Hacker News Reader

Comment by wildmusings | Hacker News Reader

I don't like it one bit, but they're taking the internet to its logical conclusion. At least they're only doing it for public figures it seems, for now. It is probably totally legal too.

This is what radical transparency looks like, by the way. It is consistent with and logically flows from Assange's long-stated philosophy. Basically, what the crowd on this website was defending when Wikileaks first came onto the public scene.

Here's what Twitter has to say about verified accounts:

>What types of accounts get verified?

An account may be verified if it is DETERMINED TO BE AN ACCOUNT OF PUBLIC INTEREST. Typically this includes accounts maintained by users in music, acting, fashion, government, politics, religion, journalism, media, sports, business, and other key interest areas.

View on HN

The criteria for "verified" status have changed recently and I'm pretty sure it now includes a group much larger than the law's definition. There are quite a few JS developers with the tick mark, for example. And I doubt they'd count as celebrities.

And even for public figures, there are and/or should be (depending on jurisdiction) limits. Their family, for example, are people with their own rights, often don't fit the "public figure" definition, may be minors etc etc.

I also don't remember ever defending radical transparency, and I wouldn't even characterise Assange's actions as consistent with it. Or could I have an archive of his emails, please?

"At least they're only doing it for public figures it seems"

Public figures are those we elect and put in government service, at least that was the original intended definition. Seems we've drifted from that definition into a rather dystopian one, with Assange.

>Public figures are those we elect and put in government service

The courts disagree with you on that point, also including celebrities, business leaders, athletes, etc.

Position in government is only one avenue by which people exercise power or achieve fame.

Hopefully they start tracking judges and prosecutors too, since they are the group arguably failing the public the most.

Well I sure hope they don't. Legal or not, this is not a direction I'm eager to see our society go. It's basically mass doxxing.

Expensive mass doxing if you follow the proper procedures for doxing, like feeding names into Axciom[1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acxiom

Personally I think judges and prosecutors do a better job when their principal concern is the law, and not the recent publication of information on the home addresses of members of their extended family who don't have a security detail. YMMV.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com