North Korea took $2 billion in cyberattacks to fund weapons program: U.N. report
WORLD
August 5, 20193 min read, 519 words

North Korea took $2 billion in cyberattacks to fund weapons program: U.N. reportNorth Korea took $2 billion in cyberattacks to fund weapons program: U.N. report

 in 
Published: August 5, 2019  |  3 min read, 519 words
United Kingdom UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - North Korea has generated an estimated $2 billion for its weapons of mass destruction programs using “widespread and increasingly sophisticated” cyberattacks to steal from banks and cryptocurrency exchanges, according to a confidential U....
North Korea took $2 billion in cyberattacks to fund weapons program: U.N. report Read more

Scores for this article.

Percentage of critic and public trust in this article.
Lack of Reliable Sources2
img-trusted
N/A
critic score
critic reviews: 1
img-contested
50%
public score
public reviews: 4

CRITIC REVIEWS

Credible
August 6, 2019
The article posits an interesting circumstance regarding the procurement of funding for certain prohibited activities. However, relying on only one source of information makes the piece somewhat problematic. The organization is credible and the item mildly interesting for readers keeping up on such matters. As an aside, it is worthwhile for the reader to keep in mind that the DPRK is an extremely secretive entity and any 'intelligence' which purports to come from first-hand sources therein should be looked at with a jaundiced eye.
August 6, 2019
Is this helpful?

PUBLIC REVIEWS

Lack of Reliable Sources
August 7, 2019
There is a lack of specific information from a "confidential U.N. report seen by Reuters" I would expect more detailed comments by "U.N. experts" rather then generalisations such as "used cyberspace" This lack of detail leads me to doubt that this "confidential U.N. report" is nothing more than an executive summary or general briefing document. There is an attempt to place the information in a wider context including information about ongoing political activities. This article relies on a click bait headline and adds no substantial information. Below the usual Reuters standard.
August 7, 2019
Is this helpful?
Lack of Reliable Sources
August 6, 2019
I'm naturally skeptical of the story's premise simply because so much of it goes unproven and unbacked by evidence, citing unnamed sources throughout the piece. I feel like these are big claims and Reuters shouldn't put out the information until they have more to give readers. We shouldn't have to blindly trust the outlet or author regarding such a big story. I hope there are follow-up stories, but I'm going to hold back belief until more is demonstrated.
August 6, 2019
Is this helpful?
Well Sourced
August 6, 2019
The writers provided facts without bias, permitting the reader to assess independently the perspectives, motives, and trustworthiness of the story’s sources.
August 6, 2019
Is this helpful?
Well Sourced
August 5, 2019
It is impossible to know whether this story is true given no further corroboration. However, I believe this article is well-sourced due to the fact that Reuters was able to ascertain this secret document. Further context and information are needed.
August 5, 2019
Is this helpful?