Bill Atkinson doxxed Douglas Adams in 1987 • Hacker News Board

Re: Bill Atkinson doxxed Douglas Adams in 1987

#101

Post by rjsw » Mon, Nov 04, 2024, 4:23 PM UTC

zabzonk wrote: post #79

rjsw wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Apricot PC [1] was not an IBM PC compatible, it was a Victor 9000/Sirius 1 compatible. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apricot_PC

We (at the BBC) had the later 286 versions which claimed compatibility, and could run Windows 2.0 - they were still crap, and in fact so unreliable that we trashed them all and replaced them with Compaq, as doing so was so much cheaper in support, development and other costs. Original reason for buying them was of course because they were "British". This was in the late 1980s - luckily things have changed since.

If Douglas Adams owned the Apricot before the Macintosh then it would have been an 8086+8089 one, they were reliable. His writing suggested that he only used Macs after getting the first one.

Re: Bill Atkinson doxxed Douglas Adams in 1987

#102

Post by to11mtm » Mon, Nov 04, 2024, 6:25 PM UTC

fsckboy wrote: post #5

pre internet, your name, address, and phone number would published in the widely distributed telephone book. if you were a big celebrity, you could get an "unlisted" number (I think you had to pay for it), but that was relatively rare. you might recall, the opening of the original Terminator film (1984, same time period) hinges on this idea: the robot has a name and a city, he tears that page out of a phone book in a…

> if you were a big celebrity, you could get an "unlisted" number (I think you had to pay for it), but that was relatively rare.

Ehh, in my hometown, police officers almost always opted for unlisted, at the same time one couldn't blame them given the overall level of crime in the city.

Re: Bill Atkinson doxxed Douglas Adams in 1987

#103

Post by pomian » Mon, Nov 04, 2024, 7:08 PM UTC

rstuart4133 wrote: post #72

gregmac wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you were a big celebrity, you could get an "unlisted" number (I think you had to pay for it), but that was relatively rare. Anyone could do it. It almost seems like extortion: "pay us $$ or we'll publish your name, address and number in a huge book that we'll deliver to everyone in the city!" I guess you probably agree when you get a phone line hooked up, though.

> It almost seems like extortion The instincts you have about privacy today are inappropriate for back then. It's hard to get to your mind around the difference sending an email, or making a phone call, or sending an SMS to anyone in the world being nearly free makes. Back then in most countries even a local phone call cost a couple of dollars in today's money. Interstate and international phone calls had background…

That part about trying to find a phone number, rings so true. (!) Have a Normal question? Go to a supplier website, scroll around, find tabs, find a go to contacts form, fill in form, etc. But all I want is a quick question. Sometimes, even as simple as, what town is this company in?

Re: Bill Atkinson doxxed Douglas Adams in 1987

#104

Post by Forgeties79 » Tue, Nov 05, 2024, 3:08 PM UTC

adsteel_ wrote: post #65

Forgeties79 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok but it’s still a jerk move that none of us would want to experience, right? Like can we at least agree it was malicious and unwanted?

The author says he scrolled past it quickly, so it "may have been an honest mistake," ie not malicious. Unwanted? There's been a big cultural shift over the past 100 years about addresses. Papers used to print subjects' addresses alongside the subject. In the 80s addresses were still considered public knowledge via phone books. So maybe Douglas Adams didn't want his to be public, but he would have been in the minorit…

It's less this specific act and more that just because you could easily locate numbers/addresses it doesn't really lessen the act of blasting it out for the world - nobody wants to be on the receiving end of that. Clearly it was an accident for this specific case, but I just found the previous comment way too flippant/hand wavy.