Hacker News Reader

Comment by dcow | Hacker News Reader

I never understood the whole doxing thing... the actions you take in this world are real. You can't take them back. You don't get to be anonymous just because you wish to be or because you frequent hacker sub-cults where doxing is some holy transgression. Bad op sec is bad op sec. Nothing more, nothing less.

If Krebs got it wrong, well, he can suffer the consequences of that, too.

View on HN

>If Krebs got it wrong, well, he can suffer the consequences of that, too.

And, if he got it wrong, the innocent person he doxxed has to suffer the (potentially much more harsh) consequences of someone else's irresponsible actions. While Krebs begins working on his next story, and if we're lucky, posts an "oopsie" comment.

How can you justify that as okay?

Do you think Krebs got it wrong?

But regardless, harassment is harassment. If the public starts harassing the dude, even if he is guilty, they're just as guilty of their own offenses. Two wrongs don't make a right.

> Do you think Krebs got it wrong?

This is irrelevant, how can you have a fair justice system if the mob has already condemned the defender.

I don't want a mob to condemn anyone. A mob should not be condemning anyone, ever. Why is the baseline assumption that a public accusation must be followed by swift and undue internet mob justice? That's what's fucked up if you ask me.

He has in the past, and his response has been to delete the tweets but not offer an apology, or retraction. So when those tweets are re-posted, and/or screenshotted, there is no way to tell that the information is incorrect.

If you believe the story, the people who are pointed to were already being looked for for arrest. Don't buy the poor innocent narrative too quickly.

It just happens that their last actions affected powerful figures and the US government so they might actually be some real international effort to arrest them now.

What I stated is not exclusive to this story.

People's home addresses and names should not be released to the public until a legal conviction has been ascertained. This has nothing to do with "innocent narrative". It has everything to do with due process, which is a foundation many countries entire law systems are founded upon.

The legal process is innocent until proven guilty. You seem to be advocating for guilty until proven innocent, with a side of public vigilante justice as the punishment.

If doxxing innocent (reminder: you are innocent until /proven/ guilty) people is the norm... And allowing vigilante justice is okay... We are in a very dangerous place.

You don't have to look far for numerous cases of innocent people having their lives ruined, or sometimes literally snuffed out, due to situations exactly like this.

Doxxing is not a crime, that's my point. And I am in no way interested in making it one. Innocent people should remain innocent until proven guilty and the rest of our god-forsaken species should figure out how to grow up and treat people with compassion and respect.

If what Krebs is doing in this case impacts the dude in any tangible and negative way he should sue Krebs for liable. That would be interesting.

The problem is that the named person will also suffer if Krebs got it wrong. Furthermore it isn't uncommon these days for people to overreact and mob up against the person. We have a justice system to deal with this. We shouldn't have thousands of random people on the internet punishing them based on loose evidence.

I guess I just don't think we should plan society around the assumption that the internet will overreact and take justice into its own hands, which is not in fact justice. Why can't we hold people on the internet accountable for harassment?

That is an orthogonal concern. We should hold people accountable harassment. But I don't see the need to put someone in a position where they are likely to be harassed. The upsides of putting someones name out there seem tiny and the downsides are obvious, so why do it?

because you put ppl at risk without any benefit. you could easily as said I believe I know who did this and I've turned that information over to the authorities.

what does the public or kerp gain by putting it out in public when you dont know.

yes he (kerp) can be held accountable (and should be hit immediately with a defamation lawsuit if hes wrong) but not everyone has the resources to do that.

look at reddit and boston bomber the person they accused killed himself..

> look at reddit and boston bomber the person they accused killed himself..

Do we know this was due to the Reddit misidentification? His body was found on April 23, after being accused on April 18, but he had been missing since March 16. I've never seen a definitive order of events given.

(I've no doubt such accusations _could_ lead to such horrible outcomes, but I'm not sure if we know they did here with certainty)

Like a lot of terms doxing can mean different things. Sometimes it means holding people accountable and sometimes it means releasing the home address and workplace of a person misidentified as a wrongdoer by an internet mob.

A recent example was the biker misidentified as a man who assaulted a child putting up posters.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52978880

And I would hold the people who acted on partial information accountable for their actions. Harassment is wrong regardless of whether you think someone is guilty of something or not. The internet needs to grow up.

Out of curiosity.. “the people who acted on partial information” who you say you would hold accountable. Does that include the people who chose to publicly dox him based upon an incorrect identification?

You're missing the nuance. Doxxing is not a crime nor is it a call to action. Do news stations censor the names of alleged criminals or even suspects out of some juvenile fear that a mob is going to rise up and take swift extra-judicial action? No. People are free to allege whatever they want. And in the case of Krebs, it happens to be his job. Reasonable citizens should not harass, threaten, or otherwise harm an innocent-until-proven-guilty person. Taking up an internet moniker does not enter you into some sacred contract with society whereby you shall never be exposed. I'm sick of treating issues like the rest of the world is a cesspool of ravenous lunatics and they can't be trusted to act like adults. Like there's a global expectation of ill intent. I know recent times have demonstrated otherwise but it's no excuse. We need to hold people who actually abuse others accountable for their actions not tread lightly around them because they are scary. Full disclosure for all. Full accountability for all. Confront the boggy-people.

since you think personal privacy is useless and your fine with personal information being out there can I get your real name, address and phone number plz?

My handle is not anonymous or even pseudonymous. You can easily find me.

The actions you take in this world are real yes, but the scale at which the internet enables retribution is unprecedented. If you punch someone in the street maybe three people will beat you up. If you punch someone online, tens of thousands of people might pile on and start kicking.

There's a certain symmetry to that, though. You fuck up on the world stage then you suffer a world of consequences. Anyway, I would sincerely hope people are more mature than to start harassing a dude that some security has-been decided to name as the perpetrator. You're not allow to harass and threaten someone just because they're suspected of being guilty of some crime.

Uhh.. have you ever been on Twitter? That's like half the activity there, people dog piling on others based on circumstantial, if any, evidence of perceived slights or wrongdoing.

Sure, people _shouldn't_, but they overwhelmingly _do_, which has real, tragic consequences. People with platforms must take care or they cause tangible harm to others.

Yes. This is called liable and it's illegal in the US. I don't know about international liable laws.. but if such a concept exists, the kid should sue Krebs if he experiences tangible negative consequences of Krebs' accusations.

have you ever used the internet??

But the risk to the target outweighs the potential benefit to the doxxer. Consequences can be unequal. And if the doxee ends up being the perpetrator, then the bad things were already on their way via the legal system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com