4 ms·

No, you didn’t understand me. A. You have to put in the work and actually find stuff out. That’s what journalists do. B. You have to report on something relev

by arrrg 13y ago

No, you didn’t understand me. A. You have to put in the work and actually find stuff out. That’s what journalists do. B. You have to report on something relevant and interesting to the public. Some random person who didn’t do anything of any note is not relevant. Publishing identifying information on them is unethical. Publishing identifying information on someone hugely influential is very much ethical.

howeyc 13y ago
Who decides what is "anything of note" or who is considered "highly influential"
- buttsex 13y ago
  Society? People have always wanted to know who Nakamoto was in real life and would consider creating Bitcoin something of note. Any news story about Bitcoin in the past couple years have included something about the mystique of Nakamoto.
- mbillie1 13y ago
  The number of page hits the article gets? Come on - Bitcoin is news, and it's been made news by people like us. Don't be too surprised or appalled when the general media tries to latch on to the publicity train.
MSM 13y ago
> Publishing identifying information on someone hugely influential is very much ethical. How can you even say that? It's easy to say that if (assumption) you haven't done anything "hugely influential", but I think the feeling would be different if this article was about you. It's plain disrespectful. The guy obviously wants to be left alone or he wouldn't have stopped emailing, stopped answering the phone or called police when the reporter showed up.
weavejester 13y ago
So if someone does something of note, they give up their right to privacy, even if that could compromise their own safety?
- mpyne 13y ago
  That's basically what keeps the paparazzi in business, yes. There's a reason the First Amendment rights were listed first, as well, which is the same reason the Guardian has been doing much of their Snowden coverage out of their New York office; press freedom is a big deal, even when that's inconvenient for you...
  - weavejester 13y ago
    Since we're talking ethics, rather than legality, do you believe it's ethically sound to post someone's personal details, and then make (possibly false) claims about them that may compromise their safety?
    - mpyne 13y ago
      > Since we're talking ethics, rather than legality, do you believe it's ethically sound to post someone's personal details, and then make (possibly false) claims about them that may compromise their safety? I don't think it's ethically sound to post his address, license plate information, city, etc. Especially since it leads to crazy media car chases and other sorts of paparazzi-style insanity that I wouldn't wish on anyone, let alone a guy who just wants to be left alone. I'm also partial to arguments based on safety. It was one of the many reasons I was opposed to what Bradley Manning did, for instance. However the risk to those affected by Manning was much larger than the risk to Dorian, and in any event I can't remember many people on HN saying before not to post stories about rich people since the unwashed thugs might stick a shiv in them and rob them.
      - weavejester 13y ago
        Thanks for your honest answer. I'm of the opinion that it's legal (first amendment, etc), but rather unethical, especially since the evidence isn't conclusive. Regarding safety, currency stored in banks tends to be less susceptible to theft via coercion. If someone breaks into a house, holds a person at gunpoint, and demands their bank details, they probably won't be able to successfully transfer a few million dollars out without triggering some internal check. On the other hand, you could easily do that with bitcoins, assuming that the private key hasn't been locked up in a vault, or the transaction secured with multiple keys. I still feel it's an unlikely scenario, but it seems that claiming someone has $400 million in untraceable digital currency is going to impact their safety more than claiming they have $400 million in a bank, or in shares.
droopybuns 13y ago
I'm sorry, but the journalists I have met do not do A. They conceive of a narrative and find totems that can support their position. You are espousing ideals that are taught in school, but rarely achieved in the real world. That whole theme of unethical in B happens most of the time.
- milesskorpen 13y ago
  ... but they clearly did A in this case. That's why we're having this conversation.

by arrrg 13y ago

howeyc 13y ago

Who decides what is "anything of note" or who is considered "highly influential"

buttsex 13y ago
Society? People have always wanted to know who Nakamoto was in real life and would consider creating Bitcoin something of note. Any news story about Bitcoin in the past couple years have included something about the mystique of Nakamoto.
mbillie1 13y ago
The number of page hits the article gets? Come on - Bitcoin is news, and it's been made news by people like us. Don't be too surprised or appalled when the general media tries to latch on to the publicity train.

MSM 13y ago

> Publishing identifying information on someone hugely influential is very much ethical. How can you even say that? It's easy to say that if (assumption) you haven't done anything "hugely influential", but I think the feeling would be different if this article was about you. It's plain disrespectful. The guy obviously wants to be left alone or he wouldn't have stopped emailing, stopped answering the phone or called police when the reporter showed up.

weavejester 13y ago

So if someone does something of note, they give up their right to privacy, even if that could compromise their own safety?

mpyne 13y ago
That's basically what keeps the paparazzi in business, yes. There's a reason the First Amendment rights were listed first, as well, which is the same reason the Guardian has been doing much of their Snowden coverage out of their New York office; press freedom is a big deal, even when that's inconvenient for you...
- weavejester 13y ago
  Since we're talking ethics, rather than legality, do you believe it's ethically sound to post someone's personal details, and then make (possibly false) claims about them that may compromise their safety?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > Since we're talking ethics, rather than legality, do you believe it's ethically sound to post someone's personal details, and then make (possibly false) claims about them that may compromise their safety? I don't think it's ethically sound to post his address, license plate information, city, etc. Especially since it leads to crazy media car chases and other sorts of paparazzi-style insanity that I wouldn't wish on anyone, let alone a guy who just wants to be left alone. I'm also partial to arguments based on safety. It was one of the many reasons I was opposed to what Bradley Manning did, for instance. However the risk to those affected by Manning was much larger than the risk to Dorian, and in any event I can't remember many people on HN saying before not to post stories about rich people since the unwashed thugs might stick a shiv in them and rob them.
    - weavejester 13y ago
      Thanks for your honest answer. I'm of the opinion that it's legal (first amendment, etc), but rather unethical, especially since the evidence isn't conclusive. Regarding safety, currency stored in banks tends to be less susceptible to theft via coercion. If someone breaks into a house, holds a person at gunpoint, and demands their bank details, they probably won't be able to successfully transfer a few million dollars out without triggering some internal check. On the other hand, you could easily do that with bitcoins, assuming that the private key hasn't been locked up in a vault, or the transaction secured with multiple keys. I still feel it's an unlikely scenario, but it seems that claiming someone has $400 million in untraceable digital currency is going to impact their safety more than claiming they have $400 million in a bank, or in shares.

droopybuns 13y ago

I'm sorry, but the journalists I have met do not do A. They conceive of a narrative and find totems that can support their position. You are espousing ideals that are taught in school, but rarely achieved in the real world. That whole theme of unethical in B happens most of the time.

milesskorpen 13y ago
... but they clearly did A in this case. That's why we're having this conversation.