3 ms·
Because 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 ou
by tw04 3y ago
Because 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.
- karaterobot 3y agoThere is probable cause involved in an arrest, though. I think that's an important distinction between doxing and becoming part of the criminal justice system. You can certainly argue that there are problems with the system, but it's not the same as just doxing someone on the internet—not in a legal sense, or in a practical sense. Journalists naming people as part of their work is a third category, and probably the one this falls under. It's dangerous territory, and Krebs stands to lose a lot (i.e. credibility, lawsuits, possible reprisals) by making this allegation if it turns out he didn't do his job right.
- flkiwi 3y agoArguably he also stands to lose a lot if he DID do his job right.
- JCharante 3y agoI know Krebs is very respected in the industry, but it makes me feel uneasy having evidence presented in public outside of a court hearing, a la reddit & the boston bomber.
- tw04 3y agoReddit was actively coordinating going after the wrong person which is an entirely different beast. Krebs is acting as an investigative journalist - he even gave them the opportunity to respond. Your local news stations don't send reporters out to try to talk to local scammers? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZdwwpzvqHA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZdwwpzvqHA
- JCharante 3y agoYou make a valid point and have changed my mind. Investigative journalists do do that. I guess I don't really see Krebs as a journalist so it feels "wrong" to me, but when you put it that way, if it was Anderson Cooper on live TV showing this proof it wouldn't feel "wrong".
- InSteady 3y agoThe implications of closing off public discussion of facts (and opinions/speculation) surrounding nefarious deeds are horrific.