Hacker News Reader

Comment by shakna | Hacker News Reader

> According to another source, a public address book at locatefamily.com, someone under the name Vladimir S. Nesterenko is living at [REDACTED] in Moscow. Vladimir lives according to Google Streetview it’s an apartment complex far away from the Moscow city center...

Really? Someone investigating with journalists, and may be considered a journalists themselves (?), actually publishes the address of someone that they are accusing of running a scam?

There can only be two reasons for doing something like that:

a) You're an idiot, and didn't consider the implications.

b) You're asking for the public to exact a justice that you think you can't.

View on HN

Yeah it's unacceptable, especially for someone who claims to be "ethical" in his bio:

> About Sijmen Ruwhof Independent IT Security Researcher / Ethical Hacker

Whenever I see someone point out they are "ethical", it's always according to their own code of ethics that they are unwilling to ever discuss.

I used to be absolutist like that as well as a teenager. It's a shame when some adults don't grow out of it.

Your post reads (to me) like you no longer believe in absolute ethics.

If that's the case, how can you argue with someone else's definition of ethics?

Reminds me of a lot Brian Krebs doxing of the pr0gramm staff.

It's extremely likely that this person isn't responsible for the website, or knows anything about it. Criminal or shady activities in Russia (and everywhere else) are often laundered through cutouts.

You can find an example of this in "Magnitsky act: behind the scenes" where Bill Browder allegedly laundered his corporate holdings for tax fraud through various handicapped people, and eventually gangsters who were conveniently murdered.

If this were a criminal enterprise I'd agree with you, but I can imagine any of us putting together a document scraping/resource website and not having any qualms about it. It's pretty cheap to buy the obfuscation service when you register domains, he probably did not have a lot of money when he started.

Using that piece of rather silly putin's propaganda as a source lowers your credibility greatly.

However, their point stands true: in exUSSR climate, registering a dummy entity through an ignorant proxy is an easy and common way to run a shady business, and sometimes even a legit one. It's entirely unnecessary to bring Magnitsky's deal as an example, but this method is well known and practiced since perestroika. It's safe to assume the person in question was a proxy, and that further investigation is needed.

Oh, that's for sure, it's just that pointing at this particular hit piece is not the most convincing argument. Otherwise, it's entirely correct that business climate in Russia is far from transparent.

Ahem. The maker of that documentary is anti-Putin to the extent he supports the theory that Putin blew up some Russian apartment buildings to start a war.

Browder, on the other hand, is actively surpressing the documentary; even if none of the things said about him in the documentary are true (in which case you'd think he would sue the guy who made it for libel; a guy who lives in the UK), that's pretty shady.

fighting it gives it attention and validity, its the streisand effect. And Julian Assange lives in the UK but was still a tool of the kremlin's propaganda wing. what's your point?

Don't think publicizing information against the US presidential candidates makes somebody "a tool of the Kremlin's propaganda wing". Or have you drank too much laughable American propaganda yourself?

This isn't even an argument; it is partisan quackery.

FWIIW Browder was pro-Putin until Putin stopped letting him get away with tax fraud. Citations available: what do you have?

That's... an interesting interpretation of Magnitsky's murder. (regardless of whether Browder himself was involved in any shady dealings). They, and supporting citations, also come from only one source, too.

We're talking about Assange here; why are you changing the subject?

And, I do not get my Browder citations from "one source." I can cite you a bloody youtube video of him talking about what a great guy Putin is.

This still has nothing to do with some poor bastard getting doxxed by a clown who thinks he is Sherlock Holmes.

No argument on the doxxing side, but I wasn't talking about Assange. We were talking about the "behind the scenes" movie, and the maker of the film might have been a Putin critic at some point, but is no more than a clown now. His Twitter feed is quite delicious, complete with claims that Russian press is freer than Western, and with adoring comments from people with English-sounding names, but written in such a stilted and obviously translated word for word from Russian language that one could do another HN post how Twitter's claim to have banned Russian bots is nothing but self-serving bunk.

So, I'm supposed to believe some anon's interpretation of this documentary... apparently based on his subjective analysis of some guy's twitter feed... over my own lying eyes?

How do you explain the Russian documents on Browders website that say ... what Nekrasov says, and NOT what Browder says? It's a pretty simple fact check; you don't even need to speak Russian to do it. I did it, and it appears that Nekrasov was honest and Browder is the deceptive lunatic who wants to start WW-3 over his tax bill. Hey, I could be wrong: on the other hand, I'm providing citations and you, an anon, are providing opinions as to the political content of someone's twitter feed.

Oh, you can believe anything you want, including, from your many posts, that Putin is a nice guy.

I do read Russian, though, and can read Nekrasov's (not "some guy") twitter feed. HYe might as well be working for RT or Sputnik, and deserves exactly as much credibility as those fine news sources. They also want one to believe that evil Browder wants to start a war. Right...

Lol, OK browderbot. Obviously I am a Kremlin functionary for not being a lemming. Only those who believe what some billionaire's PR firm tells them are non-Putin slaves.

Unlike you, I post under my real name. And I will say again: whatever your worthless anon view of Nekrasov's twitter feed might be, his documentary appears to be true in all the details I checked. Including the important ones of who Magnitsky was and what he was doing in Russia.

Not to do anything to violate HN's rules, and you certainly are free to believe what you want, or what you need, but in this particular matter I will take an opinion of someone who doesn't even speak Russian, and does not care to look at any of the primary sources with a great grain of salt.

His anti-putin credentials have been questioned.

That filmmaker was anti-Putin and he still lives in Russia? Totally believable.

He lives in the UK, as I already said. And somehow avoided being sued by Browder who also lives in the UK.

Pussy Riot is anti-Putin and they are still based in Russia. Same can be said about everyone in Russia who voted against Putin in the most recent election. You don't have to live outside of Russia to be anti-Putin.

You can call them anti-Trump as well. And they have to serve jail time in Russia, btw.

That's not uncommon. Only very high-profile Putin opposers disappear.

Or we do not hear about low-profile ones. Being high profile (Navalny, Khodorkovsky) might be even an insurance policy to keep one at least alive.

Sadly, this isn't true.

You can use google translate to read this:

https://www.novayagazeta.ru/articles/2018/10/22/78289-povar-...

TL;DR version: Small time regional bloggers disappear and the "executioners" are then erased themselves.

This is one of the very few newspapers left in Russia which does this kind of investigative journalism, they get death threats regularly.

EDIT: Spelling.

""Magnitsky act: behind the scenes" where Bill Browder allegedly laundered his corporate holdings for tax fraud through various handicapped people, and eventually gangsters who were conveniently murdered."

Look, I'm not saying that's a bullshit documentary, but that's literally the kind of smear campaign Putin would execute to try to get talks of the magnitsky act thrown out. I wouldn't take any of that information as factual.

My spot checks indicate it was 10/10 on the money, not that this has anything to do with the subject on this thread. Just because some anon on the internet is giving me 'friendly advice' to not take any of the information as factual because Putin might like it (or because it makes Browder sad).... Why are you even bringing this up?

I'd go with a). Very dumb move.

“Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence” said Napoleon.

Never ascribe to Napoleon etc.

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/12/30/not-malice/

TL;DR Seems to have been first attributed to 'Napolean' on Usenet in 1997!

That's Hanlon razor :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

so what would comprise the requirements for an adequate explanation of incompetence in this case?

If it's in a WHOIS record, is it really private?

Probably not, but there's a big difference between information being drowned in the midst of other information, and carefully pruned information from that pile and then put into an article whose sole purpose is to draw attention to it.

Regardless, it's a very poor decision made by the author to reveal it in such a way, with maps, etc.

The site in question (locatefamily.com) is known for scraping public information. I'm very doubtful anyone did anything wrong here, tough it is questionable data to say the least.

Morally questionable maybe, though I'm going full circle and going to say scamming is as well.

edit: The name was posted in public whois info. That basically means you handed out your data to the public anyway. Everyone on this forum would be able to acquire the location from the information he found.

That's not a justification at all. Just to give you an example: UK company addresses are open to the public, and easily accessible through the government website. Many UK internet personalities have set up a company, and for many of them it's their house address (cause either they don't know about the register or they don't care enough).

Would it be ok for me to make a blog post with their home address on it, just because it's publicly available? I don't think so, even if they did something scammy.

Original text removed as I already stated below it was wrong but people keep complaining.

Apparently it is illegal since the start of this year (in the Netherlands, as it is where the article is from) since may 2018 as the new AVG went into effect and it is considered personal data which requires approval for publishing.

> I'm going to post a comment that will get down voted immediately

... because it is wrong.

> but yes. Unless you are exiting violence or defamation is your goal.

What other goals would you have though? To cause embarrassment or inconvenience would count as harassment or bullying which are not legal in most jurisdictions.

What good reasons can you think of for publishing an individuals address without their permission?

It being able to be found elsewhere adequate justification: if it is that easy to find then what is your reason for republishing?

With regard to your edit (that happened while I was typing), legal concerns aside are there any morally justifiable reasons that spring to mind?

It’s amazing how many people don’t know how to use whois. Most doxxing I’ve witnessed comes from public info. The linking together of this info and promoting it is what creates more danger.

Since I assume most swatters are 12 year olds, that means they are less likely to know that Whois exists, therefore more likely to have the info because this author posted it.

I completely agree with you on that. So it remains more questionable than good, though I do not think the '12 year old swatters' will click beyond the main article (from last year's rtl.nl website which did not contain info if i remember correctly) and go to the more detailed page described in OP.

It's also likely that there are a dozen people with that name just in Moscow.

I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I personally do think that people should be exposed.

Sex offenders need to be registered. Heck, I think Panama papers and paradise papers people should be exposed...

That's a good attitude comrade. Congratulations on earning an additional 10 points to your social credit score! Now you can enjoy the 2nd class cabin on our country's numerous, punctual, and well maintained trains. Keep up your outstanding and patriotic attitude and you'll be riding in the luxurious and stylish 1st class cabins in no time!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com