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.