3 ms·

I happen to know this guy. He has an extremely bad reputation in the furry community for doxing people and bringing up old criminal records to publicly shame an

I happen to know this guy. He has an extremely bad reputation in the furry community for doxing people and bringing up old criminal records to publicly shame and cancel people. He actively tries to hurt people. He’s about as far from an ethical hacker as you can be. He’s on a crusade. Now that doesn’t mean this should be illegal but I’m not on his side.

someguydave 2y ago
It could be that there are assholes on four sides here (blackhat guys, city, whitehat guy, journalists)
- ta988 2y ago
  It is often the case yes... Which is why picking sides without beeing involved is often a mistake.
Spivak 2y ago
This is a bit "what were you doing at the devil's sacrament" but I digress it's not that important. You should be able to be the worst person in the world and not hung for it. There's no reason to not be on his side, it doesn't mean you endorse him. The other side is an embarrassed government throwing their weight around to hang him for what isn't and shouldn't be a crime.
- tourmalinetaco 2y ago
  > You should be able to be the worst person in the world and not hung for it. Do you just believe that someone should be allowed to do anything they want and not face repercussions?
  - kbelder 2y ago
    Well, they should be able to do anything they want that's legal without facing legal repercussions.
    - tourmalinetaco 2y ago
      He’s facing civil repercussions. He, as a worker of the city, disseminated information to the press that reveals undercover police reports, witness names and testimonies, and various other sensitive information. That may not be illegal, but if he broke a contract or other agreement then it’s expected that he faces repercussions. The city may be in the wrong for downplaying the severity, but he’s in the wrong for directly handing over the hacked information he has to journalists.
      - axus 2y ago
        Did the journalists publish or share the details that could harm witnesses or investigations? Our default assumption is that journalists keep these kind of details confidential and secure from spreading... more than the city did. I think they city would need to actually believe witnesses or investigations were actually harmed, and I don't mean picking whatever belief is most convenient for them. Maybe they do believe it. If they can prove it, they should win their suit.
  - Spivak 2y ago
    No, I'm saying your rights aren't conditional on whether or not you're an asshole.
    - tourmalinetaco 2y ago
      They are, though, considering how poorly we treat non-violent felons. That’s beside the point though, because his legal rights are not being infringed. Being sued and being charged are completely different. One is civil, the other is criminal.
      - sbuttgereit 2y ago
        Civil asset forfeiture is not criminal, but civil, and the legal matter is against the property, not the property owner. Still, I would argue that the property owner's rights are often violated is such actions.
        late2part 2y ago
        "against the property" You probably think identity theft is a customer's problem, not the bank too. Just because the narrative calls it something, doesn't make it right. It's silly for a nation-state to sue cash, it should never have been considered reasonable.
        sbuttgereit 2y ago
        >You probably think identity theft is a customer's problem, not the bank too. Huh? I'm relaying what the law considers civil asset forfeiture to be. It's not my opinion and it is not a "narrative". In fact, here's some commentary addressing the issue I raised. "Technically, civil asset forfeiture involves a government lawsuit against the personal property itself or, in legal terms, `in rem`. As strange as it may seem, the inanimate property, whether a yacht or a bag of cash, is the defendant in such a proceeding." --- (https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/what-is-civil-asset-forfeiture.html https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/what-is-civ...) If you don't believe that, maybe you'd believe the Justice Department on issue: "Civil Judicial Forfeiture: In rem (against the property) court proceeding brought against property that was derived from or used to commit an offense, rather than against a person who committed an offense." --- (https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-forfeiture https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-forfeiture) What you ignored is the only opinion I expressed and the context of that expression: "Still, I would argue that the property owner's rights are often violated is such actions." How does this square with anything about identify theft responsibility? > It's silly for a nation-state to sue cash, it should never have been considered reasonable. Actually, the historical origin of civil asset forfeiture has some rational basis, though, as with most sensible legal moves, gets corrupted by those willing to exploit the letter of the law in spite of its spirit. Nonetheless, unless there's something I'm missing I don't find your retort particularly coherent. I urge you to reread the original comment to which I replied and my reply and try again.
  - yimmothathird 2y ago
    Only if that person is me
- foundry27 2y ago
  It's easy to downvote and move on, but I don’t think that does justice to the valid underlying concerns this parent comment raises. I don’t agree with the idea that there’s “no reason” to question the guy’s actions - because his methods do raise serious ethical and safety concerns - but I think it’s right to caution against kneejerk reactions that might lead to government overreach. We should be wary of how power can be used to silence people, even if those people did shitty things in the past or are controversial figures. Ignoring the underlying point being made won't make it go away, and won’t help educate any of our peers who might take some of this stuff at face value.
  - andrewflnr 2y ago
    My recommended remedy is to write your own sibling comment that makes the same point in a less downvotable way. Most of us are against government overreach, but we're against logical overreach too, and the GP comment did a lot of that. Just not very well argued on a very sensitive topic.
- kayodelycaon 2y ago
  Law isn't black and white. Motives do matter in the US legal system. For an extreme example, murder requires intent. Most computer crimes also fall into this. In this case he crossed the line a professional security researcher would not have by showing the data to a third party.
summermusic 2y ago
> Goodwolf is the name he uses for interviews and is not his legal name. I read this and immediately suspected that he is a furry
tourmalinetaco 2y ago
[flagged]
- kayodelycaon 2y ago
  He tends to treat his current project like a crusade.
superkuh 2y ago
Do you though? I could say the same about kayodelcaon, but it'd be against HN rules just like your unsupported character attack that addresses none of the legal claims against him is. The facts of it are that he did not do the hacking and did not make the information information online. He's just mirroring the easily available information because the city was lying about it. That's journalism. If the city wants to sue someone they should look internally and at the initial hackers/posters of the information in public.
- kayodelycaon 2y ago
  Take a look yourself at what others have said. Go to en.wikifur.com and look at the Connor_Goodwolf page. That doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. Even if you think some of his causes are good, he does not do his due diligence and does not care if he's wrong. My personal experience is from my own conversations with him and conversations with people in Cincinnati, Dayton, and Columbus.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
lupusreal 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- kayodelycaon 2y ago
  Those aren't the only criminal records he brings up. I also said: > Even if you think some of his causes are good, he does not do his due diligence and does not care if he's wrong. If you can't see what I'm talking about, read the whole list of everything he's done, read the article above, and try to understand the person. It is him, his methods, and the innocent people he has harmed that are controversial, not the things he stands against.

someguydave 2y ago

It could be that there are assholes on four sides here (blackhat guys, city, whitehat guy, journalists)

ta988 2y ago
It is often the case yes... Which is why picking sides without beeing involved is often a mistake.

Spivak 2y ago

This is a bit "what were you doing at the devil's sacrament" but I digress it's not that important. You should be able to be the worst person in the world and not hung for it. There's no reason to not be on his side, it doesn't mean you endorse him. The other side is an embarrassed government throwing their weight around to hang him for what isn't and shouldn't be a crime.

tourmalinetaco 2y ago
> You should be able to be the worst person in the world and not hung for it. Do you just believe that someone should be allowed to do anything they want and not face repercussions?
- kbelder 2y ago
  Well, they should be able to do anything they want that's legal without facing legal repercussions.
  - tourmalinetaco 2y ago
    He’s facing civil repercussions. He, as a worker of the city, disseminated information to the press that reveals undercover police reports, witness names and testimonies, and various other sensitive information. That may not be illegal, but if he broke a contract or other agreement then it’s expected that he faces repercussions. The city may be in the wrong for downplaying the severity, but he’s in the wrong for directly handing over the hacked information he has to journalists.
    - axus 2y ago
      Did the journalists publish or share the details that could harm witnesses or investigations? Our default assumption is that journalists keep these kind of details confidential and secure from spreading... more than the city did. I think they city would need to actually believe witnesses or investigations were actually harmed, and I don't mean picking whatever belief is most convenient for them. Maybe they do believe it. If they can prove it, they should win their suit.
- Spivak 2y ago
  No, I'm saying your rights aren't conditional on whether or not you're an asshole.
  - tourmalinetaco 2y ago
    They are, though, considering how poorly we treat non-violent felons. That’s beside the point though, because his legal rights are not being infringed. Being sued and being charged are completely different. One is civil, the other is criminal.
    - sbuttgereit 2y ago
      Civil asset forfeiture is not criminal, but civil, and the legal matter is against the property, not the property owner. Still, I would argue that the property owner's rights are often violated is such actions.
      - late2part 2y ago
        "against the property" You probably think identity theft is a customer's problem, not the bank too. Just because the narrative calls it something, doesn't make it right. It's silly for a nation-state to sue cash, it should never have been considered reasonable.
        sbuttgereit 2y ago
        >You probably think identity theft is a customer's problem, not the bank too. Huh? I'm relaying what the law considers civil asset forfeiture to be. It's not my opinion and it is not a "narrative". In fact, here's some commentary addressing the issue I raised. "Technically, civil asset forfeiture involves a government lawsuit against the personal property itself or, in legal terms, `in rem`. As strange as it may seem, the inanimate property, whether a yacht or a bag of cash, is the defendant in such a proceeding." --- (https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/what-is-civil-asset-forfeiture.html https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/what-is-civ...) If you don't believe that, maybe you'd believe the Justice Department on issue: "Civil Judicial Forfeiture: In rem (against the property) court proceeding brought against property that was derived from or used to commit an offense, rather than against a person who committed an offense." --- (https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-forfeiture https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-forfeiture) What you ignored is the only opinion I expressed and the context of that expression: "Still, I would argue that the property owner's rights are often violated is such actions." How does this square with anything about identify theft responsibility? > It's silly for a nation-state to sue cash, it should never have been considered reasonable. Actually, the historical origin of civil asset forfeiture has some rational basis, though, as with most sensible legal moves, gets corrupted by those willing to exploit the letter of the law in spite of its spirit. Nonetheless, unless there's something I'm missing I don't find your retort particularly coherent. I urge you to reread the original comment to which I replied and my reply and try again.
- yimmothathird 2y ago
  Only if that person is me
foundry27 2y ago
It's easy to downvote and move on, but I don’t think that does justice to the valid underlying concerns this parent comment raises. I don’t agree with the idea that there’s “no reason” to question the guy’s actions - because his methods do raise serious ethical and safety concerns - but I think it’s right to caution against kneejerk reactions that might lead to government overreach. We should be wary of how power can be used to silence people, even if those people did shitty things in the past or are controversial figures. Ignoring the underlying point being made won't make it go away, and won’t help educate any of our peers who might take some of this stuff at face value.
- andrewflnr 2y ago
  My recommended remedy is to write your own sibling comment that makes the same point in a less downvotable way. Most of us are against government overreach, but we're against logical overreach too, and the GP comment did a lot of that. Just not very well argued on a very sensitive topic.
kayodelycaon 2y ago
Law isn't black and white. Motives do matter in the US legal system. For an extreme example, murder requires intent. Most computer crimes also fall into this. In this case he crossed the line a professional security researcher would not have by showing the data to a third party.

summermusic 2y ago

> Goodwolf is the name he uses for interviews and is not his legal name. I read this and immediately suspected that he is a furry

tourmalinetaco 2y ago

[flagged]

kayodelycaon 2y ago
He tends to treat his current project like a crusade.

superkuh 2y ago

Do you though? I could say the same about kayodelcaon, but it'd be against HN rules just like your unsupported character attack that addresses none of the legal claims against him is. The facts of it are that he did not do the hacking and did not make the information information online. He's just mirroring the easily available information because the city was lying about it. That's journalism. If the city wants to sue someone they should look internally and at the initial hackers/posters of the information in public.

kayodelycaon 2y ago
Take a look yourself at what others have said. Go to en.wikifur.com and look at the Connor_Goodwolf page. That doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. Even if you think some of his causes are good, he does not do his due diligence and does not care if he's wrong. My personal experience is from my own conversations with him and conversations with people in Cincinnati, Dayton, and Columbus.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

lupusreal 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kayodelycaon 2y ago
Those aren't the only criminal records he brings up. I also said: > Even if you think some of his causes are good, he does not do his due diligence and does not care if he's wrong. If you can't see what I'm talking about, read the whole list of everything he's done, read the article above, and try to understand the person. It is him, his methods, and the innocent people he has harmed that are controversial, not the things he stands against.