5 ms·
How is this post different from a d0x?
by blueflow 3y ago
How is this post different from a d0x?
- ceejayoz 3y agoWhat's wrong with doxxing this person?
- blueflow 3y agoMaybe because doxxing is extrajudicial? What if Krebs was really unlucky and got the wrong person? Can't we at least wait for a conviction before trying to ruin some persons life?
- voxic11 3y agoKrebs is legally liable for what they publish, so if they are incorrect and it costs this person then they can sue for defamation and recover their losses from Krebs. This is how we hold people responsible for what they publish while avoiding prior restraints on speech.
- Sanzig 3y agoExactly. Krebs isn't an anonymous troll on 4chan, he's a well-respected computer security journalist publishing under his own name. If he got it wrong, he'd be facing a lawsuit. He's also incentivized to retract and apologize in that case to preserve his credibility as a journalist. Very different story than an unaccountable anonymous troll with a grudge on Twitter/Reddit/4chan.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- krisoft 3y ago> Can't we at least wait for a conviction before trying to ruin some persons life? Do you see that is likely to ever happen?
- forgetfreeman 3y agoIf you can't get a conviction you don't have the right to ruin a life. Any deviation from this principle leads to mob rule.
- krisoft 3y ago> If you can't get a conviction Just so we are on the same page. Here we "can't get a conviction" because the person resides in a country which doesn't care about the crime he committed. Not because the evidence does not pass the required evidentiary level. > don't have the right to ruin a life. Please explain to him how a life is ruined here? > Any deviation from this principle leads to mob rule. Where a mob is a single high profile individual with his reputation on the line, and this singular "mob" performed a through analysis and provides the full reasoning how he come to the conclusion. This "mob" rule does not look like the ones I usually hear about.
- forgetfreeman 3y agoWake me when there's some combination of Judge and jury. Without these things all you're offering is post facto rationalization.
- pixl97 3y agoSo your official policy is to ban the fourth estate?
- forgetfreeman 3y agoLast time I checked there were pretty strict laws governing what accusations the press can make and some fairly eyewatering financial consequences waiting when they overstep.
- pixl97 3y agoSo you approve what Krebs is doing then, since he is not anonymous and identifiable to be sued for libel?
- ceejayoz 3y ago> Maybe because doxxing is extrajudicial? Most things in life are, thankfully.
- blueflow 3y agoYou would think differently if Krebs was writing about you.
- ceejayoz 3y agoSure, just like I think differently if I win the lottery versus losing it. That doesn't make it illegal for me to lose the lottery. I don't want to become the subject of a New York Times expose, either, but that's no reason to ban journalism.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Mechanical9 3y agoI disagree. Courts aren't the only places where decisions can be made. In fact, courts rely in information found and published in reports like this to make their decisions. I feel I have a right to make my decisions based on such information also. That doesn't mean the publisher shouldn't have liability here also. They are damaging someone's reputation, and should be held responsible if the claims are untrue. But if the claims are true, then the damaged reputation is warranted. That's one of the consequences of doing something bad. You only have a right to have a good reputation if you don't do anything bad.
- miohtama 3y agoThey can show up in the US court and file a lawsuit. It’s realpolitik. It’s ok for Russians to steal from Americans, and likewise it’s ok for Americans to dox Russian criminals. There is no international law here, and even if there is it cannot be enforced and no one cares about. There might some moral high ground, but morals usually stay away from politics.
- biosed 3y agoSeems its okay if they are a "bad" person
- forgetfreeman 3y agoUntil someone decides you're a bad person.
- pixl97 3y agoWhat is libel? Ask Fox News that one, I hear they are a little over 700 million short from that stunt.
- borski 3y agoIt isn’t. It literally is doxing. It’s just that most people don’t feel a need to protect criminals.
- tw04 3y agoBecause the person(s) in question are participating in illegal activities and lost their right to privacy? The same reason why it’s considered acceptable to out the folks that participated in the watergate scandal, but not ok to out a confidential informant.
- forgetfreeman 3y agoLoss of right to privacy generally comes after a conviction.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ceejayoz 3y agoNo? You mug shot often goes up on the internet at the time of arrest. Allegations against you are generally public leading up to the trial. The proceedings are public, and may be televised. Even if not charged with a crime, if you do something shitty-but-legal and someone gets a video of it, you're not going to get control over that viral video.
- alistairSH 3y agoIn much of the US, as soon as you're arrested, you're mug shot shows up in the local newspaper with the crime you are alleged to have committed. And even if you luck out and don't get "doxed" as part of the arrest, you will be outed as soon as your formally charged. So, no, at least in the US, privacy is not retained until conviction.
- forgetfreeman 3y agoK. And what legal apparatus was involved with assembling and publicizing the accusations arrayed against this individual?
- tw04 3y ago>Loss of right to privacy generally comes after a conviction. Not in the US. I can pull out my local newspaper right now and see a list of everyone who was arrested last week; long before they will be convicted of anything if they're convicted at all. For a lot of them they probably won't even be accused of anything because the other party won't press charges.
- Sanzig 3y agoThere is a difference between doxxing and investigative journalism. While the line can be fuzzy, I generally associate doxxing with an attempt to harass or intimidate, and investigative journalism with unveiling hidden information in a matter relevant to the public interest - and that information often includes concealed identities of suspected perpetrators. Krebs doing his homework to reveal ringleaders of a criminal enterprise and showing how he got there is firmly in the "investigative journalism" category. Obviously, there are unfortunate cases where some (often young and inexperienced) journalists shoot first and ask questions later, which can lead to harm, but Krebs has clearly kept the receipts here.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- blueflow 3y ago> has kept the receipts here Previously: https://itwire.com/business-it-news/security/infosec-researchers-slam-ex-wapo-man-krebs-over-doxxing.html https://itwire.com/business-it-news/security/infosec-researc... Also the coinhive situation where he doxxed imageboard admins due to the coinhive connection of the previous owner.
- deutschepost 3y agoIt’s not. Krebs has a history with this. Funny story. In German „Krebs“ means cancer. And when he revealed the names and Adresses of Admins of a German Imageboard, the community started a fundraiser for cancer treatment named „Krebs ist scheiße“ or in English „cancer sucks“
- aswegs8 3y agoI would even go so far and call the German Imageboard a "Krebsfeindliche Spendencommunity"
- DeepSeaTortoise 3y agoLet me introduce you to the "Europäischer Plan zur Krebsbekämpfung"
- denton-scratch 3y ago> Funny story. In German „Krebs“ means cancer. It also means plain old "crab".
- dajoh 3y agoWhy do people care so much about doxxing these days? In most places, doxxing is not illegal. In the places where it is illegal it's usually only when there's stalking/harassment intent behind it. Doesn't appear to be against the HN rules either.
- staticman2 3y agoWhy is it on Hacker news when a "Twitter" topic comes up we get a bunch of people pontificating as "free speech maximalists" but when a journalism topic comes up people can call journalism "doxxing" without the "free speech maximalists" making an appearence and scolding them on the evils of censorship?
- pjc50 3y agoNote which topics the free speech maximalists do and do not defend.
- blueflow 3y agoI think this is a strawman. Twitter is not attacked for prohibiting doxxes, right?
- staticman2 3y agoI would have thought a "free speech maximalists" would have a lot to say about every free speech topic, since they are apparently so passionate about free speech. Is using the neologism "doxxing", a term with a negative connotion, to describe journalism in line with their "maximalist" committment to free speech, for example? Is this conversation about a journalist not an opportunity to remind us Voltaire said “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
- pixl97 3y agoTINSTAAFSM At the end of the day "maximal" isn't near as far in the max directory as people reading the statement expect.
- ogurechny 3y agoThis is not about what is allowed and what is prohibited. It is about how we call the thing.