4 ms·
> (He agreed to speak after Forbes‘ poking around Twitter, > Facebook and the Brown Directory revealed his name.) B this is the most important part of the stor
by testinghello 15y ago
> (He agreed to speak after Forbes‘ poking around Twitter, > Facebook and the Brown Directory revealed his name.) B
this is the most important part of the story
- pedalpete 15y agoI'm not sure why you got downvoted on this, but maybe you can elaborate on why you think that is 'the most important part of the story'
- aberkowitz 15y agoIt appears that the journalists are engaging in unethical, borderline blackmail processes to get people to speak.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- canistr 15y agoAgreed. It's strange that people get all up in arms when the government does this for suspects and yet when some random journalists start snooping around, trying to dig dirt up on you, and blackmails you to write a story (and then proceed to make money from said story), nobody seems to care. Ridiculous. Forbes should be chastised for this.
- saurik 15y agoFor the record, I spoke to this reporter for a couple hours, and even had him tell me exactly how he got comex's name (which I did not actually know). He plays it up in that quote from his article, but it turns out getting the name was /trivial/: comex had a public Facebook account, in his real name, using one of his standard usernames. It is actually likely that he got the name before he even realized it was supposed to be "secret". In fact, I even joked "fair enough; you know, I've never actually looked, but for all I know his personal domain name is registered to his home address by his mother or something": it turns out it literally is. (It should also be noted that comex has agreed to talk to reporters before, such as for an article published by Reuters.)
- Vexenon 15y agoHis name also shows up in a few of his GitHub repositories, so it's not like they used illegitimate tactics to uncover his real identity that was already somewhat public. Forbes shouldn't be chastised over releasing his name, and anyone who thinks that blackmail or anything of the sort played a role is just being silly.
- canistr 15y agoYes, but it's the same thing when the FBI checks Facebook trivially. People still seem to have a problem with them doing any sort of searching via social networking.
- funkah 15y agoDisagree, they only should have been chastised if he didn't agree to speak to them and they revealed his identity anyway.
- breck 15y agoWhy? I'm confused, isn't this investigative journalism at its best?
- mason55 15y agoGovernments are (rightly) generally held to higher standards than private citizens due to the immense power at their disposal.
- canistr 15y agoThis has nothing to do with 'higher standard' if the media is the one responsible for publishing your name, publicizing it, and most importantly making money off of it.