41–50 of 117 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was mostly Murdoch's rags, which, unfortunately, many folks can't distinguish from actual newspapers.
It was the Sun, the Telegraph and the Daily Mail. Only on of those belongs to Murdoch.
Tabloid journalism doesn't exactly have a stellar history of responsibility. Unfortunately this sells for some reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If some journalists were able to find his identity, he can safely assume that the people behind wannacry are also able to do it. How do you figure? Digging through information and finding out this sort of stuff is literally what journalists do for a living.
I occasionally offer to dox people to show them how bad their OpSec truly is or as an example of why I don't use social media like Facebook for privacy concerns. Doxing people is often trivial since nearly anyone contributing to discussions online have large online profiles. It isn't a very difficult task - just a game of connecting the dots and knowing how to construct specific Google search queries (eg: "site:___ +…
I would like to find a white hat site that prepares a report on what they can find about you.
(For the record, my reddit account has a different username than my HackerNews account)
They may not use the term "doxxed" lightly, but they also don't provide a definition for it. I have no idea what it means. I guess it means "give credit by providing the name." Maybe?
dox = reveal identity. Nothing more complicated.
They may not use the term "doxxed" lightly, but they also don't provide a definition for it. I have no idea what it means. I guess it means "give credit by providing the name." Maybe?
It publicly releasing the IRL identity (name, address, etc) of the person behind an anonymous online identity. The term applies more to places like reddit/twitter/4chan than to someone's own blog, but it's generally considered a form of harassment because it's an invasion of privacy.
They may not use the term "doxxed" lightly, but they also don't provide a definition for it. I have no idea what it means. I guess it means "give credit by providing the name." Maybe?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing
My bad!
They may not use the term "doxxed" lightly, but they also don't provide a definition for it. I have no idea what it means. I guess it means "give credit by providing the name." Maybe?
"doxxing" = "documenting" = investigating using publicly available information
Until now, only unlicensed civilians were shamed for doing investigative journalism. Accusing actual journalists of doing it is a new development.
There is a newspaper claiming he's now working with GCHQ. I doubt such information is true, but given what happened to Gareth Williams in similar circumstances, I'd suggest it's egregiously irresponsible for a newspaper to even suggest it given everyone now knows who he is.
I respect the intent of the article, but I feel that the author completely misjudges the intentions and perspective of the mainstream journalists and their readership. It looks more like a culture clash than malice. > MalwareTech doesn’t give out his name on his Twitter page or blog. There are no headshots. It’s obvious that he just wants to be left alone to get on with what he enjoys – hacking shit, and figuring out…
I mean, you're right about his age and pizza and hobbies. They turn a tech-news story ("Major malware attack stops") into a human-interest one ("Meet the man who saved the internet"), which plays way better for these papers. The general public, or at least their readership, probably does enjoy those details.
And I suspect they didn't exactly consider this 'doxxing'. It's a less invasive piece than a lot of what they run, and the information was available via public sources. The Sun in particular considers felony phone-tapping fair game, so this is almost chivalrous by their standards.
---
But... none of that justifies a damn thing. The general public wants plenty of things that are harmful or illegal, and we don't accept "people wanted it" as a defense of those things. The Sun, as I mentioned, proved that point in spectacular fashion.
Even conceding that the information was available, this isn't something excused by decent journalistic ethics. Publishing nominally-positive personal accounts about people without any attempt to contact them or let them request redactions is pretty odd. Showing up at their friend's houses without notice or interview requests to the main player is bizarre and unwelcome. Offering real name and location info on someone who just interfered with a major criminal action is downright irresponsible - he made the info available in the past, but might have felt pretty differently after interfering with this attack. Using his Twitter photos (unembedded) is comparatively harmless, but it's also illegal!
So yeah, I see why there was a human-interest piece run here. But that doesn't actually justify how the thing was handled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I occasionally offer to dox people to show them how bad their OpSec truly is or as an example of why I don't use social media like Facebook for privacy concerns. Doxing people is often trivial since nearly anyone contributing to discussions online have large online profiles. It isn't a very difficult task - just a game of connecting the dots and knowing how to construct specific Google search queries (eg: "site:___ +…
I've been wondering if it is possible to dox my Reddit account. I like to think I've been careful not to give too much away but I wonder if it is true. I would like to find a white hat site that prepares a report on what they can find about you. (For the record, my reddit account has a different username than my HackerNews account)
This would be difficult to start as it would require trust. I already do exactly this ("white hat doxing") but do you trust that that is actually what I'm doing? Maybe it would be easier as an established corporation with an explicit privacy policy.
>I've been wondering if it is possible to dox my Reddit account.
You can make it much more time consuming and more difficult (read: but not impossible) to do so by using this userscript as frequently as possible: https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/10380-reddit-overwrite
I personally run it for all posts older than 2~3 weeks (when activity/relevance of the post is nearly equivalent to "0").
Some sites still archive posts w/o updating for any future edits, there is web cache, etc. But those are far harder to search and tie together than simply browsing your comments on your profile. Note that some subreddits may ban you for using it and you'll get a bunch of AutoModerator posts asking you not to do that because of thread integrity and blah blah blah.
If some journalists were able to find his identity, he can safely assume that the people behind wannacry are also able to do it. Maybe he'll take some measures to protect himslef more now. I would've liked to see the journalists find the hackers behind this. That would've been an achievement indeed.
I would have liked to see a story from the journalists on how easy it was for them to find the guy and then they had responsibility alerted the person on those points w/o revealing his name (you know like what security researchers do)