Krebs does indeed habitually doxx alleged criminals. There's a perfect example just a ways down from TFA: "Meet the World’s Biggest ‘Bulletproof’ Hoster".[0]

And he doesn't just rely on public sources:

> KrebsOnSecurity uncovered strong evidence to support a similar conclusion. In 2010, this author received a massive data dump from a source that had hacked into or otherwise absconded with more than four years of email records from ChronoPay — at the time a major Russian online payment provider whose CEO and co-founders were the chief subjects of my 2014 book, Spam Nation: The Inside Story of Organized Cybercrime.

> Querying those records on Yalishanda’s primary email address — [email protected] — reveal that this individual in 2010 sought payment processing services from ChronoPay for a business he was running which sold counterfeit designer watches.

And he posted a copy of the guy's passport!

0) https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/07/meet-the-worlds-biggest-...

Where by "habitually doxx", you mean "reports", which is what reporters do. When it's Fortune 500 executives or politicians, we seem to have no problem with this behavior; in fact, we get mad when it doesn't happen. But when it's someone in our "tribe" getting reported on, there's this whole new set of rules that supposedly applies. It seems like special pleading to me.

Sure, that's what some journalists do. But Krebs' thing is being a grey-hat vigilante. He does social engineering on forums. He trades data with other vigilantes.

> ... you mean "reports", which is what reporters do ...

So this doxx site just reports on people, no?

The distinction between him and the doxx site he writes about is subtle.

Mainstream reporters semi-routinely break actual laws to break stories, and are received as heroes for it.

I'm sure that the doxx site in TFA is "received as heroes" by some. As with many things, much depends on whose ox is getting gored.

Also, "semi-routinely break actual laws" is a huge bin. Reporters also get sued for libel. And sometimes lose.

Edit: And hey, once you're "break[ing] actual laws", you're a criminal. And by Krebs' standard, you're fair game.

Sure? OK? And?

It was dumb of me to get into this thread. Arguing about the morality of Krebs' blog in a discussion about neofascist (and arguably, ironic neofascist) doxxing and SWATing was off-topic whataboutism. So sorry.

But for what it's worth, I'll briefly clarify my position. I'm rather anarchistic, but not very collectivist or communitarian. I believe that we're all free to do what we like, consistent with our principals and values. Notwithstanding whatever laws exist. And that includes self defense, and weeding out troublemakers.

So in that sense, I agree that Krebs has the right to doxx supposed criminals. But I also believe that others arguably have the right to act against those who attack them. And of course, everyone else has the right to act against those who attack them, recursively.

So it's fair to root for Krebs, and to attack neofascist doxxers. But, in my opinion, it's deceptive to argue that one is moral, and the other is evil.

I'm sorry, but you're confusing two different concepts. In one instance, Brian Krebs uses public, open sources to discover the true names behind pseudonymous Twitter users; in another, people post home addresses and phone numbers.

I'm not asking why it would violate a norm to post home addresses or phone numbers; it's clear to me why that's problematic.

I'm asking what obligation Krebs has to pretend he doesn't know who a Twitter user is, when that information is available to anyone who knows how to consult public sources to find it. Why is Krebs obligated to help someone remain pseudonymous? It seems clear to me that he is not.

Most doxers use public, open sources to discover the true names behind pseudonymous users. And their addresses. People make mistakes, sometimes even about other people's data. Sometimes people have no choice because a lot of the information is public record.

That isn't an excuse for compiling this information and publishing it as wide a possible. You still have to consider the implications if you want to act morally and in good faith.

Think of the stupid pseudonymous twitter user who made a really abhorrent, ill-considered joke and the people used "public information from public sources" to first get to their real identity and then crawl further until they find their employer and get the person fired. The person who did the research and then started the witchburning by publishing the information so that every other bored twitter user could write easily write a mean email to the employer should have considered what compiling and publicizing that dox could do.

Also, I think Krebs does take this into consideration, and is generally acting in good faith and with consideration, it's just that I disagree with his conclusion sometimes.

I'm still lost. What obligation does Brian Krebs have to pretend that the real identity of a pseudonymous Twitter user isn't discoverable from open sources, or to help conceal that identity? I submit that he has no such obligation, but that message board people like to pretend that he does, and that contravening that norm constitutes the real-world offense of "doxxing". Baloney, I say. Am I wrong? Educate me.

If he's posting home phone numbers or addresses, I'm clear on what the problem is. But if you have a public LinkedIn profile and don't have the OPSEC to keep public sources from linking your secret Twitter handle to that profile, I don't see any problem at all.

What obligation? A moral one. Do no harm.

I do not have a general moral obligation to actively help shield you from the consequences of your own speech, however harmful they might be.

I am rather speechless... This is just... wow.

Go on? By the definitions being used on this thread, a good part of all of journalism constitutes "doxing".

So what? Doxing isn't inherently evil or inherently good. It has to be seen in context, and it is your and my and the journalist's moral obligation to look at the context first and weigh the likely harm to the person you dox against the possible good it can do. And it doesn't matter if the information was kinda public in some obscure corner of the internet or some public record or commercial database before. Once you publicize their information, you create publicity and draw a target on that persons back.

Dox some criminal? OK, but you have to be sure your allegations have merit and you've done your due diligence[0]. This is mostly what Krebs does.

Dox some politician who had an extramarital affair? Maybe OK. Dox their extramarital partner? Probably not OK.

Dox the latest terrorist? Generally OK. Dox every person that ever came into contact with the terrorist? Not OK. Publish personal information about the victims of the terrorist without their (next of kin's) consent? Not OK, even if you only report information you got from their facebook.

Dox some kid who misbehaved once on the internet, thereby directing an army of assholes on twitter to take notice, dox the kid further and bully them? Not OK.

When I was young (pre-facebook era), one of my teachers got murdered; her husband was later convicted. Some (tabloid) journalists showed up like locusts camping around our school, offering money for our pictures and other private information about the victim, her husband and their kids. Not OK. The same journalists also found "public information from open sources" about e.g. the kids' memberships in youth groups and such, and published that and also went to those youth groups for more information like they did at our school. Not OK.

[0] There was more than one case where "helpful" people on the internet and sometimes journalists published the names of alleged criminals who turned out to be entirely innocent, which didn't stop people from bullying them or even neighbors from forming mobs to "visit" them at home.

When you say "doxing isn't inherently evil or good", you're putting us on the same page.

We do not agree about the particulars. For instance: the extramarital partners of politicians? To me, fair game. Kids who commit crimes on the Internet? To me, fair game.

Counterexamples? Sure. Undocumented immigrants who could be forcibly deported. I have a special obligation not to help ICE find those people. Iranian democracy activists. I have a special obligation not to subvert advocacy for democracy in authoritarian regimes.

But I don't have a general obligation to help maintain someone's pseudonymity, nor does anyone have the general right to restrain my own speech to protect their pseudonymity.

I understand that the rule exists on Reddit, and, to a lesser extent, here. And I respect the rule... on Reddit. And here. But in real life? I have a problem with message board norms leaking into the real world.

>the extramarital partners of politicians? To me, fair game.

I knew somebody, part of our gang of friends, who had a one night stand with a local "personality", was then revealed by some "journalist" only giving a the first name and printing a picture with a black bar across the eyes (which is still more than enough for people who knew him to identify him, of course), outed as gay in the process, didn't even know the other dude was married or a "personality", and after being shunned and bullied by a lot of people including his parents and grandparents ended up hanging himself in a tree near the place in the woods where our gang used to barbecue in the summers. At least his parents showed up for his funeral.

I have no doubt the journalist who doxed him had no intention of causing that amount of harm. And yet, the journalist could have considered the situation a little more thoroughly, considering that the the identity of my friend had no bearing on the story whatsoever. I can only hope it was a mistake that this journalist learned from, and not general disregard for other human beings' welfare.

And I am telling you that story in the hopes you and others agreeing with your "fair game" will keep it in mind if they ever are in the position where they have to make a moral decision whether to dox or not dox somebody.

I would generally have a problem with deliberately outing an LGBT person (or an undocumented immigrant, or any of a number of at-risk groups of people). And performatively revealing sensitive information about anyone for no reason at all is at least unneighborly (I can't go so far as to call it immoral). But none of that is what Krebs did. He violated the code of a subculture he does not belong to, in a manner that journalists do all the time. I think this particular subculture is entitled and unrealistic and that their weird expectations deserve to be challenged.

Krebs doxed a few people who didn't want to be doxed, for reasons I do not consider good enough, and doxed a lot of people who didn't want to be doxed for reasons I consider good enough. That's all I said. YMMV

I have no idea why you keep trying to frame what I said differently.