It's interesting to see him named in the article - since he is under 18 in Canada he will be protected by the young offenders act and cannot be identified in the media. I suppose that is only applicable for Canadian media outlets.
For example, if a 14 year old comes up to me on the street and commits a crime (e.g. he mugs me) and I know his name, would I not be allowed to tweet "just got mugged by <his name>"?
Deleted comment
For example, when stopped at a red light on my bicycle in Brooklyn, a van intentionally (and maliciously) bumped my rear wheel from behind. The local precinct was two blocks away so I went there with the guy's license plate number. The police declined to file a report, telling me they wouldn't be able to verify who the actual driver was given only the plate number (and time, and description, and a second eye witness). If Twitter had been a thing back then I may well have tweeted about it.
Being a victim doesn't give you any particular rights to publish this information. But the law says nothing about merely telling it to all your friends. And if you're walking the line between these two, it's probably better to talk to a lawyer before speaking.
[0] http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/Y-1.5/page-45.html#h...
It's a fine line between crime and entrapment, so when your business depends on having these crimes happen to you then you should be extra careful in how you go about dealing with the perps identities, especially if they are minors.
> A 16-year-old male from Ottawa, Canada has been arrested for allegedly making at least 30 fraudulent calls to emergency services across North America over the past few months.
Emphasis mine.
I would agree with you were the "allegedly" missing, and if instead of "arrested for", it said "convicted of".
"For 2011, the US Department of Justice reported a 93% conviction rate." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate
Prosecutors are only supposed to prosecute people if they think the person really did it, and if they think they can convince a jury.
Prosecutors aren't supposed to prosecute "just to find out what happens."
It's a bit like a big bruiser going downtown to the clubs and trying to pick fights with every drunk and then bragging later about how many he bagged.
And to post the name of the kid before he's convicted (assuming he will be convicted) is out of line and possibly even illegal (he's a minor after all).
Most of Krebs' targets are carding rings, crackers and other Internet fraudsters and criminals. These aren't clueless people being dumb, these are usually bad people (allegedly) doing intentionally bad things to innocent people..
Also, the kid's name was in the already-published DOX that he linked to in his article. It's not like he was responsible for "outing" this kid's details....