Comment by chmod775 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by chmod775 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Nearly every news organization in Germany (even for adult suspects and convicts)[1] will rarely publish names, and also many of the more reputable ones in Britain will weigh public interest against privacy as a matter of policy. At least in Scotland it is even illegal to name suspects under 18.

You'll find mention of the issue in many journalistic ethics codes, and many newspaper's policies. For a US example from the SPJ's Code of Ethics[2]:

> Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.

> Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, [..]

> Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.

> Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.

> Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication.

In the UK, for radio and TV, the Ofcom Broadcasting Code contains similar guidelines in less straightforward language.

[1] https://www.presserat.de/pressekodex.html#ziffer08

[2] https://www.spj.org/spj-code-of-ethics/

I think I'm on safe ground saying printing the names of criminal suspects is a longstanding norm in American print journalism.

It is. Comparatively it is even very common in most of the Anglosphere, however not for lack of trying by more ethical journalists. If you search for "the juvenile suspect" on google news, you'll get plenty of hits for US newspapers (and occasionally police) applying some consideration.

In the west, English speaking countries are the odd ones out: For example in Germany, Poland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Finland, Switzerland, Austria, and France, identifying suspects (not just juvenile ones) is either uncommon or even forbidden by law.

It’s actually an open discussion in journalism ethics.

Many news organizations won’t name juveniles even in jurisdictions where it is allowed.

Other guides will be based on the nature of the crime.

Most wire services for instance now don’t name suspects for “minor crimes”. Here is the ap announcement on the topic: https://www.ap.org/the-definitive-source/behind-the-news/why...

Note that their argument tends to be around the biasing impact on the persons life. As they are unlikely to follow up on the criminal outcome there won’t be a chance to clear the persons name.

In this case I think Krebs is on solid ground as it’s a) not a minor crime b) he can later follow up.

But it’s certainly not an area that is black & white.

Right, sorry, I was (correctly, right?) assuming this wasn't a minor.

Yes, correctly.

The article reports that the fellow is 20, and that the reporter talked to the fellow's mother. It seems very unlikely that Krebs fucked up and the fellow is actually 17. (He couldn't be any younger than that because he wouldn't have been able to enlist.)

Just to be clear, the minor crimes announcement I linked to wasn’t about crimes by minors, it was about the seriousness of the crime.

I confusingly talked about both. My broader point was that the norm is changing in the us towards not naming suspects. And there are ethics conversations around this in the industry.

But I think krebs is on solid footing for this particular case. He’s well within the norm.

You’re right. They do generally add a “suspected of committing” or “who appeared to attempt” or some other qualifier.

He’s 20, right?

The article claims that this is true, yeah:

> Federal authorities have arrested and indicted a 20-year-old U.S. Army soldier on suspicion of being Kiberphant0m...

The article also claims to have spoken on the record with the accused's mother, so I have no reason to doubt the article's claim about the fellow's age.

Likely 18 and 19 when most of this happened, but him barely not being legally considered a minor doesn't make the ethics of this much better.

I guess you're just unaccustomed to America's loooooooooooooooooooongstanding free speech regs.

Many people in more restrictive countries (like Germany and the UK) are pretty shocked by what USians are permitted to say. Similarly, many USians are shocked by what folks in more restrictive countries are NOT permitted to say.

Krebs is an American journalist, living in America, writing for an American publication. The standard to use here is an American one, not any others.

chmod775 point is about ethics, not legality. (Though perhaps by "publication standard", you're saying that what's considered ethical is also judged by American standards?)

By "publication standard" I mean "standard" (with a side of "my brain is swiss cheese and repeats or erases words frighteningly frequently").

I'll update the post.

And yeah, when it comes to talking about things being discussed in the Public Square in America, the ethical standard should also be American.

> And yeah, when it comes to talking about things being discussed in the Public Square in America, the ethical standard should also be American.

I strongly take issue with this. The morality of something does not change based on where it occurs. If something is wrong, it is wrong.

We're likely both going to agree that executing gay people is not okay even if it happens in Saudi Arabia.

If you want to defend the practice, you'll have to make a proper argument. It being a local "standard" is not one.

> The morality of something does not change based on where it occurs.

Morals and ethics aren't the same thing. What is considered to be moral varies from person to person and from culture to culture.

Ethics is the study of morality. And while you're correct that people have subjective ideas of morality, it absolutely does not matter for the sake of this conversation. You are detracting.

Just because in some place a practice is considered to be okay (morally, whatever), does not mean it is okay, has to be tolerated without comment, and is beyond criticism by those with differing views.

Just based on the value of fairness and that punishment should be decided in an actual court, not the court of public opinion or handed out by some guy named Brian, it is wrong regardless of where it occurs and I've made my reasoning for that pretty clear in this thread. I stand by that and you are still free to make some actual argument to the contrary. If the argument is just "in this country a lot of people feel it is fine", that's okay, just not very convincing to anyone I would imagine.

> Just because in some place a practice is considered to be okay (morally, whatever), does not mean ... [that it] has to be tolerated without comment...

Sure, I agree. If you were USian, I would defend to the death your right to speak openly and publicly about your concerns. [0]

And just because you feel strongly about your incorrect opinion about a widely-held-to-be-acceptable practice in USian journalism doesn't mean that I have to let that incorrect opinion pass by without comment.

It's a big world, and there are differing opinions on many, many things... morals (and the formation of explanatory systems overtop of the same) included.

[0] Whereas if you're in a more draconian jurisdiction that would prohibit such comments, I'll be publicly miffed about it and express my deep displeasure.

> I guess you're just unaccustomed to America's loooooooooooooooooooongstanding free speech regs.

I'm reasonably certain that I know the extents of what you can and can't legally say in the US better than most people who live there. National differences in these things happens to be one of my areas of interest, but that is besides the point.

I'm viewing this through an ethical lens. Legality doesn't enter into it beyond recognizing that laws that deal with crime are often informed by morality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com