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.