Hacker News Reader

Comment by empath75 | Hacker News Reader

I hate this idea that doxxing is some kind if crime. “Who is the creator of bitcoin?” is a matter of great public and historical interest. Finding out who he is, is the purest form of journalism.

View on HN

What does that say about pure journalism? Publish information despite doing harm? How do you present the information, and what impact does that presentation have?

Historically, newspapers often published the full name and physical address of every person they covered, from judges to drunks to rape victims to people suspected of a crime. I'm sure people back in the day called that pure journalism, but I don't think we'd call it "good" today. Our standards today might also not be as good as we assume.

Historically, people got a big book every year with the name and address of most people in it. You could get unlisted numbers but now everyone has a cellphone which just isn’t broadly published but because now many use it for everything it’s probably not that hard to find.

Also, has others have noted it’s trivial to put other a list of wealthy people. In fact, it’s probably better to skip the Forbes 400 list who probably have some level of private security. Just go through the board member lists of Fortune 500 companies.

Speculating about it using arguments like "he also uses C++ and has used words popular in those circles" isn't though or at least shouldn't be.

"Hey this guy probably had an access to a few billion USD worth of btc, maybe still has, his name is X, he lives in Y. He wishes to be anonymous but he knows C++ and we got him!".

Username doesn't check out.

Good point, personally I had never considered that doxing could be considered not illegal/crime.

At what point does the use of clues to uncover the identity of a criminal cross the line from solid detective work to doxing? /s

It's a horrible point, it assumes that the person being doxxed is the claim of the doxer.

There is no wait they can be 100% sure, so they will ruin someone's life over what?

> There is no wait they can be 100% sure, so they will ruin someone's life over what?

What harm is caused by this article, do you think? He is already incredibly wealthy, already has security, and many people already assumed he was Satoshi Nakamoto. Claiming that someone invented a world altering technology is neither libel, nor defamation, _even if it an intentional lie_. If it is not a lie, or is merely a mistake it _certainly_ is neither.

  > What harm is caused by this article, do you think?

Many people who are assumed to be wealthy have family members kidnapped. Even those who turn out to be not wealthy.

Doxing itself is the harm, if not 100% validated. The article is purely subjective.

> I hate this idea that doxxing is some kind if crime.

The thing is, up until the advent of the internet it basically didn't matter - although in some cases, e.g. the German left-wing terror group "RAF", rich people did end up getting v&, in some cases killed. But that was a rarity.

But now with the possibilities of modern technology? Being able to be active on the Internet without hiding behind a pseudonym is a rare privilege. Wrong political opinion? Some nutjob from the opposite side can and will send anything from "pizza pranks" to outright SWAT to your home (or your parents, or ex-wife, or anyone they can identify as being associated with you). And if you got money? Stalkers, thieves, robbers, scammers, you will get targeted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com