Hacker News Reader

Comment by jsnk | Hacker News Reader

I will forever mark the name, Leah McGrath Goodman and Newsweek editorial staff in my mind as a toxic journalist and TMZ-styled publication after this event.

Granted, I don't think Leah McGrath Goodman and Newsweek did anything illegal by breaking this story. I don't think it's wrong for Goodman to attempt to contact Satoshi's relatives over the phone.

What really crossed the line for me was Leah McGrath Goodman and Newsweek's decision to post the photo of the house, with the car's plate info on it.

Why would you do this? What relavence if any did this have to the story?

Showing of the house with car license plate resulted in identifying his address really easily. Let's face it. She wouldn't have done this to Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos even though they are far more famous, rich and public. She did this to this guy only because he's reclusive and powerless.

View on HN

> I don't think Leah McGrath Goodman and Newsweek did anything illegal

I wouldn't be so sure. Both may be subject to tort liability if Dorian Nakamoto != Satoshi Nakamoto. See my tweet: https://twitter.com/declanm/status/441711365888040960

And a response by an attorney who works on Internet issues: https://twitter.com/SeanFlaim/status/441727448539873281

Thanks for the info. I do hope this man has a case against Newsweek.

There's also the question of obtaining his email address through a merchant he did business with. That seems like it would be borderline illegal.

the entire story relied on pretexting.

i'd love to see the email to the merchant, bet she didn't identify as a journalist.

OMG she didn't identify as a journalist?!?1?!?

That's it, it's a slam dunk case Newsweek is liable for bajillions of dollars. He sure didn't act like a secretively paranoid inventor of bitcoin.

I bet newsweek would love to see his entire email history. He should probably sue them so he can see that email to the merchant and newsweek can read his entire email history, as well as subpoena various other people for their private emails with satoshi. This will be a winning legal strategy to protect his privacy.

He has a colorable claim but no chance of winning. The founder of a cryptocurrency which now boasts of a >$1 billion market is legitimately a matter of the public interest, even if it's not the right guy.

This principle has been established many times by people who were mistaken for criminal defendants (not always defendants with the same name), including the Boston U student who killed himself shortly before the Boston Marathon bombing.

Ah, but how many cases involved that particular California law being invoked by the plaintiff?

"Legitimate public interest" is a defense to a tort. It is used by the publication to defend itself from an invasion of privacy claim. It can't be used by a plaintiff (except as a defense to a counterclaim by the defendant).

Why are you discussing Leah's article when this article is discussing something completely different (the fact that Leah's article is wrong)?

You can go to the post of the Newsweek article and get a billion comments exactly like yours. It is pointless to keep harping about it in every related discussion...

Good point. The story now is whether Dorian == or != Satoshi. I think there's more evidence for != than ==.

You seem upset about this story, but as someone with no stake in Bitcorn or anything else related to this nonsense, I struggle to understand why you care so much who is outed as its creator?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates%27s_house

Bad example.

Bill Gates spends millions a year on personal security. What if this guy is not actually worth millions of dollars?

My point was more that wealthy, powerful people often don't even have the sort of privacy being talked about, it doesn't make sense to complain that their wealth and power would protect them.

Then he has to suffer through the horror and agony of having someone knock on his door, and having the police escort them off his property.

I'm not sure if he'll fully recover from that kind of trauma.

> having someone knock on his door, and having the police escort them off his property.

That's the worst that will happen to him.

Oh wait, people have reason to think he has est.~400 million in bitcoins. But it's okay, I'm sure he'll recover from this (https://xkcd.com/538/) kind of trauma, too.

He has hundreds of millions of dollars in untraceable (if you know what you are doing) e-currency, protected only by keys presumably on his person, in his house, or otherwise nearby.

It's unfortunately not uncommon for strangers to be killed over a few thousand dollars cash. Apparently professional hit men charge only a little more than that.

Are you really suggesting that the worst he might endure is annoying reporters knocking at the door?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com