault any of the press coverage. I really don't have any problem with the coverage of my article in general. They aren't written the way I would write them, but then again I didn't write them. So that's not a surprise. I also didn't have a profit/page-view motive.
The media I picked were not well-suited to the idea of seeking media exposure.
If I were just seeking publicity, what I would have done is shop the article. I would have gotten paid AND gotten more exposure.
Instead, I initially picked Google+ as my medium because my main target because I was writing up my thoughts in response to a post in this forum on my day off. Halfway through writing it up, I realized it was more about the Internet of Things than the Tesla. I tweeted about it and the people who follow me for API stuff wondered why the hell I posted it to Google+ (I never post anything to Google+). It was then I changed it to O'Reilly. A place that I make no money from, a place aimed at technology people, a place that isn't "page-view" driven.
And I didn't expect that it would get picked up by the press. O'Reilly is not a grand source of wider press coverage. It would not have gotten coverage, except that the Forbes guy follows me. I expect everything else followed from the Forbes coverage.
As a side note, in case someone did pick it up, I made sure to start the article noting that there were no automative safety issues at play.
The whole argument as to whether I am correct or not depends on the basic premise of the Internet of Things.
You you deny me my premise that devices should be connected, then this IS NOT an architectural flaw.
If you grant me the premise, then it IS an architectural flaw.
You can reasonably deny the premise, but you cannot deny that the premise itself is a reasonable one for others to hold true. Therefore people attacking my motives instead of the content of the article are way off base. As are the people who try to argue I should not have written it at all.
- - - Updated - - -
So at no point in this process did you contact Tesla to tell them you thought their implementation was insecure before going to press?
I DIDN'T GO TO THE PRESS.
I am a technology author and I wrote up something in my blog about it.
The fact that you could not see it would be a sensationalistic article and spread around the internet should be relevant to you.
It's not a sensationalistic article. It's validity simply lies in granting or denying one basic premise about the interconnectedness of things. You can deny the premise and thus deny the conclusion of the article, but you can't deny the fact that I may reasonably believe that premise and thus reasonably reach the conclusion I reached.
It also doesn't appear that others share your view that this is even an issue but that won't matter in the articles that picked up your story.
You are reading selectively. A lot of people share my view. Especially in the cloud/technology community where my believe in the Internet of Things is generally taken for granted. Even in this forum populated with people who tend to be very intolerant of Tesla criticism, there are a number of people supporting the article.
If you love your car then writing something like this without due diligence only serves to make it harder for Tesla to succeed and less likely the company will be around to support the car you love. You had every right to publish the article but would have thought getting input from Tesla and finding out why they did what they did would have been useful. They may not have told you anything but sounds like you didn't even try.
I don't work for Tesla PR.