The information is drawn from public court documents and the incident is something with nearly a billion dollars in consequences that affects multiple publicly traded companies.
What do people think the word "news" means if not this?
But who cares that Citi lost half a billion dollars because of an interface mistake?
The latter is news. The former is not. The story loses none of its impact or relevancy leaving the names out.
Also, it's possible to reach out to Fratta and ask for comment beforehand - then you can either include that response, or lack of response, without naming them.
If Vincent Fratta is alleged to have urinated in a public park and gets arrested for it that's public information, and those kind of things often end up in police blotters, even if the charges are later dropped. If Vincent Fratta is overwhelmed by medical debt and files for bankruptcy that's in the public record as well.
But we should concern ourselves with Vincent Fratta's privacy when he botches a financial transaction in a way that has hundreds of millions of dollars in consequences for public companies and involves an interesting and newsworthy legal precedent?
Are you the judge to rule whether the individual has lost his right of privacy?
Yet you comment here under a pseudonym. What if you made a mistake, would you want to be named?
I mean, there is an actual judge. This is a major legal case, and they've placed the info in the public record. The judge has in fact made a ruling.
I'm not saying it's always a perfect system, but it's definitely a very well established system in the U.S. that all court proceedings are very public. It's one of the core founding principles of the judicial branch, and it's also been a staple of American journalism for hundreds of years.
I personally think the European approach is much better on this specific issue, and that right to be forgotten laws and similar are justified.
But the reason I mentioned it in this context is that the idea that journalists naming people who are clearly notable in the context of reporting news only seems to generate a critical response when it's someone that the average HN reader identifies with.
And just because you can name the persons, doesn't mean you should.
It's different, if person is caught doing something illegal, that his name does add to the story.
But this was just big oopsie, and individuals did nothing wrong. (or you can bet, Citibank would try do divert blame on them)
Not really. In Germany it's very uncommon to name individuals in news reports, even in murder cases. If at all the format used is Angela M.
There is always a balance between the 'personality rights' of the individual and the public's right of information.
The story here is a good example - there is zero need to know the individuals' names.
You don’t actually say what this thing we’re supposed to understand is, but I think you’re implying that it’s in the public’s interest to know it? If that’s what you meant, I’d disagree that these names are in the public interest.
Sure, their names are “news” but how does the name of someone who made an innocent mistake help me understand the news? What’s the value-add? The “ROI” seems in strongly negative territory here.
Naming the developers who wrote this and signed off on it, now that might be more relevant.