What's wrong with doxxing this person?

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 disagree. Courts aren't the only places where decisions can be made. In fact, courts rely in information found and published in reports like this to make their decisions.

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.

Krebs is legally liable for what they publish, so if they are incorrect and it costs this person then they can sue for defamation and recover their losses from Krebs. This is how we hold people responsible for what they publish while avoiding prior restraints on speech.

Exactly. Krebs isn't an anonymous troll on 4chan, he's a well-respected computer security journalist publishing under his own name.

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.

> Maybe because doxxing is extrajudicial?

Most things in life are, thankfully.

You would think differently if Krebs was writing about you.

Sure, just like I think differently if I win the lottery versus losing it. That doesn't make it illegal for me to lose the lottery.

I don't want to become the subject of a New York Times expose, either, but that's no reason to ban journalism.

> Can't we at least wait for a conviction before trying to ruin some persons life?

Do you see that is likely to ever happen?

If you can't get a conviction you don't have the right to ruin a life. Any deviation from this principle leads to mob rule.

> If you can't get a conviction

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.

Wake me when there's some combination of Judge and jury. Without these things all you're offering is post facto rationalization.

So your official policy is to ban the fourth estate?

Last time I checked there were pretty strict laws governing what accusations the press can make and some fairly eyewatering financial consequences waiting when they overstep.

So you approve what Krebs is doing then, since he is not anonymous and identifiable to be sued for libel?

Nope. He's a private citizen. You can't just slap a "journalism" sticker wherever you feel like it.

They can show up in the US court and file a lawsuit.

It’s realpolitik. It’s ok for Russians to steal from Americans, and likewise it’s ok for Americans to dox Russian criminals. There is no international law here, and even if there is it cannot be enforced and no one cares about. There might some moral high ground, but morals usually stay away from politics.

Seems its okay if they are a "bad" person

Until someone decides you're a bad person.

What is libel?

Ask Fox News that one, I hear they are a little over 700 million short from that stunt.

It isn’t. It literally is doxing.

It’s just that most people don’t feel a need to protect criminals.

Because the person(s) in question are participating in illegal activities and lost their right to privacy?

The same reason why it’s considered acceptable to out the folks that participated in the watergate scandal, but not ok to out a confidential informant.

Loss of right to privacy generally comes after a conviction.

In much of the US, as soon as you're arrested, you're mug shot shows up in the local newspaper with the crime you are alleged to have committed.

And even if you luck out and don't get "doxed" as part of the arrest, you will be outed as soon as your formally charged.

So, no, at least in the US, privacy is not retained until conviction.

K. And what legal apparatus was involved with assembling and publicizing the accusations arrayed against this individual?

No? You mug shot often goes up on the internet at the time of arrest. Allegations against you are generally public leading up to the trial. The proceedings are public, and may be televised.

Even if not charged with a crime, if you do something shitty-but-legal and someone gets a video of it, you're not going to get control over that viral video.

>Loss of right to privacy generally comes after a conviction.

Not in the US. I can pull out my local newspaper right now and see a list of everyone who was arrested last week; long before they will be convicted of anything if they're convicted at all. For a lot of them they probably won't even be accused of anything because the other party won't press charges.

There is probable cause involved in an arrest, though. I think that's an important distinction between doxing and becoming part of the criminal justice system. You can certainly argue that there are problems with the system, but it's not the same as just doxing someone on the internet—not in a legal sense, or in a practical sense.

Journalists naming people as part of their work is a third category, and probably the one this falls under. It's dangerous territory, and Krebs stands to lose a lot (i.e. credibility, lawsuits, possible reprisals) by making this allegation if it turns out he didn't do his job right.

Arguably he also stands to lose a lot if he DID do his job right.

I know Krebs is very respected in the industry, but it makes me feel uneasy having evidence presented in public outside of a court hearing, a la reddit & the boston bomber.

Reddit was actively coordinating going after the wrong person which is an entirely different beast. Krebs is acting as an investigative journalist - he even gave them the opportunity to respond. Your local news stations don't send reporters out to try to talk to local scammers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZdwwpzvqHA

You make a valid point and have changed my mind. Investigative journalists do do that. I guess I don't really see Krebs as a journalist so it feels "wrong" to me, but when you put it that way, if it was Anderson Cooper on live TV showing this proof it wouldn't feel "wrong".

The implications of closing off public discussion of facts (and opinions/speculation) surrounding nefarious deeds are horrific.

There is a difference between doxxing and investigative journalism. While the line can be fuzzy, I generally associate doxxing with an attempt to harass or intimidate, and investigative journalism with unveiling hidden information in a matter relevant to the public interest - and that information often includes concealed identities of suspected perpetrators.

Krebs doing his homework to reveal ringleaders of a criminal enterprise and showing how he got there is firmly in the "investigative journalism" category.

Obviously, there are unfortunate cases where some (often young and inexperienced) journalists shoot first and ask questions later, which can lead to harm, but Krebs has clearly kept the receipts here.

> has kept the receipts here

Previously: https://itwire.com/business-it-news/security/infosec-researc...

Also the coinhive situation where he doxxed imageboard admins due to the coinhive connection of the previous owner.

It’s not. Krebs has a history with this.

Funny story. In German „Krebs“ means cancer. And when he revealed the names and Adresses of Admins of a German Imageboard, the community started a fundraiser for cancer treatment named „Krebs ist scheiße“ or in English „cancer sucks“

I would even go so far and call the German Imageboard a "Krebsfeindliche Spendencommunity"

Let me introduce you to the "Europäischer Plan zur Krebsbekämpfung"

> Funny story. In German „Krebs“ means cancer.

It also means plain old "crab".

Why do people care so much about doxxing these days?

In most places, doxxing is not illegal. In the places where it is illegal it's usually only when there's stalking/harassment intent behind it. Doesn't appear to be against the HN rules either.

Why is it on Hacker news when a "Twitter" topic comes up we get a bunch of people pontificating as "free speech maximalists" but when a journalism topic comes up people can call journalism "doxxing" without the "free speech maximalists" making an appearence and scolding them on the evils of censorship?

Note which topics the free speech maximalists do and do not defend.

I think this is a strawman. Twitter is not attacked for prohibiting doxxes, right?

I would have thought a "free speech maximalists" would have a lot to say about every free speech topic, since they are apparently so passionate about free speech. Is using the neologism "doxxing", a term with a negative connotion, to describe journalism in line with their "maximalist" committment to free speech, for example?

Is this conversation about a journalist not an opportunity to remind us Voltaire said “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

TINSTAAFSM

At the end of the day "maximal" isn't near as far in the max directory as people reading the statement expect.

This is not about what is allowed and what is prohibited. It is about how we call the thing.