7 ms·

I'm in doubt if is ethical journalism reveal the name and LinkedIn profile of an alleged killer, sounds like doxing to me.

sowbug 4y ago
Arrests sure better be public record in a free country.
- Waterluvian 4y ago
  It’s fundamental to the principles of habeas corpus that the overwhelming power of the government to arrest, prosecute, and imprison someone be wielded in broad daylight.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    Not everyone needs to know for habeas corpus to work. Narrow lamplight can be just as efficacious.
- bialpio 4y ago
  There's also presumption of innocence so publishing personal info of someone not convicted is akin to doxxing to me. Edit: typos.
  - AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
    [dead]
- iudqnolq 4y ago
  The UK is a good example of a generally* similarly free country without guaranteed public access to arrest records. This balances the potential benefit to the public from knowing against the definite harm to the accused. (*There are definitely significant ways each is less free than the other and there's no rigorous way to say which is worse)
  - tqi 4y ago
    I think the person you're replying to is saying that: - If a government arrests someone, it should be forced to acknowledge both that it happened AND give the reason for arrest - Media should have the right to report on arrests, without interference from the government. This protects from abuses of power against for example political opponents. Of course, these same laws make arrests for common crimes problematic for the people being arrested. And I don't think it is feasible to codify an objective line between the two.
    - sowbug 4y ago
      Good point on the media's right to report. Prior restraint is icky except in the most exigent and extreme circumstances.
    - iudqnolq 4y ago
      Yes and I'm presenting a counterexample of a free country where the media does not have the unlimited right to report on arrests.
  - sowbug 4y ago
    Yes, it's a balance. I don't want my government hustling people into vans and disappearing, but I don't want minor indiscretions to become media-amplified scarlet letters, either. A reasoned discussion begins with an acknowledgment that the public has a right to monitor its government, and that individuals have a right to privacy. Unfortunately, the USA PATRIOT Act substantially dimmed the sunlight on government law-enforcement activity, and the Dobbs decision severely weakened privacy as an emergent constitutional right. Edit: As I was writing this reply, I came up with an interesting legal theory. The right to publicity is traditionally understood as a celebrity's right to control the commercialization of his or her image. Might we say that the modern attention economy has turned everyone into a potential celebrity, and thus that everyone should be allowed to control the commercial publicity of their persona? This would draw a potentially meaningful line between the public's right to know (which I expect is popular) and the media's right to commercially exploit the salacious details of an accused's crime (which is, sadly, extremely popular; otherwise, it wouldn't be as prevalent as it is today). I'm sure attorneys and legal scholars have already explored this idea.
- kstenerud 4y ago
  In Germany it's not public, nor are you allowed to publish the name of a person arrested. This is to protect the individual's privacy and shield them from public retribution and prejudice, which I think is a far more enlightened stance. In America, the stigma of an arrest follows you for the rest of your life.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    I agree, especially pre-trial. I disagree post-trial. When a judgement has been made "in the name of the people", the people should be able to know the name.
    - Timon3 4y ago
      But forever? Shouldn't a person who does wrong have the option to actually make things right? Should a mistake somebody makes at a young age follow them until their death, even if they have gone through the actual judicial punishment? If there's no way for them to ever "make things right" in the eyes of society, it doesn't leave many choices - which is a big contributor to the high rates of repeat criminals.
      - microtherion 4y ago
        I don't know how other countries handle this, but I learned a few years ago, somewhat to my surprise, that Switzerland has in some cases provided a high profile murderer with a new identity after they served their sentence, precisely so they could go on with their life: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Günther_Tschanun https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Günther_Tschanun
      - luckylion 4y ago
        I don't think you can "make right" a murder. You can be punished for it, but that doesn't absolve you of the deed, and it shouldn't force others to forgive or accept you. Yes, it's a tough deal, but let's be honest here: it's nothing compared to what they do to their victims. And there's really very few cases per decade that will make you a nation-wide celebrity. For the most part, moving 50km away will for all intents and purposes make you "a new man". You can often attain forgiveness by showing regret. Many don't, which is why they aren't forgiven, and aren't happily accepted by society when they get released. Who could blame them? And why should we help them wash away their sins and treat it as a secret? I also don't buy the excuse that recidivism is significantly driven by rejection from society. It's the easy way to explain your behavior when truth and reflection would paint a different picture, but one that's harder to accept: that we're responsible for our deeds, and (yes, with some super specific exceptions) nobody made us do them.
- RoyGBivCap 4y ago
  Convictions* People get arrested, their name smeared, presumed guilty, and then go to trial and it wasn't them. Lives get ruined over for crimes not committed. IIRC, Israel doesn't publish arrests, just convictions. So it's not a new idea. Florida's "sunshine law" mandates arrests be public record, and it's lead everyone to believe there's more crazy people in Florida than anywhere else, which just isn't true. Sure we shouldn't have black sites where people just get nabbed and disappeared either, but "guilty until proven innocent" is just a fancy idea if your life gets ruined before the trial. Look at what happened to Rittenhouse. Kicked out of his college and then "not guilty on all counts" at trial. It's a miscarriage of justice.
doctoboggan 4y ago
Depends on the track record of the journalist and whether you believe that they did their due diligence and have good sourcing.
aeternum 4y ago
Is the public's failure to understand the meaning of the word alleged a problem with journalism? The police arresting people in secret has historically been .. problematic at best.
- olliej 4y ago
  There are two issues that compete: 1. Police secretly arrest people and toss them in jail never to be heard of again 2. People are erroneously arrested, there name is publicly attached to a crime through a bunch of reporting, then they're released before trial or found not guilty The first is fairly clear, the 2nd is a problem because being released is generally not news, so google search or whatever forever links the persons name to a crime they didn't do. Then you have a bunch of humanisms: the person the lawyered there way out of the crime, or "they must have been involved otherwise why would they be arrested", etc. So there is a permanent cost to being publicly arrested for something you didn't do even if justice happens and you don't ever see court. That's why you some times see people in the judicial system releasing "this person is absolutely innocent" type press releases.
napierzaza 4y ago
[dead]
microtherion 4y ago
Given how heavily and uncritically the initial theory of a homeless/lower class person as the killer was promoted (not least of all here on HN), I think it made a lot of sense to reveal that the actual suspect now arrested worked in the tech industry and was acquainted with the victim. Beyond that, it's nor clear to me that revealing the actual name or other personal details of the suspect serves a legitimate purpose of advancing justice or society; however, it is not out of keeping with journalistic practice in other criminal cases in California. Suspects' names get printed in newspapers for far lower profile crimes all the time.
- bink 4y ago
  I can see some benefit in that potential witnesses might be more likely to come forward. If I hear of a terrible crime and it turns out my neighbor was arrested for it I might potentially have some valuable information to contribute. I'm still not sure if it's a good thing though.
- simplotek 4y ago
  > (...) I think it made a lot of sense to reveal that the actual suspect now arrested (...) Have we learned nothing from Reddit's Boston bomber witch hunt? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Sunil_Tripathi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Sunil_Tripathi
  - jamespo 4y ago
    I've learnt that's a poor comparison to this
    - simplotek 4y ago
      Please explain what leads you to believe that doxing suspects, exactly like in the Boston bomber case, is a reasonable idea.
      - dapearce 4y ago
        In this example there is enough evidence the suspect has been arrested by police, which is a public record. Not remotely the same as the Boston bomber reddit-misidentification case.
hindsightbias 4y ago
I’ll go with the perp being rich and white. LinkedIn has already been deleted. No conspiracy needed.
- RamblingCTO 4y ago
  What? What has the race and the finances have to do with anything? He's not white, he's of Iranian descent I believe. The LinkedIn is still online. Even tho I disagree with doxing someone that might turn out not to be the victim.
hker999 4y ago
It's only because he's a white male. Person of color suspects rarely get doxxed by the media and the story usually disappears the next day.
anigbrowl 4y ago
It's hard to believe that you're not aware the name is published by the police following an arrest, which was almost certainly the subject of a warrant application.

sowbug 4y ago

Arrests sure better be public record in a free country.

Waterluvian 4y ago
It’s fundamental to the principles of habeas corpus that the overwhelming power of the government to arrest, prosecute, and imprison someone be wielded in broad daylight.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  Not everyone needs to know for habeas corpus to work. Narrow lamplight can be just as efficacious.
bialpio 4y ago
There's also presumption of innocence so publishing personal info of someone not convicted is akin to doxxing to me. Edit: typos.
- AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
  [dead]
iudqnolq 4y ago
The UK is a good example of a generally* similarly free country without guaranteed public access to arrest records. This balances the potential benefit to the public from knowing against the definite harm to the accused. (*There are definitely significant ways each is less free than the other and there's no rigorous way to say which is worse)
- tqi 4y ago
  I think the person you're replying to is saying that: - If a government arrests someone, it should be forced to acknowledge both that it happened AND give the reason for arrest - Media should have the right to report on arrests, without interference from the government. This protects from abuses of power against for example political opponents. Of course, these same laws make arrests for common crimes problematic for the people being arrested. And I don't think it is feasible to codify an objective line between the two.
  - sowbug 4y ago
    Good point on the media's right to report. Prior restraint is icky except in the most exigent and extreme circumstances.
  - iudqnolq 4y ago
    Yes and I'm presenting a counterexample of a free country where the media does not have the unlimited right to report on arrests.
- sowbug 4y ago
  Yes, it's a balance. I don't want my government hustling people into vans and disappearing, but I don't want minor indiscretions to become media-amplified scarlet letters, either. A reasoned discussion begins with an acknowledgment that the public has a right to monitor its government, and that individuals have a right to privacy. Unfortunately, the USA PATRIOT Act substantially dimmed the sunlight on government law-enforcement activity, and the Dobbs decision severely weakened privacy as an emergent constitutional right. Edit: As I was writing this reply, I came up with an interesting legal theory. The right to publicity is traditionally understood as a celebrity's right to control the commercialization of his or her image. Might we say that the modern attention economy has turned everyone into a potential celebrity, and thus that everyone should be allowed to control the commercial publicity of their persona? This would draw a potentially meaningful line between the public's right to know (which I expect is popular) and the media's right to commercially exploit the salacious details of an accused's crime (which is, sadly, extremely popular; otherwise, it wouldn't be as prevalent as it is today). I'm sure attorneys and legal scholars have already explored this idea.
kstenerud 4y ago
In Germany it's not public, nor are you allowed to publish the name of a person arrested. This is to protect the individual's privacy and shield them from public retribution and prejudice, which I think is a far more enlightened stance. In America, the stigma of an arrest follows you for the rest of your life.
- luckylion 4y ago
  I agree, especially pre-trial. I disagree post-trial. When a judgement has been made "in the name of the people", the people should be able to know the name.
  - Timon3 4y ago
    But forever? Shouldn't a person who does wrong have the option to actually make things right? Should a mistake somebody makes at a young age follow them until their death, even if they have gone through the actual judicial punishment? If there's no way for them to ever "make things right" in the eyes of society, it doesn't leave many choices - which is a big contributor to the high rates of repeat criminals.
    - microtherion 4y ago
      I don't know how other countries handle this, but I learned a few years ago, somewhat to my surprise, that Switzerland has in some cases provided a high profile murderer with a new identity after they served their sentence, precisely so they could go on with their life: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Günther_Tschanun https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Günther_Tschanun
    - luckylion 4y ago
      I don't think you can "make right" a murder. You can be punished for it, but that doesn't absolve you of the deed, and it shouldn't force others to forgive or accept you. Yes, it's a tough deal, but let's be honest here: it's nothing compared to what they do to their victims. And there's really very few cases per decade that will make you a nation-wide celebrity. For the most part, moving 50km away will for all intents and purposes make you "a new man". You can often attain forgiveness by showing regret. Many don't, which is why they aren't forgiven, and aren't happily accepted by society when they get released. Who could blame them? And why should we help them wash away their sins and treat it as a secret? I also don't buy the excuse that recidivism is significantly driven by rejection from society. It's the easy way to explain your behavior when truth and reflection would paint a different picture, but one that's harder to accept: that we're responsible for our deeds, and (yes, with some super specific exceptions) nobody made us do them.
RoyGBivCap 4y ago
Convictions* People get arrested, their name smeared, presumed guilty, and then go to trial and it wasn't them. Lives get ruined over for crimes not committed. IIRC, Israel doesn't publish arrests, just convictions. So it's not a new idea. Florida's "sunshine law" mandates arrests be public record, and it's lead everyone to believe there's more crazy people in Florida than anywhere else, which just isn't true. Sure we shouldn't have black sites where people just get nabbed and disappeared either, but "guilty until proven innocent" is just a fancy idea if your life gets ruined before the trial. Look at what happened to Rittenhouse. Kicked out of his college and then "not guilty on all counts" at trial. It's a miscarriage of justice.

doctoboggan 4y ago

Depends on the track record of the journalist and whether you believe that they did their due diligence and have good sourcing.

aeternum 4y ago

Is the public's failure to understand the meaning of the word alleged a problem with journalism? The police arresting people in secret has historically been .. problematic at best.

olliej 4y ago
There are two issues that compete: 1. Police secretly arrest people and toss them in jail never to be heard of again 2. People are erroneously arrested, there name is publicly attached to a crime through a bunch of reporting, then they're released before trial or found not guilty The first is fairly clear, the 2nd is a problem because being released is generally not news, so google search or whatever forever links the persons name to a crime they didn't do. Then you have a bunch of humanisms: the person the lawyered there way out of the crime, or "they must have been involved otherwise why would they be arrested", etc. So there is a permanent cost to being publicly arrested for something you didn't do even if justice happens and you don't ever see court. That's why you some times see people in the judicial system releasing "this person is absolutely innocent" type press releases.

napierzaza 4y ago

[dead]

microtherion 4y ago

Given how heavily and uncritically the initial theory of a homeless/lower class person as the killer was promoted (not least of all here on HN), I think it made a lot of sense to reveal that the actual suspect now arrested worked in the tech industry and was acquainted with the victim. Beyond that, it's nor clear to me that revealing the actual name or other personal details of the suspect serves a legitimate purpose of advancing justice or society; however, it is not out of keeping with journalistic practice in other criminal cases in California. Suspects' names get printed in newspapers for far lower profile crimes all the time.

bink 4y ago
I can see some benefit in that potential witnesses might be more likely to come forward. If I hear of a terrible crime and it turns out my neighbor was arrested for it I might potentially have some valuable information to contribute. I'm still not sure if it's a good thing though.
simplotek 4y ago
> (...) I think it made a lot of sense to reveal that the actual suspect now arrested (...) Have we learned nothing from Reddit's Boston bomber witch hunt? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Sunil_Tripathi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Sunil_Tripathi
- jamespo 4y ago
  I've learnt that's a poor comparison to this
  - simplotek 4y ago
    Please explain what leads you to believe that doxing suspects, exactly like in the Boston bomber case, is a reasonable idea.
    - dapearce 4y ago
      In this example there is enough evidence the suspect has been arrested by police, which is a public record. Not remotely the same as the Boston bomber reddit-misidentification case.

hindsightbias 4y ago

I’ll go with the perp being rich and white. LinkedIn has already been deleted. No conspiracy needed.

RamblingCTO 4y ago
What? What has the race and the finances have to do with anything? He's not white, he's of Iranian descent I believe. The LinkedIn is still online. Even tho I disagree with doxing someone that might turn out not to be the victim.

hker999 4y ago

It's only because he's a white male. Person of color suspects rarely get doxxed by the media and the story usually disappears the next day.

anigbrowl 4y ago

It's hard to believe that you're not aware the name is published by the police following an arrest, which was almost certainly the subject of a warrant application.