6 ms·

Why CoinDesk Respects Pseudonymity: A Stand Against Doxxing

71 points by apsec112 6y ago

bitxbitxbitcoin 6y ago
Good on them. Cryptocurrency enthusiasts would be the ones to understand and champion the value of pseudonymity.
jamespitts 6y ago
Even though many of us understand the issues around pseudonymity in our various tech and gamer scenes, this is a generational flash-point in general society.
colechristensen 6y ago
I intentionally reveal my identity on purpose for various reasons. It isn't unreasonable to believe that at some point there will be negative consequences for some thoughtless, unreasonable, or unpopular remark; maybe there already has been and I just don't know about it. There is power and privilege in the ability to do this, and I like to think that one person openly being their flawed self in public might help a tiny bit push society towards accepting that everybody is flawed and everybody has done things which aren't socially acceptable to some whether or not they would continue defend every action in their past. If I was getting death threats or had anything in particular. worth defending, I might change my behavior; but for now nothing I write really matters except maybe to a few people who read it.
- jchw 6y ago
  I feel the same way, but it’s also something about a stubborn unwillingness to accept the fate that we can’t ever have meaningful political discourse without unreasonable consequences for mildly unpopular stances. That’s not to say I think anyone should be able to say anything without consequences, but the fact is right now people are using intimidation and guilt by association tactics to try to push out all sorts of opinions, gradually making any opposition more extreme and grouping unrelated sects of thought together to increase divisiveness, and not just for opinions that were always universally believed to be deserving of scorn. I am keeping intentionally vague because this is an issue bigger than any individual controversial opinion. I am sure I have many opinions that are controversial to somebody, even as a pretty liberal person, although in all honesty I probably could not identify all of them on my own. Maybe some of them will change, maybe not. Should someone be “cancelled” forever for holding such an opinion? Are people allowed to change, or, god forbid, just simply not agree on something clearly divisive? I believe the answer should be yes so as long as they are not trying to infringe or invalidate someone else’s rights or existence. And certainly, perhaps above all, the right response to ignorance is education and not vitriol. Unfortunately, escalations only seem to get more toxic by the year, with a heavier emphasis on appeals to emotion and not reason. It’d be remiss to not mention bad actors who intentionally try to abuse good faith, too... but I feel that nowadays, the pendulum has swung far into the other direction.
- warent 6y ago
  I think I used to feel the same way, but over time came to understand that a problem which arises is missing context and drawing conclusions from incomplete information. If you're sharing a sensitive piece of information about yourself with someone who already knows you well, then they have the benefit of all the prior context of knowing who you are, plus they can ask questions for clarification if needed. Contrast this with sharing sensitive information about yourself on the web. Even if there are numerous other articles that you have published to provide context, someone who doesn't know you can easily take that single piece of sensitive information and completely misunderstand it, because frankly it's impossible to get to know everyone intimately enough to have all the supporting information. You propose that this openness might help push society toward accepting that humans are flawed and have done things which are not socially acceptable. The problem is that behavior which is not socially acceptable can easily be interpreted as dysfunctional or outright anti-social without knowing who you are. Another example, let's say you have made a mistake in the past (as all humans have) and genuinely feel remorseful and apologetic. The remorse and apology cannot be known to be genuine except by yourself and the people closest to you. That's why I feel it is actually vital to only share sensitive information with people who have enough context and information to properly understand and integrate it.
  - colechristensen 6y ago
    The basic problem is exactly "missing context and drawing conclusions from incomplete information" and that every person could fall victim to that sort of attack and misunderstanding. You can try to defend against it by hiding from it, or you can try to defend against it by overwhelming it to show that everybody is "guilty" of one thing or another. It is entirely reasonable to have good justifications for hiding, but it is also something to strive for, a life situation where you don't have to care about idiots and pitchforks. What I think is vital is convincing everyone that a single piece of context-free information does not demonstrate the value of a person's entire life.
    - odessacubbage 6y ago
      unfortunately there's simply too much to be gained by rejecting context and willfully assuming the worst possible intent or even fabricating it; 'x/y/z is a dogwhistle'. live and let live does not seem to be a value that has been retained by secular moralism. i'd gladly be incorrect if it meant we could live in your world, that doesn't seem likely anytime soon though.
phantom784 6y ago
Original post: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/22/nyt-is-threatening-my-safety-by-revealing-my-real-name-so-i-am-deleting-the-blog/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/22/nyt-is-threatening-my-...
RichardHeart 6y ago
Privacy is a human right. It's particularly important to cryptocurrency fans, as they get swatted, murdered or tortured occasionally: Swatting: https://www.coindesk.com/reflections-on-a-swatting-one-bitcoin-engineers-private-security-battle https://www.coindesk.com/reflections-on-a-swatting-one-bitco... Murder: https://toshitimes.com/norwegian-man-murdered-after-cashing-out-a-large-bitcoin-sum/ https://toshitimes.com/norwegian-man-murdered-after-cashing-... Torture: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/bitcoin-robbery-torture-cryptocurrency-netherlands-a8807986.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ne... (There's more instances, but you get the idea.)
fierarul 6y ago
I find this kinda amusing since CoinDesk as a media site might be ok but the whole space of coin sellers are super not into pseudonimity. Last I looked you needed to provide bank-level identification to do anything while, you know, not dealing with a bank. Come to think of it, Paypal requires less identification than any site touching coins and for Europe they are a bank in Luxembourg.
- jefftk 6y ago
  This generally comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer legal requirements, for preventing money laundering.
  - fierarul 6y ago
    Does this not apply to Paypal? Because I read some ridiculous requirements on coin sites, such as sending scans of your national IDs or even doing videos of yourself. All the while Paypal only has name and address and perhaps a credit card number. Seems to me coin sites are either smothered in red tape or so afraid they go above and beyond the legal requirements.
    - tootahe45 6y ago
      In my experience, it does apply to paypal, except they wait until you put a minimum amount into your account and then lock it pending KYC. This basically forces you to provide KYC documents (or say good bye to your money). This is likely so they can avoid the 99% churn rate they'd get if they KYC'ed people on registration, IMO there should be a law against this practice or just fix draconian KYC laws. Skrill did the same with ID required, except i still cannot access my $900 2 years later because the KYC is fully automated.
stevebmark 6y ago
What the hell is this? Why does it exist (I don't know anything about the context) and why does an anti-dox article share the full name, job title, website, and backstory of someone who was doxxed?
- gog-ma-gog 6y ago
  Scott Alexander is his pseudonym, which he freely shares, and he blogs about his psychiatry work.
  - kristianp 6y ago
    Ah, that wasn't clear from the article (at least to some, including me).
jimbob45 6y ago
On a more practical note, why is the NYT insisting on their idiotic policy? If you want to make sure no one ever speaks on the record to your newspaper ever again, ham-fisted policies like this are a great choice.
dang 6y ago
There were three follow-up articles to the big thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23610416 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23610416) on the front page just now. Three is too many. The other two are: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23617887 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23617887 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23621466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23621466 Which is best?
- lowkeynthorough 6y ago
  This one seems most interesting: (Gary Weiss doxxes the NYT reporter who threatened to doxx) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23635818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23635818

71 points by apsec112 6y ago

Good on them. Cryptocurrency enthusiasts would be the ones to understand and champion the value of pseudonymity.

Even though many of us understand the issues around pseudonymity in our various tech and gamer scenes, this is a generational flash-point in general society.

colechristensen 6y ago

I intentionally reveal my identity on purpose for various reasons. It isn't unreasonable to believe that at some point there will be negative consequences for some thoughtless, unreasonable, or unpopular remark; maybe there already has been and I just don't know about it. There is power and privilege in the ability to do this, and I like to think that one person openly being their flawed self in public might help a tiny bit push society towards accepting that everybody is flawed and everybody has done things which aren't socially acceptable to some whether or not they would continue defend every action in their past. If I was getting death threats or had anything in particular. worth defending, I might change my behavior; but for now nothing I write really matters except maybe to a few people who read it.

jchw 6y ago
I feel the same way, but it’s also something about a stubborn unwillingness to accept the fate that we can’t ever have meaningful political discourse without unreasonable consequences for mildly unpopular stances. That’s not to say I think anyone should be able to say anything without consequences, but the fact is right now people are using intimidation and guilt by association tactics to try to push out all sorts of opinions, gradually making any opposition more extreme and grouping unrelated sects of thought together to increase divisiveness, and not just for opinions that were always universally believed to be deserving of scorn. I am keeping intentionally vague because this is an issue bigger than any individual controversial opinion. I am sure I have many opinions that are controversial to somebody, even as a pretty liberal person, although in all honesty I probably could not identify all of them on my own. Maybe some of them will change, maybe not. Should someone be “cancelled” forever for holding such an opinion? Are people allowed to change, or, god forbid, just simply not agree on something clearly divisive? I believe the answer should be yes so as long as they are not trying to infringe or invalidate someone else’s rights or existence. And certainly, perhaps above all, the right response to ignorance is education and not vitriol. Unfortunately, escalations only seem to get more toxic by the year, with a heavier emphasis on appeals to emotion and not reason. It’d be remiss to not mention bad actors who intentionally try to abuse good faith, too... but I feel that nowadays, the pendulum has swung far into the other direction.
warent 6y ago
I think I used to feel the same way, but over time came to understand that a problem which arises is missing context and drawing conclusions from incomplete information. If you're sharing a sensitive piece of information about yourself with someone who already knows you well, then they have the benefit of all the prior context of knowing who you are, plus they can ask questions for clarification if needed. Contrast this with sharing sensitive information about yourself on the web. Even if there are numerous other articles that you have published to provide context, someone who doesn't know you can easily take that single piece of sensitive information and completely misunderstand it, because frankly it's impossible to get to know everyone intimately enough to have all the supporting information. You propose that this openness might help push society toward accepting that humans are flawed and have done things which are not socially acceptable. The problem is that behavior which is not socially acceptable can easily be interpreted as dysfunctional or outright anti-social without knowing who you are. Another example, let's say you have made a mistake in the past (as all humans have) and genuinely feel remorseful and apologetic. The remorse and apology cannot be known to be genuine except by yourself and the people closest to you. That's why I feel it is actually vital to only share sensitive information with people who have enough context and information to properly understand and integrate it.
- colechristensen 6y ago
  The basic problem is exactly "missing context and drawing conclusions from incomplete information" and that every person could fall victim to that sort of attack and misunderstanding. You can try to defend against it by hiding from it, or you can try to defend against it by overwhelming it to show that everybody is "guilty" of one thing or another. It is entirely reasonable to have good justifications for hiding, but it is also something to strive for, a life situation where you don't have to care about idiots and pitchforks. What I think is vital is convincing everyone that a single piece of context-free information does not demonstrate the value of a person's entire life.
  - odessacubbage 6y ago
    unfortunately there's simply too much to be gained by rejecting context and willfully assuming the worst possible intent or even fabricating it; 'x/y/z is a dogwhistle'. live and let live does not seem to be a value that has been retained by secular moralism. i'd gladly be incorrect if it meant we could live in your world, that doesn't seem likely anytime soon though.

phantom784 6y ago

Original post: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/22/nyt-is-threatening-my-safety-by-revealing-my-real-name-so-i-am-deleting-the-blog/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/22/nyt-is-threatening-my-...

RichardHeart 6y ago

Privacy is a human right. It's particularly important to cryptocurrency fans, as they get swatted, murdered or tortured occasionally: Swatting: https://www.coindesk.com/reflections-on-a-swatting-one-bitcoin-engineers-private-security-battle https://www.coindesk.com/reflections-on-a-swatting-one-bitco... Murder: https://toshitimes.com/norwegian-man-murdered-after-cashing-out-a-large-bitcoin-sum/ https://toshitimes.com/norwegian-man-murdered-after-cashing-... Torture: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/bitcoin-robbery-torture-cryptocurrency-netherlands-a8807986.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ne... (There's more instances, but you get the idea.)

fierarul 6y ago

I find this kinda amusing since CoinDesk as a media site might be ok but the whole space of coin sellers are super not into pseudonimity. Last I looked you needed to provide bank-level identification to do anything while, you know, not dealing with a bank. Come to think of it, Paypal requires less identification than any site touching coins and for Europe they are a bank in Luxembourg.

jefftk 6y ago
This generally comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer legal requirements, for preventing money laundering.
- fierarul 6y ago
  Does this not apply to Paypal? Because I read some ridiculous requirements on coin sites, such as sending scans of your national IDs or even doing videos of yourself. All the while Paypal only has name and address and perhaps a credit card number. Seems to me coin sites are either smothered in red tape or so afraid they go above and beyond the legal requirements.
  - tootahe45 6y ago
    In my experience, it does apply to paypal, except they wait until you put a minimum amount into your account and then lock it pending KYC. This basically forces you to provide KYC documents (or say good bye to your money). This is likely so they can avoid the 99% churn rate they'd get if they KYC'ed people on registration, IMO there should be a law against this practice or just fix draconian KYC laws. Skrill did the same with ID required, except i still cannot access my $900 2 years later because the KYC is fully automated.

stevebmark 6y ago

What the hell is this? Why does it exist (I don't know anything about the context) and why does an anti-dox article share the full name, job title, website, and backstory of someone who was doxxed?

gog-ma-gog 6y ago
Scott Alexander is his pseudonym, which he freely shares, and he blogs about his psychiatry work.
- kristianp 6y ago
  Ah, that wasn't clear from the article (at least to some, including me).

jimbob45 6y ago

On a more practical note, why is the NYT insisting on their idiotic policy? If you want to make sure no one ever speaks on the record to your newspaper ever again, ham-fisted policies like this are a great choice.

dang 6y ago

There were three follow-up articles to the big thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23610416 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23610416) on the front page just now. Three is too many. The other two are: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23617887 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23617887 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23621466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23621466 Which is best?

lowkeynthorough 6y ago
This one seems most interesting: (Gary Weiss doxxes the NYT reporter who threatened to doxx) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23635818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23635818