Maybe because doxxing is extrajudicial? What if Krebs was really unlucky and got the wrong person? Can't we at least wait for a conviction before trying to ruin some persons life?
I feel I have a right to make my decisions based on such information also.
That doesn't mean the publisher shouldn't have liability here also. They are damaging someone's reputation, and should be held responsible if the claims are untrue.
But if the claims are true, then the damaged reputation is warranted. That's one of the consequences of doing something bad. You only have a right to have a good reputation if you don't do anything bad.
If he got it wrong, he'd be facing a lawsuit. He's also incentivized to retract and apologize in that case to preserve his credibility as a journalist. Very different story than an unaccountable anonymous troll with a grudge on Twitter/Reddit/4chan.
Most things in life are, thankfully.
I don't want to become the subject of a New York Times expose, either, but that's no reason to ban journalism.
Do you see that is likely to ever happen?
Just so we are on the same page. Here we "can't get a conviction" because the person resides in a country which doesn't care about the crime he committed. Not because the evidence does not pass the required evidentiary level.
> don't have the right to ruin a life.
Please explain to him how a life is ruined here?
> Any deviation from this principle leads to mob rule.
Where a mob is a single high profile individual with his reputation on the line, and this singular "mob" performed a through analysis and provides the full reasoning how he come to the conclusion. This "mob" rule does not look like the ones I usually hear about.