7 ms·

Does the concept of privacy mean anything to Newsweek?

r4pha 13y ago
As much as I don't like this - at the very least - ridiculously unethical article, I'm pretty sure a lot of papers would be dying to publish this piece.
- bruceb 13y ago
  How is it unethical? The guy created a currency that is used around the world and is a mystery.
  - r4pha 13y ago
    It's just my personal opinion. If someone is clearly trying to remain undisturbed, I find it very disrespectful to distribute pictures of their face and home without their consent.
uptown 13y ago
I see it as good investigative journalism. You don't think the single person that potentially originated a new form of global currency that's dominating headlines, and receiving the attention of world leaders is newsworthy? I'm a firm believer in privacy - but when something one has put into the world stands to have a massively disruptive force, it's worth exploring who that person is, and what their motivations are.
- dagw 13y ago
  And they could have done all of that without revealing his identity.
  - girvo 13y ago
    His identity was revealed the moment he put his actual full name to the paper though :/ I would has sympathy if he actually did use a pseudonym, but assuming this is true then what did he really expect would happen?
    - dagw 13y ago
      I personally think they could have written a pretty good story without putting full name in the paper.
    - john_b 13y ago
      I agree that it's harder to have sympathy for him as a result. However, nobody deserves to have their rights violated* because they made a simple mistake. If you forget to lock your house or car, you don't deserve to have it broken into. If you drop your wallet for a moment, you don't deserve to have it stolen. *If you don't believe in a right to privacy, substitute "be harassed by strangers" or "have their and their family's safety compromised". Even outside a framework of rights, some things remain inappropriate and wrong.
- hengheng 13y ago
  Investigative journalism has its place whenever there is information to be revealed. This story is the skeleton of that. All the investigations were done very smartly, but they didn't reveal anything relevant. I'd say the journalist doxed him out of spite.
  - commandar 13y ago
    >Investigative journalism has its place whenever there is information to be revealed. This story is the skeleton of that. All the investigations were done very smartly, but they didn't reveal anything relevant. Disagree. The mere fact that Satoshi Nakamoto is, in fact, Satoshi Nakamoto is relevant in itself. We had no idea who this guy was, and I've seen countless articles on HN speculating about it. At least having an idea of who we're talking about ends all the speculation and attribution to people that are not Satoshi, which has been happening for years.
- rzt 13y ago
  Absolutely agree. Bitcoin is one of the hottest news stories right now. People want to know more about Bitcoin. A big question about Bitcoin is "who created Bitcoin?" Newsweek answered that question. This is journalism 101. Many of you disagree with this premise –– and I sympathize and understand why you're upset –– but this is how the system operates.
- bri3d 13y ago
  Right, but the journalist could have found him and written an article about his background and motivation without putting a picture of his license plates, home, face, and location in a prominent article, all of this after harassing him to the point that he felt it necessary to call the police. That's just dumb. This brings up an interesting question, too - does writing a prominent piece of software qualify you as a "public figure" and allow the paparazzi to chase you everywhere and stalk your acquaintances and family?
- john_b 13y ago
  How far would you take this? If such a person hid their identity better than Nakamoto and refused all contact (even contact initiated under a false pretense, as in the article), would it be justified to break into their house to learn about them? To follow them to and from work? I'm not trying to be provocative, simply illustrating that the needs of the many (voyeuristic curiosity) do not necessarily outweigh the needs of the few (personal privacy and safety).

r4pha 13y ago

As much as I don't like this - at the very least - ridiculously unethical article, I'm pretty sure a lot of papers would be dying to publish this piece.

bruceb 13y ago
How is it unethical? The guy created a currency that is used around the world and is a mystery.
- r4pha 13y ago
  It's just my personal opinion. If someone is clearly trying to remain undisturbed, I find it very disrespectful to distribute pictures of their face and home without their consent.

uptown 13y ago

I see it as good investigative journalism. You don't think the single person that potentially originated a new form of global currency that's dominating headlines, and receiving the attention of world leaders is newsworthy? I'm a firm believer in privacy - but when something one has put into the world stands to have a massively disruptive force, it's worth exploring who that person is, and what their motivations are.

dagw 13y ago
And they could have done all of that without revealing his identity.
- girvo 13y ago
  His identity was revealed the moment he put his actual full name to the paper though :/ I would has sympathy if he actually did use a pseudonym, but assuming this is true then what did he really expect would happen?
  - dagw 13y ago
    I personally think they could have written a pretty good story without putting full name in the paper.
  - john_b 13y ago
    I agree that it's harder to have sympathy for him as a result. However, nobody deserves to have their rights violated* because they made a simple mistake. If you forget to lock your house or car, you don't deserve to have it broken into. If you drop your wallet for a moment, you don't deserve to have it stolen. *If you don't believe in a right to privacy, substitute "be harassed by strangers" or "have their and their family's safety compromised". Even outside a framework of rights, some things remain inappropriate and wrong.
hengheng 13y ago
Investigative journalism has its place whenever there is information to be revealed. This story is the skeleton of that. All the investigations were done very smartly, but they didn't reveal anything relevant. I'd say the journalist doxed him out of spite.
- commandar 13y ago
  >Investigative journalism has its place whenever there is information to be revealed. This story is the skeleton of that. All the investigations were done very smartly, but they didn't reveal anything relevant. Disagree. The mere fact that Satoshi Nakamoto is, in fact, Satoshi Nakamoto is relevant in itself. We had no idea who this guy was, and I've seen countless articles on HN speculating about it. At least having an idea of who we're talking about ends all the speculation and attribution to people that are not Satoshi, which has been happening for years.
rzt 13y ago
Absolutely agree. Bitcoin is one of the hottest news stories right now. People want to know more about Bitcoin. A big question about Bitcoin is "who created Bitcoin?" Newsweek answered that question. This is journalism 101. Many of you disagree with this premise –– and I sympathize and understand why you're upset –– but this is how the system operates.
bri3d 13y ago
Right, but the journalist could have found him and written an article about his background and motivation without putting a picture of his license plates, home, face, and location in a prominent article, all of this after harassing him to the point that he felt it necessary to call the police. That's just dumb. This brings up an interesting question, too - does writing a prominent piece of software qualify you as a "public figure" and allow the paparazzi to chase you everywhere and stalk your acquaintances and family?
john_b 13y ago
How far would you take this? If such a person hid their identity better than Nakamoto and refused all contact (even contact initiated under a false pretense, as in the article), would it be justified to break into their house to learn about them? To follow them to and from work? I'm not trying to be provocative, simply illustrating that the needs of the many (voyeuristic curiosity) do not necessarily outweigh the needs of the few (personal privacy and safety).