5 ms·

Am I the only one who feels that Brian's tendency to include lots of personal details (of suspects and people he doesn't like) in his articles is weird and cree

Am I the only one who feels that Brian's tendency to include lots of personal details (of suspects and people he doesn't like) in his articles is weird and creepy? His reporting looks more and more like the Daily Mail of cybersecurity. Occasionally very good investigative journalism, yet always aggressively devoid of class.

mardifoufs 2y ago
Yes, not sure what it adds to the articles either. The only thing that it ends up doing is making any miss from his end a much more serious thing, because he basically can't get stuff wrong without more or less defaming someone (which has happened in the past)
ipdashc 2y ago
> Am I the only one Nope, I've heard others mention it before as well. I subscribed to the newsletter at one point and I don't think I've gotten a single useful technical article (which is fair, that's not necessarily his niche), but I have gotten a bunch of emails that just doxx random people.
santoshalper 2y ago
I don't see how you're going to catch people like this without doxxing them. They rely on opsec and misdirection to avoid getting caught. Do you have examples where the information was gratuitous?
- chmod775 2y ago
  I'm specifically speaking of what he chooses to include in his articles.
- simoncion 2y ago
  The following isn't really directed at you, but are more general questions for the folks who are throwing around doxxing claims: When the has-never-been-sealed Federal Grand Jury indictment that the article links to has the fellow's full name and alleged area of operation during the alleged crime, is publishing their full name in your article doxing them? If it isn't, is providing screenshots of their publicly-available Facebook profile photos doxxing? Is providing the presumably-willingly-given-for-publication name of the person's mother who you performed an on-the-record interview for the topic of the article doxxing? Is it doxxing to provide details from previous investigative articles that you've done into folks who use their handles to credibly publicly declare that they've committed noteworthy computer crimes?
dtgriscom 2y ago
Agreed: > The profile photo on Wagenius’ Facebook page was deleted within hours of my Nov. 26 story identifying Kiberphant0m as a likely U.S. Army soldier Translation: "People pay attention to me!"
- dotty- 2y ago
  I don't get that at all. I understand this to point to an attempt at scrubbing information that could lead back to him personally -- but done poorly as Krebs pointed out that other personal photos continued to exist on the Facebook account afterwards.
otterley 2y ago
Perhaps he believes that humiliating criminals and exposing their related actions is a good way to dissuade others from committing such crimes. (We'll never know what he prevented, so it can never be proved.)
- sofixa 2y ago
  > humiliating criminals More widely, the US "justice" system is wild and much more concerned with vengeance than actual justice. What criminals? We have someone who was indicted. The guy might be completely innocent, but his name will forever be plastered around the internet as a "criminal" to be humiliated. In other developed countries, there is a presumption of innocence which also applies publicly. You're kept (pseudo) anonymous until sentencing, to make sure no innocent people get labeled as criminals.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > vengeance than actual justice Retribution (not vengeance) is a legitimate component of justice. Not the only one. But if there is a singular summary of the last decade’s failed attempts at criminal-justice reform, it’s in ignoring the very human need for retribution in resolving injustice. > there is a presumption of innocence which also applies publicly This is never universally applied. Particularly when it comes to crimes of corruption, which this case approaches.
    - sofixa 2y ago
      > This is never universally applied It is in other countries, is my point. In the US, anyone arrested has their mugshot and name plastered for everyone to see, regardless of merit
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > It is in other countries, is my point Give me one example. Where e.g. a public figure or terrorist suspect is kept under wraps until they’re found guilty.
tptacek 2y ago
Could you be more specific about the personal details he's including that you find creepy? Are they things a major newspaper would include? That's Krebs' background.
- chmod775 2y ago
  Pretty much everything. From his name, to his mother name and birthplace, photos of him as a teen, etc. Especially for young people the decent thing to do is to not name them in this kind of reporting. Now not only he, but also is his mother, have to live with this article being the first result when you google either of their names. What did his mother do to deserve this? Should something he (possibly) did as a teen haunt him for the rest of his life, even assuming he is found guilty and served his sentence? It's absolutely disgusting and despicable. > Are they things a major newspaper would include? Yes. If they're the Daily Mail, which is the bottom of the barrel. There's a special place in hell for some of those journalists.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    The position you're taking here is that "young" suspects in crime reporting should be unnamed? If so, what's an example of a newspaper that respects that norm?
    - chmod775 2y ago
      Nearly every news organization in Germany (even for adult suspects and convicts)[1] will rarely publish names, and also many of the more reputable ones in Britain will weigh public interest against privacy as a matter of policy. At least in Scotland it is even illegal to name suspects under 18. You'll find mention of the issue in many journalistic ethics codes, and many newspaper's policies. For a US example from the SPJ's Code of Ethics[2]: > Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness. > Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, [..] > Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information. > Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do. > Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. In the UK, for radio and TV, the Ofcom Broadcasting Code contains similar guidelines in less straightforward language. [1] https://www.presserat.de/pressekodex.html#ziffer08 https://www.presserat.de/pressekodex.html#ziffer08 [2] https://www.spj.org/spj-code-of-ethics/ https://www.spj.org/spj-code-of-ethics/
WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
> tendency to include lots of personal details (of suspects and people he doesn't like) in his articles is weird and creepy? I think it's weird and creepy when LEO eagerly distribute suspects' personal details (via PR, website, etc). Which they seem to do at every possibility - even if doing so doesn't advance community safety in a demonstrable way. Journalists, however, have a duty to honor their extra 1A protections by holding the powerful to account. I believe a default position of including identities in a story helps insure that the powerful are known when they behave badly. It's an imperfect default but I think it's better than every alternative.
blueflow 2y ago
How many days have passed since he last doxxed the wrong person by accident?
raffraffraff 2y ago
Yep. Fuck them.

mardifoufs 2y ago

Yes, not sure what it adds to the articles either. The only thing that it ends up doing is making any miss from his end a much more serious thing, because he basically can't get stuff wrong without more or less defaming someone (which has happened in the past)

ipdashc 2y ago

> Am I the only one Nope, I've heard others mention it before as well. I subscribed to the newsletter at one point and I don't think I've gotten a single useful technical article (which is fair, that's not necessarily his niche), but I have gotten a bunch of emails that just doxx random people.

santoshalper 2y ago

I don't see how you're going to catch people like this without doxxing them. They rely on opsec and misdirection to avoid getting caught. Do you have examples where the information was gratuitous?

chmod775 2y ago
I'm specifically speaking of what he chooses to include in his articles.
simoncion 2y ago
The following isn't really directed at you, but are more general questions for the folks who are throwing around doxxing claims: When the has-never-been-sealed Federal Grand Jury indictment that the article links to has the fellow's full name and alleged area of operation during the alleged crime, is publishing their full name in your article doxing them? If it isn't, is providing screenshots of their publicly-available Facebook profile photos doxxing? Is providing the presumably-willingly-given-for-publication name of the person's mother who you performed an on-the-record interview for the topic of the article doxxing? Is it doxxing to provide details from previous investigative articles that you've done into folks who use their handles to credibly publicly declare that they've committed noteworthy computer crimes?

dtgriscom 2y ago

Agreed: > The profile photo on Wagenius’ Facebook page was deleted within hours of my Nov. 26 story identifying Kiberphant0m as a likely U.S. Army soldier Translation: "People pay attention to me!"

dotty- 2y ago
I don't get that at all. I understand this to point to an attempt at scrubbing information that could lead back to him personally -- but done poorly as Krebs pointed out that other personal photos continued to exist on the Facebook account afterwards.

otterley 2y ago

Perhaps he believes that humiliating criminals and exposing their related actions is a good way to dissuade others from committing such crimes. (We'll never know what he prevented, so it can never be proved.)

sofixa 2y ago
> humiliating criminals More widely, the US "justice" system is wild and much more concerned with vengeance than actual justice. What criminals? We have someone who was indicted. The guy might be completely innocent, but his name will forever be plastered around the internet as a "criminal" to be humiliated. In other developed countries, there is a presumption of innocence which also applies publicly. You're kept (pseudo) anonymous until sentencing, to make sure no innocent people get labeled as criminals.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > vengeance than actual justice Retribution (not vengeance) is a legitimate component of justice. Not the only one. But if there is a singular summary of the last decade’s failed attempts at criminal-justice reform, it’s in ignoring the very human need for retribution in resolving injustice. > there is a presumption of innocence which also applies publicly This is never universally applied. Particularly when it comes to crimes of corruption, which this case approaches.
  - sofixa 2y ago
    > This is never universally applied It is in other countries, is my point. In the US, anyone arrested has their mugshot and name plastered for everyone to see, regardless of merit
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > It is in other countries, is my point Give me one example. Where e.g. a public figure or terrorist suspect is kept under wraps until they’re found guilty.

tptacek 2y ago

Could you be more specific about the personal details he's including that you find creepy? Are they things a major newspaper would include? That's Krebs' background.

chmod775 2y ago
Pretty much everything. From his name, to his mother name and birthplace, photos of him as a teen, etc. Especially for young people the decent thing to do is to not name them in this kind of reporting. Now not only he, but also is his mother, have to live with this article being the first result when you google either of their names. What did his mother do to deserve this? Should something he (possibly) did as a teen haunt him for the rest of his life, even assuming he is found guilty and served his sentence? It's absolutely disgusting and despicable. > Are they things a major newspaper would include? Yes. If they're the Daily Mail, which is the bottom of the barrel. There's a special place in hell for some of those journalists.
- tptacek 2y ago
  The position you're taking here is that "young" suspects in crime reporting should be unnamed? If so, what's an example of a newspaper that respects that norm?
  - chmod775 2y ago
    Nearly every news organization in Germany (even for adult suspects and convicts)[1] will rarely publish names, and also many of the more reputable ones in Britain will weigh public interest against privacy as a matter of policy. At least in Scotland it is even illegal to name suspects under 18. You'll find mention of the issue in many journalistic ethics codes, and many newspaper's policies. For a US example from the SPJ's Code of Ethics[2]: > Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness. > Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, [..] > Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information. > Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do. > Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. In the UK, for radio and TV, the Ofcom Broadcasting Code contains similar guidelines in less straightforward language. [1] https://www.presserat.de/pressekodex.html#ziffer08 https://www.presserat.de/pressekodex.html#ziffer08 [2] https://www.spj.org/spj-code-of-ethics/ https://www.spj.org/spj-code-of-ethics/

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago

> tendency to include lots of personal details (of suspects and people he doesn't like) in his articles is weird and creepy? I think it's weird and creepy when LEO eagerly distribute suspects' personal details (via PR, website, etc). Which they seem to do at every possibility - even if doing so doesn't advance community safety in a demonstrable way. Journalists, however, have a duty to honor their extra 1A protections by holding the powerful to account. I believe a default position of including identities in a story helps insure that the powerful are known when they behave badly. It's an imperfect default but I think it's better than every alternative.

blueflow 2y ago

How many days have passed since he last doxxed the wrong person by accident?

raffraffraff 2y ago

Yep. Fuck them.