241–250 of 380 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have little use for assessing morality. Anybody can do whatever they want. And they get whatever they get. My parent question was more about the reporter's OPSEC. That is, the risks that he's taken.
Wait, what? I was directly responding to your criteria for assessing morality.
I have little use for assessing the moral opinions of others.
As I wrote recently, stuff that isn't testable isn't worth worrying about.
If Le Roux was arrested in 2012, what was the mechanism of the May 2014 discontinuation of TrueCrypt? In other words, who actually did that?
That could have been automatically triggered by some kind of dead man's switch.
> This page exists only to help migrate existing data encrypted by TrueCrypt.
>
> The development of TrueCrypt was ended in 5/2014 after Microsoft terminated support of Windows XP. Windows 8/7/Vista and later offer integrated support for encrypted disks and virtual disk images. Such integrated support is also available on other platforms (click here for more information). You should migrate any data encrypted by TrueCrypt to encrypted disks or virtual disk images supported on your platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't you nervous about doxxing someone like that so thoroughly?
As tptacek says, I don't view reporting like this as "doxxing." As the series hopefully shows, Le Roux was a hugely newsworthy figure for many different reasons, so reporting his background and how he got there is part of understanding where he is now. As for being nervous, many of the major players in the story are in US custody, and perhaps somewhat counterintuitively a lot of people involved want to tell their par…
Wasn't this Gawkers main argument in their defense against the hulk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, it's just semantics. Let's say that someone published this much information about you. And let's say that they had whatever justifications. That there was widespread agreement that it was OK. Whatever. How would you feel?
Germany has the concept 'people of public interest' for which different rules concerning media appearance and photographs apply. Politicians are an example. You could argue that it applies in this case as well. Wrong country of course, but the idea as an ethical code is out there, that the public has some right for information on some, and only some, people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Police officers, almost universally. Abortionists. Parents of little children, frequently. "This guy we pictured in front of a gay bar." Many people who find themselves targeted by one of the (numerous) Internet hate machines. Elected officials. Unelected officials. Anyone involved in a contract negotiation with the Teamsters. People who take substantial efforts so that ex-romantic partners do not discover where they…
I'm a little confused. I agree that there is such a thing as maliciously or recklessly posting personally identifying information about people. Is that "doxxing"? If so, why are we pretending that this story constitutes "doxxing"? Because that is what the comment to which I replied upthread claimed.
It seems particularly bad to make the title say something that the article doesn't actually claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you please quote the exact part where we can see that PLR was one of the TrueCrypt programmers? I somehow missed that what you claim while (admittedly) speed-reading, namely, I've got only this in the article: "Indeed, even today the question of who launched the software remains unanswered . “The origin of TrueCrypt has always been very mysterious,” says Matthew Green". And also as Mahn writes: https://news.ycomb…
OP of this post here. Not sure why you're downvoted and tried to upvote it to rebalance. I also realized after reading the article for the second time that it did not say that PLR is TC's author directly, but rather that it is unclear if he is. I made a mistake while first posting as my reading made me believe he's the author of TC. I tried to point it out here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11382412 Additiona…
"He Always Had a Dark Side"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, it's just semantics. Let's say that someone published this much information about you. And let's say that they had whatever justifications. That there was widespread agreement that it was OK. Whatever. How would you feel?
Are you essentially positing that the only relevant consideration to whether publishing information about someone is ethically defensible is whether or not the subject feels good about having that information revealed? It seems to me there is a material difference -- and a vast one at that -- between "I have done serious investigative work and wish to present evidence that Joe Foobar is a criminal kingpin who can be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I the only one who first read it as "Satoshi"?
There are some interesting circumstantial connections to Satoshi: Considered to be a "brilliant" programmer with a strong C++ background - Most people would call you crazy if you attempted to put a 6 billion dollar prize behind an internet facing application without memory safety Author of crypto/privacy software - E4M and possibly TrueCrypt written in C++ Experience hiding identity both online and off Millionaire -…
That's common across all of the Commonwealth countries. Could easily be Australia or NZ. If he calls traffic lights 'robots' you could be certain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As tptacek says, I don't view reporting like this as "doxxing." As the series hopefully shows, Le Roux was a hugely newsworthy figure for many different reasons, so reporting his background and how he got there is part of understanding where he is now. As for being nervous, many of the major players in the story are in US custody, and perhaps somewhat counterintuitively a lot of people involved want to tell their par…
> As the series hopefully shows, Le Roux was a hugely newsworthy figure for many different reasons, so reporting his background and how he got there is part of understanding where he is now. Wasn't this Gawkers main argument in their defense against the hulk.