71–80 of 703 posts
Does the concept of privacy mean anything to Newsweek?
I'm torn about the article. On one hand this seems like a horrid breach of privacy and a terribly dangerous thing to do. On the other, even if they just said he lives in his family home in California, people were going to find out all this information. Half of me thinks it's better everyone knows they were doxed all at once.
> On the other, even if they just said he lives in his family home in California, people were going to find out all this information. How is the argument "X was going to happen anyway so it's fine if it happens now" ever right?
However if it's safety, it's better to know up front than to think you're anonymous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Forget Dangerous... it's down right irresponsible They list the guys entire family including kids and where they work etc. Beside that the article has very little content other than "he's a little bit weird" an observation that is not exactly original, it's almost a stereotype that really smart people are often a "little bit weird" .
This poor guy. Does the US have no legislation in regard to protection privacy?
"Doxing" is just an Internet term for extremely offensive behavior, but it's not illegal.
Being labeled Satoshi regardless of truth is pretty much going to get you robbed, kidnapped or killed. This dude lives in this town and has $400M of untraceable currency? The article gives his name, face, address and relatives. You can be sure as hell that somebody will do something stupid to try and get to it. I wouldn't wish this label upon anybody, it's exactly why the community tries to avoid speculating about it…
Being labeled Satoshi regardless of truth is pretty much going to get you robbed, kidnapped or killed. This dude lives in this town and has $400M of untraceable currency? The article gives his name, face, address and relatives. You can be sure as hell that somebody will do something stupid to try and get to it. I wouldn't wish this label upon anybody, it's exactly why the community tries to avoid speculating about it…
Why are you so certain he will get robbed, kidnapped, or killed? There are many many people with $400M+ and their information is freely available online and in the media as well.
The fear is that it's not actually safe to be rich in Bitcoin at the moment. In theory, this can be resolved through the use of tamper-resistant secure hardware (like the chips used in credit cards): you put your bitcoins under the control of such a device and then it's programmed to only allow small "cash" withdrawals to unauthenticated addresses, and it does risk analysis and requires authenticated addresses for everything else. But no such devices exist yet.
Can this be real? a guy calls the cops, but admits he was involved? "Tacitly acknowledging his role in the Bitcoin project, he looks down, staring at the pavement and categorically refuses to answer questions." "I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it," he says, dismissing all further queries with a swat of his left hand. "It's been turned over to other people. They are in charge of it now. I no longe…
Except that he used his full, real name. That is what seems so odd to me.
If it really is him though, I'm very much afraid this article just destroyed his life...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_informa...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_privacy_law#Califor...
Whatever. Satoshi-san can sue if he likes. The damage done in the article alone is devastating for even persecution charges.
Does the concept of privacy mean anything to Newsweek?
I see it as good investigative journalism. You don't think the single person that potentially originated a new form of global currency that's dominating headlines, and receiving the attention of world leaders is newsworthy? I'm a firm believer in privacy - but when something one has put into the world stands to have a massively disruptive force, it's worth exploring who that person is, and what their motivations are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? From the photo of his house, people on reddit have already got his address. And the photo shows his car registration. They also explicitly state he's got keys worth ~$400 million. Seems like painting a target on him.
The photo of the house and the car is extraneous, I agree. However, there is he, apparently posing for a photo. This is a man who decided to use his own family name in the Bitcoin papers, and the journalist simply searched people with the family name to find a decent match and did a lot of leg work.
Being good at science doesn't count.