Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Doxing the hero who stopped WannaCry was irresponsible and dumb

thenextweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–117 of 117 posts

Re: Doxing the hero who stopped WannaCry was irresponsible and dumb

#111

Post by tripzilch »

golergka wrote: post #53
Bartweiss wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think some of this is true, but it doesn't really excuse anything. 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 conside…

I didn't mention anything about "excuse" or "justify" in my comment; trying to project these things onto the moral axis is pointless and kind of boring, actually. I think it's far more interesting in figuring out _why_ people do certain things and how to change it than to assign "good" and "evil" labels to their acts.

Of course the "why" is interesting as well, but I don't find discussing Ethics boring at all, given that it's argued well, which is (IMHO) clearly the case for the parent post.

Really, a remark like that is on the same level as someone calling mathematics "pointless and kind of boring".

What makes it particularly not-pointless, is that it allows one to discuss these things without you having to feel any need to defend yourself because indeed you didn't say anything about "excuse" or "justify".

Similarly, math allows us to say "two plus two equals four" without anyone having to jump in and clarify that they never said it wasn't four.

Re: Doxing the hero who stopped WannaCry was irresponsible and dumb

#112

Post by kentrado »

tripzilch wrote: post #109
sctb wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please comment civilly and substantively on Hacker News or not at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

A "slang" term for a perfectly legal profession (where I'm from) used in a derivative but substantive manner--it's obviously short for the phrase "attention whore" (which is really the main reason why you shouldn't have moderated this remark) and this type of journalist is doing it just for the attention to make money, which is relevant because it sheds light on their motivation behind their questionable actions. The…

Reading your reasoning. The mod is certainly on the wrong here. But what can you do about it \_(ツ)_/¯

Re: Doxing the hero who stopped WannaCry was irresponsible and dumb

#113

Post by grzm »

tripzilch wrote: post #109
sctb wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please comment civilly and substantively on Hacker News or not at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

A "slang" term for a perfectly legal profession (where I'm from) used in a derivative but substantive manner--it's obviously short for the phrase "attention whore" (which is really the main reason why you shouldn't have moderated this remark) and this type of journalist is doing it just for the attention to make money, which is relevant because it sheds light on their motivation behind their questionable actions. The…

I think you may be missing the forest for the trees by focussing on a single word as the cause for 'sctb's comment. He specifically mentions that comments should be civil and substantive. That phrase is often used to describe the goals for discussion on HN, and they're both important.

The comment 'sctb responds to has very little substance, adding little to the conversation other than castigating its parent for assuming that people (journalists in particular) ever strive to do anything other than follow their basest instincts, that all journalists only seek attention. You add some nuance ("this type of journalist") which is entirely lacking in the original. The phrasing is also aggressive and does not invite further civil and substantive responses—hallmarks of comments that are not appropriate for HN.

Re: Doxing the hero who stopped WannaCry was irresponsible and dumb

#114

Post by Whitestrake »

corobo wrote: post #107
breischl wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the service/whitehat did an ID verification before releasing the info they uncovered? Basically ask a few things generally like what credit report agencies sometimes ask (Which of these addresses are yours? What is your username on this site? etc). Only release the info if there's a match. Presumably you'd want to get paid up front, since you'd have done all the work in either case.

"Please provide your ID" "Ok so here's what we found on you" reads content of ID

Maybe:

"Here is a link to an encrypted report containing info on what we found. Please verify your ID and we will give you the key."

Re: Doxing the hero who stopped WannaCry was irresponsible and dumb

#115

Post by tenryuu »

1337biz wrote: post #20
tenryuu wrote: post #7

I've had my shit doxxed by the media before, but fortunate enough they were kind enough to redact information on request. It was a very quick turn-around

Story?

Just a simple internet website prank that went viral with fake news. Was about three years ago now

Re: Doxing the hero who stopped WannaCry was irresponsible and dumb

#116

Post by StavrosK »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #31
proaralyst wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those curious as I was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Gareth_Williams

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/6990kh/til_i... -- It's definitely weird, but there's a reason ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/25/mi6-gareth-wil... ) that they considered this as a real possibility: > But his former landlady, Jennifer Elliot, told the inquest that three years before his death, she and her husband had heard Williams call for help at 1.30am from the annex flat he was rentin…

How do you tie yourself so tightly that it cuts your wrists?

Re: Doxing the hero who stopped WannaCry was irresponsible and dumb

#117

Post by DanBC »

StavrosK wrote: post #116
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/6990kh/til_i... -- It's definitely weird, but there's a reason ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/25/mi6-gareth-wil... ) that they considered this as a real possibility: > But his former landlady, Jennifer Elliot, told the inquest that three years before his death, she and her husband had heard Williams call for help at 1.30am from the annex flat he was rentin…

How do you tie yourself so tightly that it cuts your wrists?

Use zip ties and tighten them with your teeth

Tie one hand very tight. Use a loop of rope for the other wrist, and loop it round the wrist too many times squeezing the hand though.

Use unsuitable rope

Use ratchet handcuffs and over tighten.

Post reply on HN