4 ms·

Still though, revealing any details could lead to their discovery.

by BitwiseFool 6y ago

tantalor 6y ago
Turning on your sources is not a good look.
- justinclift 6y ago
  At least here in Australia, sources are no longer really all that safe. We've recently seen the police over here raiding the homes and offices of prominent journalists (quite publicly) to gain access to their sources and related material. :(
  - michaericalribo 6y ago
    Luckily, this was the NYTimes, which is based in the US, and considered one of the most prestigious news outlets in the world—turning on a source would be major malpractice. Possible? Sure, but just like with heart surgery, I'm more inclined to trust a professional with an earned reputation to uphold, than just some random shmo—which is to say, there's not much more of aa reliable bet than the NYT for staying safe as a source.
    - fouc 6y ago
      Except a NYT journalist was willing to dox Scott Alexander for no reason at all..
    - BLKNSLVR 6y ago
      Did NYT follow through with revealing the real name of the Slate Star Codex author? That's one data point in opposition (although not exactly revealing a 'source', the difference is splitting hairs).
      - austhrow743 6y ago
        The difference really isn't splitting hairs. Not only is he not a source, he's not anonymous. Blogged under his full name until a couple years ago, blogs under first and middle still, full name still all over the internet and discoverable within a couple minutes, details of life all over blog still. Hell you probably don't even need to know his last name to find him. Scott Alexander Bay Area Psychiatrist is probably enough to go trawling through psychiatrist practice staff pages and find him fairly quickly. Dude's basically wishing he was anonymous and living in denial because to accept that he isn't would be to accept that he really shouldn't continue his career and blog. I think it's entirely possible for a person to both be willing to publish his last name and also go to prison in order to protect a source, all while remaining consistent in their principles.
        gallabytes 6y ago
        the real issue is what you get when you google Scott [Lastname]. If the top result is an NYT story his patients will reliably find it, and that can be problems.
    - blisseyGo 6y ago
      > NYTimes, most prestigious news outlets in the world Really?
    - stefantalpalaru 6y ago
      > Luckily, this was the NYTimes, which is based in the US, and considered one of the most prestigious news outlets in the world You mean the one that gets CIA's permission before publishing articles that mentions it? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/29/correspondence-collusion-new-york-times-cia https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/29/corres...
    - justinclift 6y ago
      Hmmm. My point was that even if the journalist wasn't themselves willing to hand over data, at least in some (western) jurisdictions the police will raid them and seize the data directly. Now, whether or not given journalists are following good enough data handling practises (eg encryption, etc) to still maintain confidentially is unknown.
    - bavell 6y ago
      NYT is prestigious? Could have fooled me, their attempts at journalism are sorely lacking IMO. Didn't think anyone still considered them credible.
  - searchableguy 6y ago
    Startup Idea: Anonymizing data provider based in a country where most big governments can't easily touch you and more competent at removing information that can be used to identify the whistleblower than current news agencies.
- elliekelly 6y ago
  Just the information in article is valuable in helping track them down. The number of people involved, their communication platform of choice, and the age, gender, location of the participants. Assuming it’s all true, of course. It also sounds like the journalist corroborated some of the hackers’ claims by confirming non-public information about the hacks with law enforcement. That’s particularly valuable to law enforcement. It verifies some of their findings for them.
  - manicdee 6y ago
    Or the crackers provided “confirmation” to the journalists based on what false information had already been fed to investigators.
- phyzome 6y ago
  And yet, the NY Times is threatening to do exactly that to the guy behind https://slatestarcodex.com/ https://slatestarcodex.com/ We're at the point where the NYT is doxxing random bloggers. I don't think this is a good time to be relying on journalistic integrity for your safety.

Still though, revealing any details could lead to their discovery.

tantalor 6y ago

Turning on your sources is not a good look.

justinclift 6y ago
At least here in Australia, sources are no longer really all that safe. We've recently seen the police over here raiding the homes and offices of prominent journalists (quite publicly) to gain access to their sources and related material. :(
- michaericalribo 6y ago
  Luckily, this was the NYTimes, which is based in the US, and considered one of the most prestigious news outlets in the world—turning on a source would be major malpractice. Possible? Sure, but just like with heart surgery, I'm more inclined to trust a professional with an earned reputation to uphold, than just some random shmo—which is to say, there's not much more of aa reliable bet than the NYT for staying safe as a source.
  - fouc 6y ago
    Except a NYT journalist was willing to dox Scott Alexander for no reason at all..
  - BLKNSLVR 6y ago
    Did NYT follow through with revealing the real name of the Slate Star Codex author? That's one data point in opposition (although not exactly revealing a 'source', the difference is splitting hairs).
    - austhrow743 6y ago
      The difference really isn't splitting hairs. Not only is he not a source, he's not anonymous. Blogged under his full name until a couple years ago, blogs under first and middle still, full name still all over the internet and discoverable within a couple minutes, details of life all over blog still. Hell you probably don't even need to know his last name to find him. Scott Alexander Bay Area Psychiatrist is probably enough to go trawling through psychiatrist practice staff pages and find him fairly quickly. Dude's basically wishing he was anonymous and living in denial because to accept that he isn't would be to accept that he really shouldn't continue his career and blog. I think it's entirely possible for a person to both be willing to publish his last name and also go to prison in order to protect a source, all while remaining consistent in their principles.
      - gallabytes 6y ago
        the real issue is what you get when you google Scott [Lastname]. If the top result is an NYT story his patients will reliably find it, and that can be problems.
  - blisseyGo 6y ago
    > NYTimes, most prestigious news outlets in the world Really?
  - stefantalpalaru 6y ago
    > Luckily, this was the NYTimes, which is based in the US, and considered one of the most prestigious news outlets in the world You mean the one that gets CIA's permission before publishing articles that mentions it? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/29/correspondence-collusion-new-york-times-cia https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/29/corres...
  - justinclift 6y ago
    Hmmm. My point was that even if the journalist wasn't themselves willing to hand over data, at least in some (western) jurisdictions the police will raid them and seize the data directly. Now, whether or not given journalists are following good enough data handling practises (eg encryption, etc) to still maintain confidentially is unknown.
  - bavell 6y ago
    NYT is prestigious? Could have fooled me, their attempts at journalism are sorely lacking IMO. Didn't think anyone still considered them credible.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  Startup Idea: Anonymizing data provider based in a country where most big governments can't easily touch you and more competent at removing information that can be used to identify the whistleblower than current news agencies.
elliekelly 6y ago
Just the information in article is valuable in helping track them down. The number of people involved, their communication platform of choice, and the age, gender, location of the participants. Assuming it’s all true, of course. It also sounds like the journalist corroborated some of the hackers’ claims by confirming non-public information about the hacks with law enforcement. That’s particularly valuable to law enforcement. It verifies some of their findings for them.
- manicdee 6y ago
  Or the crackers provided “confirmation” to the journalists based on what false information had already been fed to investigators.
phyzome 6y ago
And yet, the NY Times is threatening to do exactly that to the guy behind https://slatestarcodex.com/ https://slatestarcodex.com/ We're at the point where the NYT is doxxing random bloggers. I don't think this is a good time to be relying on journalistic integrity for your safety.