If more people are brave enough to speak out about harassment I wouldn’t argue that it’s inconceivable for harassers to be more careful. I’m speaking in the abstract here. If harassers know that ex-employees might be willing to speak out against them they might be less likely to do it in the future. It’s pretty simple. That’s pretty much how societal change works.
That’s also why one person doing it is not enough.
For sure. In the case of the African-American civil rights movement it took many generations.
But whenever someone minimizes an individual effort, finds excuses why they shouldn't have fought back, questions whether they really deserved it or not, or nit-picks their stories they are setting things back and slowing things down. Often the most rational people are the worst. They love to ignore context, pose what-ifs, and explore every edge case. But really they are just biased.
There's that feeling of loneliness when you want something, but the market moves away and leaves you with only out of date devices fully matching your needs. I sympathize.
And if there is a market for 5mm case+battery packs (and really, aren't these almost only available for iPhones?) there should be a market for a phone with twice or more battery life from the start, built-in. I don't think nakedrobot2 is the only one wanting that.
> There's that feeling of loneliness when you want something, but the market moves away and leaves you with only out of date devices fully matching your needs. I sympathize.
I sympathize as well, but manufacturers aren't 100% to blame here. They make what people buy, and people want thin phones because it makes them feel like they're living in the future™.
> And if there is a market for 5mm case+battery packs there should be a market for a phone with twice or more battery life from the start, built-in. I don't think nakedrobot2 is the only one wanting that.
You're asking the wrong question. There's a "market" for just about anything. The question is, how big is it? How big are companies like Morphie? Are they big enough that a company like Samsung --- forget Apple, because we all know it takes Jupiter-sized markets for Apple to add new SKUs -- to roll variants of their current line up to serve this market?
Sorry for the truckload of rhetorical questions. We already know the answers to those questions, because we can observe the market. I'm just glad the market is large enough to support companies like Morphie, because otherwise, we'd be out of luck entirely.
I had spare batteries when using feature phones. And most of the time I'd want to use one the spare would be dead, because:
1. the main battery is dead because I didn't think about charging it. The chances I would have remembered charging the spare were abysmal as well.
2. I also need a spare charger for the spare battery. Or I'd need to swap it in the phone when I have access to an outlet, and it would take twice the time to charge the main battery and the spare. Again, time and preparation.
All in all, an extension to the phone is clunky, but still the best trade-off if I needed it.
I could join the bigger battery crowd. We are stuck with the same battery life an iPhone 1 had. The incremental battery and efficiency gains are consumed by displays and more and more apps running in the background and we still don't have a phone that can last a day on moderate burn.
Or just make a standard for batteries like AA and just let people replace them. Its revolutionary idea that has been around for the last couple of decades.
Making a new version of iOS that doesn't run as well on older devices — that's fine. I understand that iPhone 4 wasn't a priority (but note that in spite of what many people mindlessly repeat, iPhone 4 performance problems were not because of "new animations and effects").
What I have a problem with is:
* pretending that all devices should be upgraded, even though iPhone 4 clearly should not have been included given the abysmal performance,
* disabling downgrades (it's not that they are technically impossible, it's that Apple specifically disabled them after several days),
The goal was to show how unified the iOS ecosystem is: so-and-so-many percent of users upgraded immediately, there is one version to develop for, etc — but I was sacrificed on the way to that goal. That is not OK.
Net result was that for several months my phone was a useless piece of crap, taking forever to do anything, missing taps and swipes, taking screenshots of the lock screen instead of switching on, etc. That is not OK.
In the future, warn me that there are performance problems and that the upgrade is possible, but not advised. And give me the possibility to switch back.
Huh? Gravity was massively hyped for its special effects and the very real feeling of exhilaration it creates. It’s an awesome action movie with none of the stereotypical and boring tropes of action movies. (Also, the cinematography is very much above average and I personally really loved its rhythm of quiet and action.)
The depiction of space hardware is actually awesomely realistic (to some level of detail) but I don’t recall anyone praising it for realism beyond that. Because it very much isn’t. (Still, getting the actual space hardware right is something not many movies manage to pull off and pretty impressive on its own.) I don’t think it matters very much or reduces the enjoyment very much. This movie is very much not about space travel.
Europa Report is a bit cringe but probably the best you can do with that kind of budget and in that respect it’s pretty and also pretty realistic.
Huh. I recall my friends citing articles from popular publications where astronauts supposedly praised Gravity for its utter phycics realism. I disagree with you about Gravity (I didn't like it very much) but I agree that in the great scheme of things realism isn't that important for entertainment.
I can't imagine an astronaut praising the "physics realism" of the "buffeted by the wind in space" moment that caused the death of the male character. His momentum had clearly been completely stopped by the tether, but instead of rebounding back toward the other tethered astronaut (as had happened multiple, more realistic, times earlier in the movie), some unknown force kept pulling him away until at last the tether came loose. If the setting were terrestrial the force would be inferred by most viewers to be the drag of a moving fluid such as wind. What similar force exists in space?
I don't complain about the presence of unrealistic space plot device in unrealistic space movie, but there it is.
Bullock's leg was entangled with the parachute cords, and holding on to Clooney's tether with one hand. The Bullock-Clooney system was inertially travelling away from the ISS, to which one end of the parachute lines was anchored. The tangle of parachute cords was straightening as the distance increased. Eventually, they will run out of slack, at which point there will be an impact which (in Clooney's opinion) would either cause Bullock to lose her grip on the tether (dooming Clooney) or cause the cord looped around her foot to slip free (dooming them both). Bullock is barely connected to anything, has only one hand free (at best), and is in a terrible emotional state, rendering her incapable of useful action.
Clooney throws off his tether which causes three things to happen:
1. A small amount of seperating momentum to both Clooney and Bullock, pushing Clooney further away and slowing Bullock towards the ISS.
2. Halving the force needed to stop Bullock's movement away from the ISS.
3. Freeing up Bullock's hands to improve her attachement to the parachute cord.
I have no idea if the math works out but I don't see the theoretical problem with the situation physics-wise.
I think the parachute cord is already taut when this scene takes place (see 1:08 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjLcIxcSaik), so I don't see how it can run out of slack beyond this. And in your version, where does the tension in the tether between Bullock and Clooney come from?
When I saw the scene, I imagined the cord and/or the parachute to be elastic. So even if the cord is taut, it may not be in a stable stationary state; the cord might snap beyond a certain amount of stress or the parachute might unhinge.
Infact, after Clooney's character unleashes himself, Bullock's character recoils back, which seems to agree with my elastic theory.
A realistic solution would be for them to be rotating which pulls the line taught and when released he would seemingly fall. However, I don't think that's shown in the actual visuals as they would have to be rotating fairly quickly or the cord needs to be really long for that to be a significant issue.
Anyway, just looking at the previews I saw a enough holywood physics to give the thing a pass. The way the ISS was destroyed looked cool but the physics was terrible.
They are shown rotating slowly, so it's sort of possible given an elastic parachute cord, but it's awfully contrived. You also have to wonder, given how slowly he drifted off, why Matt couldn't unstrap that empty thrust pack and use it as reaction mass, as Ryan does with the empty fire extinguisher later on.
The bigger gaffe for me was Matt's instruction to Ryan, right after the first hit, to detach from the arm on the grounds that it would carry her too far away. That makes no sense at all. Detaching won't affect her velocity except to add a sizable random component based on the point in the arm's rotation where she detaches, and since he's already lost sight of her at that point that's going to make her much, much harder to find.
All pedantry aside, loved loved loved the movie. Certainly the film of the year for me, and possibly the decade.
Some people can't stand bad acting, I hate bad physics. I think it's the same basic issue. When a movie shows something that's close but off it simply breaks the suspension of disbelief. It's probably got something to do with the uncanny valley where talking stick figures don't cause problems, but the more realistic the setting the less wiggle room you have.
I suspect most people have similar pet peeves. I remember watching a action movie with an ER doctor once. They had the same sort of reaction but with the long list of injury's people would end up with. Or how many tech people get offended by computer techno-babel in movies.
> I don't complain about the presence of unrealistic space plot device in unrealistic space movie, but there it is.
Normally neither do I, except if the movie's marketing made it an issue. I never actually researched realism claims about the movie (as I said, it came up during a discussion with friends, two of whom cited two different articles where astronauts had testified as to the accuracy of the movie's physics) until now. I have to say that claims of realism are in fact mostly confined to headline writers and journalists quoting astronauts out of context, for example when an astronaut referred to "stunning realism" of the special effects, that got mangled into "astronaut praises stunning realism of Gravity".
Reading the actual reviews, I still believe that misleading claims were made, but apparently experts were mostly quoted creatively.
It's been some time since I've seen it, so you may be right. However, the situation you describe would only obtain once the entire system was rotating. As I recall, the female astronaut grabbed onto the object and the tether immediately stretched out tight, with no time to impart angular momentum to the tether or to the male astronaut. In that situation, I would expect the tether to wind around the object somewhat in the interim before the male came loose, and in that case he would have been imparted with some lateral momentum that would have taken him past the object (although not necessarily within retrieval distance) rather than straight away from it as I dimly recall from the film.
It was not in any way portrayed as rotating. In fact Sandra's character seemed to be moving away from the ISS at a snail's pace. Furthermore, she was neither accelerating nor decelerating. It was poorly portrayed, that's why there is disagreement. As portrayed visually, it doesn't make sense. This was done I assume to stretch out the dramatic moment of decision so they could have an actual conversation about it. Even then that could have been achieved simply by having the conversation happen while the two were moving away from the ISS much faster.
Aside from the thing that jessaustin mentioned, there's also the problem that Hubble and the ISS have completely different orbits and that you can't just take your back mounted whatever-it-is-called and fly between them.
Doxxing? That is such a stupid term. It’s called journalism. Reporting on people with a huge impact on the world is sort of what journalists do. Of course that includes identifying information.
Sure, publishing identifying information of people who did nothing special is unethical but that can hardly be said about Satoshi. If the story is correct then this is some insanely rich dude who got rich by inventing Bitcoin which now got huge. I don’t think he needs you to defend him. (If any of this is incorrect her reporting is quite obviously highly irresponsible and unethical, but I’m assuming it is for now.)
Did I do anything of note that would make any of this information interesting to the public? I think I did not. If you want to put the work in and find all that out you are free to.
I never once said that everyone should actually provide journalists with that information just like that. They still have to put the work in. Do that if you want to, but I don’t think you will find anything interesting.
So a person loses their right to privacy when enough strangers take an interest in them?
Nakamoto barely provided Newsweek with any information at all. The rest was obtained (possibly illegally?) by snatching his email from a website he had done business with. After that, she pretended to have an interest in trains to spark a conversation and get initial information. She then stalked him and interviewed his family.
It's more than a polite social fiction. It's a moral requirement for many of the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution to have any meaning. E.g. try exercising your right to an attorney when the prosecution logs all your communications. Or try exercising your right of assembly to discussion union membership while your employer monitors the meeting. If Americans give up on privacy and decide it's not worth fighting for, they will eventually cede the rest of their rights as well. There are simply too many powerful interests with strong incentives to create a world without a right to privacy.
And the legal scope of those situations is correspondingly narrow. I'm not against a right to privacy, which is why I said I'm in favor of a constitutional amendment to make it explicit. I'm saying that you don't have a comprehensive right to privacy now. Moral rights are what you want, legal rights are what you actually have.
I don't thinkt eh right to privacy is entirely unilateral; if it were, journalism could not exist, and the Constitution also forbids the government from abridging the freedom of the press - which includes the freedom to inquire as well as to publish. I personally would narrow the scope of press freedom if I were drafting constitution 2.0, because I believe publishers often exploit the economic asymmetry between themselves and their subjects to the detriment of ordinary people in a manner that the framers of the constitution were unable to envision, but there you go.
> " Moral rights are what you want, legal rights are what you actually have."
This sounds like a purely philosophical disagreement, so I won't pursue it much. From a practical perspective, I partially agree with you. A right without any teeth to back it up isn't much use in practice. In constitutional forms of government, it's the law that provides the teeth (as law ultimately devolves into a question of how and when force can be used, and against whom). But a more cynical perspective is that the teeth are all that really matter, and the moral arguments are all justifications for getting teeth in the first place. It's that latter, more cynical perspective that I am opposed to.
> So a person loses their right to privacy when enough strangers take an interest in them?
Depends on why strangers take an interest in them. I think it is reasonable to say that Nakamoto has made himself a public figure , so journalists should be able to research them within the confines of the law.
If I understand your comment, you believe you are ok with sounds posting that list of sensitive private information, but only if he "put the work in" to find it. I guess thats the only reason you don't post all of that information publically yourself. Your information is clearly interesting to the public, look a member of the public specifically asked for it.
How about if I compensate you, is that a reasonable substitute? How much would you charge in exchange for publishing every item on that list?
I suspect you will find that there is some information that you'd rather not divulge on the open internet, where there is no shortage of crazies. Some of that info would be useful for identity fraud as well.
A. You have to put in the work and actually find stuff out. That’s what journalists do.
B. You have to report on something relevant and interesting to the public. Some random person who didn’t do anything of any note is not relevant. Publishing identifying information on them is unethical. Publishing identifying information on someone hugely influential is very much ethical.
That's basically what keeps the paparazzi in business, yes. There's a reason the First Amendment rights were listed first, as well, which is the same reason the Guardian has been doing much of their Snowden coverage out of their New York office; press freedom is a big deal, even when that's inconvenient for you...
Since we're talking ethics, rather than legality, do you believe it's ethically sound to post someone's personal details, and then make (possibly false) claims about them that may compromise their safety?
> Since we're talking ethics, rather than legality, do you believe it's ethically sound to post someone's personal details, and then make (possibly false) claims about them that may compromise their safety?
I don't think it's ethically sound to post his address, license plate information, city, etc. Especially since it leads to crazy media car chases and other sorts of paparazzi-style insanity that I wouldn't wish on anyone, let alone a guy who just wants to be left alone.
I'm also partial to arguments based on safety. It was one of the many reasons I was opposed to what Bradley Manning did, for instance.
However the risk to those affected by Manning was much larger than the risk to Dorian, and in any event I can't remember many people on HN saying before not to post stories about rich people since the unwashed thugs might stick a shiv in them and rob them.
Thanks for your honest answer. I'm of the opinion that it's legal (first amendment, etc), but rather unethical, especially since the evidence isn't conclusive.
Regarding safety, currency stored in banks tends to be less susceptible to theft via coercion. If someone breaks into a house, holds a person at gunpoint, and demands their bank details, they probably won't be able to successfully transfer a few million dollars out without triggering some internal check. On the other hand, you could easily do that with bitcoins, assuming that the private key hasn't been locked up in a vault, or the transaction secured with multiple keys.
I still feel it's an unlikely scenario, but it seems that claiming someone has $400 million in untraceable digital currency is going to impact their safety more than claiming they have $400 million in a bank, or in shares.
> If someone breaks into a house, holds a person at gunpoint, and demands their bank details, they probably won't be able to successfully transfer a few million dollars out without triggering some internal check.
While that's true I suppose, whose fault is it for designing a system that is so much more susceptible to "rubber-hose theft"? It seems to me that this threat model would apply equally to anyone who gets rich via Bitcoin, not just Nakamoto, and it's an inherent side effect of refusing to allow banks to act as a trusted third party.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Should investigative journalism be forbidden from here on to anyone who has enough Bitcoin? Because if it's true that being rich will get you physically robbed then how many Bitcoin startups have founders and officers that are in mortal peril based on their Bitcoin holdings? Surely we can't apply a blanket "no investigate" order across them all.
Rather I believe that, if this is a viable threat, that it's an unintended consequence which is essentially inherent to the new marketplace Nakamoto created, which is something that anyone publically known with Bitcoin riches will have to cope with in the future.
It's not too difficult to protect Bitcoins from "rubber-hose theft". The simplest solution is to keep the private key to the majority of the wealth in a bank vault, or several.
If Newsweek got it right, then Satoshi has a number of options for securing his wealth, assuming he still has the private keys. But if Newsweek got it wrong, there's nothing Dorian Nakamoto can really say, other than to deny the story.
Consider if Newsweek ran a story about a secretive millionaire who supposedly has millions in gold stored in his basement. If the subject of the investigation does have millions, but they are stored more sensibly, he could release a statement saying that, yes, he has gold, but its stored in banks, not in his basement. But if Newsweek are wrong, they've compromised the security of an innocent individual.
The number of page hits the article gets? Come on - Bitcoin is news, and it's been made news by people like us. Don't be too surprised or appalled when the general media tries to latch on to the publicity train.
Society? People have always wanted to know who Nakamoto was in real life and would consider creating Bitcoin something of note. Any news story about Bitcoin in the past couple years have included something about the mystique of Nakamoto.
Most of that information is already available on the open Internet, given someone's full name, which many people use (or don't go to great effort to hide) on the Internet.
Given my full name, you can figure out, in about ten minutes, where I live, pictures of my house and my car (thanks, Google), the amount of property taxes I pay and the value of my house, my approximate net worth, my family, my academic history, partial work history, and many other details I would personally prefer the Internet to not know. All this is easily available on open public Internet sites.
And that's me. I make a concerted effort to remain pseudonymous on the Internet. I don't have a Facebook. I think you'd be surprised what people can easily find out about you if they want to.
What I do find interesting is the dichotomy between what I perceived to be the HN majority opinion in the story about license plate tracking and this story. In the former, it seemed to me that most people declared that privacy was basically dead and we should get over it; it was perfectly legitimate to collect public data regardless of whether the aggregation of that data led to information that many people would consider an invasion of privacy. Indeed, many commenters justified this point of view by saying that, essentially, data collection didn't really introduce any new problems, it just made it easier to get caught lying (e.g. having an affair) which is your fault since you shouldn't be doing it anyway.
But here many people (perhaps it is entirely a different set of people) clearly feel that the opposite is true: individuals, even those who may be involved in very public projects, have a powerful right to privacy. Or is it just that we feel its OK for companies and individuals to buy and sell information but less OK for the media to publish the same information wholesale? If so, why? At least when the media publishes my information, I know what you know. If people are buying and selling my information, I don't know what they know about me, I don't know what they're doing with that information, I don't know if its accurate, and I don't know how that affects decisions that companies and governments make about me.
I especially find the argument that we shouldn't publish the information about Satoshi because it puts him at risk interesting. I think most of us dismissed the same arguments when it came to informants identified in the Wikileaks documents.
I don't buy the "seeking attention" argument: many celebrities and people in positions of power aren't seeking attention and fame - it's a side effect of the job, or something they have done. The case is no different for them than it is for Satoshi.
Journalism exists in part to put the powerful under the microscope. They have many more resources to hide their activities and to defend their interests than average folks, and don't need to be protected from public scrutiny.
Maybe he doesn't have access to his million dollar fortune. Maybe he lost the keys. Maybe someone else used his name and he is the Satoshi but not the creator. He is certainly not living as someone with hundreds of millions in the bank. In what way did he lose any right to be protected from public scrutiny (assuming anyone does have that right - I'm not sure they do)?
By making something that's used by vast numbers of people to channel huge amounts of money.
Journalists need to be able to go after stories like this because otherwise our society will be much worse. They have editors. They have review boards. We're not talking about 4chan or reddit lynch mobs here.
Maybe he is the wrong guy. How is he going to prove he didn't invent Bitcoin? Especially if he has done classified work. He clearly doesn't want attention. He couldn't have made that more clear. And he still has a right to a private life. I don't agree with your suggestion that creators don't have rights.
I am not suggesting to stop journalists investigating who people are. But this is clearly someone who does not want attention. This could easily turn into a 4chan or reddit lynch mob. You only need a few Mtgox victims who want to enact revenge. Or criminals hoping of forcing him to pay hundreds of millions in blackmail. To a possibly innocent person.
To be clear, this story could have been done without printing his whole address, car number plate, unblurred pictures of himself and his family etc.
> He is certainly not living as someone with hundreds of millions in the bank.
Thats because he doesn't have hundreds of millions in the bank. He has it in a random internet conceived currency. I'd seriously like to see him (or anyone for that matter) try and realize $1MM in Bitcoin in actual USD.
Good luck with getting your 1000 payouts of $1000 at a time spread over the course of 2 weeks per payout.
You assume he could. He may not actually still have access to it.
This situation isn't really comparable to the general public learning that somebody may or may not have a few million in investments and savings accounts. It is closer to the general public (excluding the police) learning that somebody may or may not have a few kilos of coke stashed somewhere in their home.
This hypothetical bitcoin wealth, and the hypothetical coke wealth differs from hypothetical 'traditional' wealth in that they can be burglarized or extracted via torture without attracting outside attention.
The blockchain is visible to all... of course it would attract outside attention.
But only if Nakamoto were actually able to spend it! If he's not able to spend it then he can't hire security I guess, but that would also put him at much lower risk of being burglarized for goods he can't give up. The important thing would seem to be making it clear he doesn't have access (that is, if he doesn't).
Taking the wallet would not attract attention. Only transferring the coins would, and that could be done hours, days, weeks, hell even years after you've finished beating Satoshi with a wrench in his basement. You could be on step "Getaway" before the rest of the world was notified that something was going on.
Stealing the fortunes of conventional multi-millionaires however necessarily involves interacting with the outside world at the time of the theft. Unless they are drug dealers anyway... there is a reason that drug dealers get hit by thieves so often, and it isn't only because the thieves know they will hesitate to contact police.
If he can no longer access the coins (either because he intentionally destroyed the keys, or because he neglected backups), then proving that to be the case would be damn near impossible. In this hypothetical case, Satoshi may very well believe that he has a better chance of making it unclear that he is actually Satoshi.
When you develop software based on your own novel framework, wouldn't you need to do several test-runs, performance runs, sanity runs in the process? Do you keep all the intermediate debug data? I know I don't. In this case bitcoins would be part of the intermediate data.
I'm all for the "fuck celebrities and their privacy wishes" attitude, but only when it's those who actively choose to become famous. Satoshi didn't ask for any of this, so I highly respect his right to privacy. Furthermore, he's not famous, he's infamous. I wouldn't wish his current position upon my enemies.
Yo, demo9898, that was hilarious. I sadly can’t respond directly to you since your haphazard summary of what I said in the past on this site is marked dead.
Most of the stuff you list that I explicitly said about myself is spot-on (mostly because I explicitly said it) or at most slightly out of date, but all the inferred stuff is garbage. I’m pretty sure I could be identified with what I said here. Maybe. Probably. You, however, were running down all the wrong paths. Doing it properly would require some more amount of work.
I guess that shows there is more to investigative journalism than reading a bunch of stuff someone wrote somewhere pseudonymously. And I’m still not sure why anyone would actually be interested in me and would want to publish anything about me. It’s not like I invented Bitcoin.
(Also, man did I say some aggressive bullshit in the past. Sorry about that. People change, you know, or at least recognise that their past opinions were bullshit. I think that would be about the worst thing: Pointing out dumb things I said in the past. That really stings. But it’s all public anyway, so I don’t care too much. Humans aren’t perfect.)
This is what the Nakamoto family now has to worry about. It wasn't a random killing. There were at least 6 people arrested in connection with the murders. Apparently the robbers had people inside the bank who they were paying to alert them whenever someone withdrew large amounts of cash.
People get killed over money a lot. It's probably not paranoia. I would recommend you watch the video to understand the gruesome nature of what Nakamoto now has to live with.
So? Nakamoto can spend money on security too if he feels like it. As a cryptographer he's surely familiar with the adage that 'tehre's no security in obscurity,' and I'm only surprised it's taken this long to ID him.
64 year old post stroke retired government security contractor with a paranoid streak who doesn't want to talk to a reporter in any way shape or form to the extent he called the police as soon as she shows up and the evidence she wants us to take as an admission that he is whom she thinks he is is a couple of sentences of dismissive talk about no longer being involved in "that thing".
I find it had to believe that was actually the admission she made it out to be, considering the lengths the real Satoshi took to remain anonymous, it just doesn't make sense that is the venue he would choose to voluntarily rescind his until now well maintained anonymity.
Taken altogether all we have is a collection of completely circumstantial evidence coupled with plenty of things that suggest he is not the real Satoshi and the sole final admission is supposedly hurriedly made in an offhand manner direct to a reporter whom he clearly does not want to have anything to do with.
This wasn't a random robbery though. This was a systematic killing involving dirty banking employees who sent people to hunt them down. The connection is that $20,000 is a ton of money in Ecuador, and Nakamoto has a ton of money, so Nakamoto now has to worry about being hunted.
Except his actual net worth is probably a fraction of what his theoretical net worth is. It's assumed for instance that he still has access to all those bitcoins, but something could have happened to that wallet. There's also the difficulty of actually converting those coins into something the average business will accept. It's like suggesting that handing someone a billion dollars in un-vested bonds suddenly makes them a billionaire, but in reality there not really any richer currently than they were before, although in some theoretical future they might be (assuming they hang onto the bonds till they vest and can cash them in).
I understand the fear, but the article seems to clearly say that he has less than any aging engineer -- I’d say with his actual name out there, he was a target, but no more. If anything it ties him to Federal security people, who tend to scare random Ecuadorians.
> "Sure, publishing identifying information of people who did nothing special is unethical but that can hardly be said about Satoshi."
This is wrong on so many levels. Here is a guy who created arguably the largest financial innovation of the century and who only wants to be left to live a humble, private life instead of claiming his riches, and you think that a mass of curious strangers have a right to intrude into his life, jeopardizing his safety and that of his family just so you can have the satisfaction of putting a face with a name?
Journalism isn't the same as stalking. This is a man who clearly values his privacy and who had it compromised by his own overly talkative family and by questionable actions on the part of Newsweek (note that they carefully omit how they acquired his email from the model train website). Your response encapsulates everything that is wrong with celebrity voyeurism in America.
I would argue that there is in fact a public interest in learning more about the inventor of what is "arguably the largest financial innovation of the century". Learning more about his life and others involved in bitcoin can help us understand the motivations of the individuals that led to its creation. The fact that a man who worked in classified government projects for a long period of time went on to create bitcoin is certainly interesting.
My impression from the article was that all other interviews were given very freely. There's nothing unethical about asking Satoshi's family or those he worked with in creating bitcoin about him. I don't think there's anything wrong with posting his picture either.
Granted, the article could have done with a less-revealing picture of his house. But given the prevalence of things like Google street view etc., I'm not sure you can reasonably expect to keep that stuff secret.
They could also simply be decent human beings and not post his address or a picture of his house at all, much less what kind of car he drives and its license plate.
Right now there is nothing stopping any crook smart enough to set up a bitcoin wallet from breaking into his house and demanding Nakamoto transfer some or all of his bitcoins to it. Most wealthy people keep their wealth in banks, but the keys to Nakamoto's wealth are probably on a hard drive in that house.
The transaction would be on the public blockchain, but it would be irreversible and difficult to follow after enough mixing.
I agree the picture of the house with the car's license plate is pretty slimy, but I think we're just going to have to disagree about whether or not mentioning the city he lives in and the make of his car is unethical.
Like you, I'm a little amazed at the notion that we should collectively work assiduously to preserve the anonymity of people who have set out to have a substantial effect on the public sphere.
I think average citizens have a substantial right to privacy. But it sounds crazy to me that we shouldn't be able to ask questions about the people behind major news items, people changing the world we live in.
That's especially true in this case given that the guy used his own freaking name. Presumably somebody with a security clearance working on a cryptocurrency knows the implications of that. Yes, as a nerd I too am uncomfortable when I become the center of attention. But the whole world is not obligated to tip-toe around my personal discomforts.
Well, who enforces tort law? The guys with the guns stealing the money from all of us. A government strong enough to suppress the free press is strong enough to oppress the liberties of us all. Etc. etc.
Calling Newsweek 'trash journalism' to shred it of press protections won't do either, as otherwise that would put Wikileaks at risk.
Even if the conclusion of the article is wrong I don't see how you introduce legal liability in the face of the Peter Zenger trial, as long as the facts presented were true (or reasonably believed to be true).
Talking to one's relatives and co-workers is not a crime, after all (and how could it be otherwise; should the government regulate who we can speak to?).
> Journalists always have a choice and they constantly keep stuff out of the public.
Sure. And while I disagree with giving away the guy's address (or information that would lead directly to that), I don't see any other reason why Newsweek shouldn't have tried to track down Bitcoin's creator.
Certainly that's a more compelling story than the normal drivel that hits the media nowadays, so it's hard to argue that Newsweek was filled with higher-value stories that they had to shove aside for this one.
This is an actual attempt at investigative journalism, even if the person they decided to investigate wasn't to your personal liking. Any other news story and people would be claiming "the people have a right to know".
If you take away revealing his personal location (though even that would hardly be difficult to find) I don't see the problem here. The enigmatic Sakamoto was a figure of wide publicity before this story, which is why Newsweek spent money to track to track down his location. And as the creator of a market now worth probably a billion+ (if not more) it's hard to argue that the public has no moral right to investigate more.
More importantly, ‘doxx’ing covers two situations:
* bad individual actors (disrespect in a public space, violence against weaker beings) where the outrage is the motivator; it is often wrong to make those information public, and the investigation should rapidly fold and forward its conclusion to law enforcement; it's not journalism, or gutter-journalism at best, and even low-level rags do it properly;
* people with significant impact, but whose role requires anonymity (or rather: empathic pseudonymous steganography): leakers, etc. Revealing their motivation but not their identity is good journalism. I agree that in Satoshi Nakamoto’s case, revealing details about his life adresses key issues (BitCoin public image; the incredible dedication of so many, humility and gender-role in technical fields) against his will. This article, hopefully will take away the unwanted attention from his back, focus BitCoin as an open-source project with contributors, and a product-vision that was grown/twisted by Andersen’s more clear and open views.
However, there is a word that is morally loaded and useful to describe the irresponsible behaviour of 4chan and ‘Flesh search engines’. It’s distinct from good journalism. This article is the later, not the former -- but it’s very much on the edge. The journalist could easily have avoided mentioning the location, or said that the name was a pseudonym or a mispelling.
You think those were European or US troops? Are you serious? Quit spreading the FUD. A violent revolution happened in the Ukraine, sure, but there is no indication that Europe or the US sent in any people to instigate or help with that.
Both WSJ and NYT (maybe also other publications with a paywall) will display articles if you are coming from Google. Just entering the article title (article URL tends to work, too) into Google will get you there without any paywall. (I guess this is also why looking at the cache works.)
It’s a form price differentiation, really. Also, I’m guessing this is probably the reason why many are not aware of the paywall and link to these articles.
In this case alternative and equally good sources without paywall exist so it doesn’t make much sense to link to the article with paywall (but that might have been a mistake). However, I do not understand objections to paywalls in principle.
My objection is that people attempt to publicly share private articles. If you're a member of a private website (which for all intents and purposes, a paywall is), then by sharing it with the public you're assuming they can read it. Which without circumventing the paywall, many won't be able to.
Sure, some people will have subscriptions, others will have found the article unlocked in one form or another, but still I think it's pretty poor form to share something closed source, if you will.