4 ms·

Was it really necessary for Krebs to dox this Gupta guy, an innocent grad student who posted on a hacking forum when he was a teenager? Or for him to dox any of

Was it really necessary for Krebs to dox this Gupta guy, an innocent grad student who posted on a hacking forum when he was a teenager? Or for him to dox any of the other people, most of whom were minors at the time of activity, and are not currently charged with any crimes?

okket 9y ago
For some definition of innocent.
- chatmasta 9y ago
  He was under 18 at the time of all evidence of illegal activity presented by Krebs, yet Krebs included his name. Normally in legal indictments, the public documents redact names of any minors. Krebs is acting in a journalist capacity here, but he's accusing people of crimes. Shouldn't we hold him to the same standards as the justice system? Isn't this the basis of libel law? IANAL but looks like Gupta could have legal standing for libel against Krebs. Granted, he may have skeletons in the closet preventing him from pursuing that avenue...
  - jtl999 9y ago
    Well the subject is currently 23, and for what it's worth the original USG indictment listed his full name, because the accused activity happened when the subject was older than 18.
    - chatmasta 9y ago
      I'm referring to the auxiliary characters, not Hutchins.
brudgers 9y ago
Based on his body of work as a journalist, my suspicion is that Krebs has (at least) an informal relationship with US federal law enforcement organs. The editorial tone of this piece in light of the weakness of the Hutchins Indictment are consistent with my suspicion.