Should Newsweek Have Outed Satoshi Nakamoto's Personal Details?

Nerval's Lobster writes "Newsweek's Leah McGrath Goodman spent months tracking down the mysterious founder of Bitcoin, "Satoshi Nakamoto," a name that everybody seemed to believe was a pseudonym for either a single individual or a shadowy collective of programmers. If Satoshi Nakamoto, former government contractor and model-train enthusiast, is actually "Satoshi Nakamoto," Bitcoin founder, then he's sitting atop hundreds of millions of dollars in crypto-currency. Does the article's exhaustive listing of Nakamoto's personal details place his security at risk? Many in the Bitcoin community think so, and poured onto the Web to express that opinion. The Newsweek article has raised some interesting questions about the need for thorough journalism versus peoples' right to privacy. For example, should Goodman have posted an image of Nakamoto's house and car, even though information about both would probably be relatively simple to find online, anyway?"

Comments

But He Isn't

[Stormy Dragon]

It's become petty clear that the guy in question ISN'T Satoshi Nakamoto. This is basically just a crazy lady writing a delusional account of the two months she spent stalking a random Japanese guy.

Re:But He Isn't

[TechyImmigrant]

> shouldn't a good researcher have looked into that?

What makes you think she's a good researcher? She writes for Newsweek for Christ's sake.

Re:But He Isn't

[Threni]

No idea, but that's her problem, and without proof it's just "chatting shit", and I didn't think Newsweek was in the business of doing that just because proper journalism times time, effort and integrity. If you just want to type something, get a blog.

Personal Details

[Anonymous Coward]

Outing anybody without their permission, especially in circumstances such as where someone has done nothing wrong is incredibly unethical.

Re:Personal Details

[Raumkraut]

Thought experiment: Remember that guy at Tiananmen Square? If you're not Chinese, you probably know who I mean. Would you consider it "ethical" for an American newspaper to publicise his new identity, location, family, etc.?
What if it then turns out that wasn't the guy after all? Do you consider it "ethical" to publicise all the details about some random citizen, and - at the very best - turn their life upside down, just because some journalist thinks they're probably someone important, due to finding some circumstantial evidence?

"In the public interest" is not the same thing as "interesting to the public".

Great timing

[Sigvatr]

He was outed from his anonymity at just about the same time as the CEO of a virtual exchange was found dead under mysterious circumstances. Good job, media.

Even if it's accurate

[Rick in China]

Which it doesn't seem to be... I think it's absolutely wrong to out someone who is actively trying to remain out of the spotlight - publishing personal information or photos without their permission. It's very different if it's a wanna-be famous actor or singer or whatever, a loud outspoken public figure type, then -- fair game -- but a recluse? Let people have some f'in privacy, ffs.

No of course not

[Crashmarik]

It's really not even a question that should have to be asked. Here is a man who wasn't seeking the limelight and this idiot reporter stole something from him he will never be able to fully recover.

NO

[jmd]

As Eleanor Roosevelt said: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
Lets get back to discussing Bitcoin..... the idea.

Re:Bad

[erikkemperman]

Journalists used to have a little class.

No they didn't. It is just that today their lack of class is more apparent.

Come on, even Hunter S Thompson had more class than the vultures who are filling columns these days. And consider someone like Edward Murrow -- he would probably not even get a job at any major news outlet today.