Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
Outing anybody without their permission, especially in circumstances such as where someone has done nothing wrong is incredibly unethical.
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.
Considering that apparently they didn't actually discover the "real" Satoshi Nakamoto after all, I'd have to go with "no, they shouldn't have revealed anything."
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
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.
That's what the media is supposed to do. The correct question should be is this.....why is the media going all TMZ on this guy and chasing him down. In the past when we had real journalists they would have respected someone's right to not answer their stupid questions.
It's just bad journalism all around. There's nothing newsworthy about chasing people around their front yard and ringing their doorbell at all hours.
Journalists used to have a little class.
Isn't this taking the open source thing too literally?
I found the story abhorent. Them showing up on his porch and confronting him as he was coming through the door with cameras like he's some criminal was equally disgusting.
He's not famous, he's not a public figure, he's just some random guy they wrote a big story about and then confronted him like he's a movie star and they were paparazzi scum. I think newsweek and the people involved should burn in hell for what they did. When I read the story and saw the photo's and video I almost gagged at the complete lack of any kind of morals the people involved have for doing this. I will not be offering them any kind of future business because of this. Just like I don't frequent TMZ because of their paparazzi BS, I won't be reading NewsWeek anymore.
Satoshi Nakamoto: "I am not Dorian Nakamoto."
The simple fact is that BitCoin is drawing a lot of mainstream media interest. Given that nobody really knows who's behind it, (and for those really suspicious of a conspiracy, what all this crowd sourced crypto is analyzing), it's certain to draw questions. Like the ST:TNG episode "Clues", we have a series of minor mysteries on our hands.
But nevertheless, it isn't clear to me that Newsweek outed the right guy. As odd as Nakamoto appeared in the article, I'm left with feeling that the reporter is the one that's acting weird.
Very brave of them to out an "inofensive good guy". But what about outing the "powerful evils in their government"?
Too much crap in the media.
In the race to be first with the story, half of what I read in a breaking story in the first 24 hours is half speculation / utter crap presented as fact.
Generally I am for society working it out on their own ... for "journalism"... the way it has been going, I would love to see the following:
1) Mandatory and obvious front and center RETRACTIONS and CORRECTIONS when they F-up details of the story.
2) Some sort of punishment for both the journalist and the publication that present the story.
3) Funds from punishment could be used to fix the situations they caused*
*Restitution to innocent victims of bull$hit. - for example.
If a journalist does not do due diligence before releasing a story and the result is that someone's life is put at risk ... that is a very serious offence.
Ouch
Yes and No but they made a mistake. DO you want folks showing up at your place?
I'm here for the experience, not the Hyperbole.
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.
The more I read about Dorian Nakamoto, the more I want him to be Satoshi. That would make it an even better story.
Unfortunately as it stands, this is just a story of a journalist with an obsession and some amount of tunnel-vision. The more you want something to be true, the more blind you are to evidence against it.
At least he got a free lunch.
Ok, suppose the media tracks the real Satoshi down, and wants to interview him. It doesn't take a lot of brains to realize that his wealth is stored in a way that could be irrevocably taken from him by two goons and a five dollar wrench. Why not ask if he'll agree to a taped interview in a secure location with his face blurred and voice distorted -- the same as we have always done for individuals whose lives are in jeopardy?
By the way, I'm not up on what can/can't be done with the blockchain, but is there some way that the real Satoshi could affirm his existence by spending a fraction of one of the earliest-mined bitcoins in a predetermined way to prove it? E.g., "we've asked this guy to transfer $1 worth of Bitcoins from this address at the very start of the blockchain to an address we've created especially for the purposes of identification."
Koans and fables for the software engineer
What I can see is :
..
It makes no difference to bitcoin ( the identity of satoshi )
It gives the journalist lady a pat on the back and a bonus maybe
It gives all the bitcoin wannabes some kinda fantasy figure
It does not help to the correct the flaws that bitcoin fundamentally has
In all, it doesn't make any difference to the world in general.
__________________________________
Bitcoin is the DOS of crypto cc's . The Unix is yet to come
You have to set aside first whether or not this is Satoshi Nakamoto. Assume it was the victim of a terrible crime, or assume it was the perpetrator of that terrible crime. If you start saying it's okay for one to be outed, but not the other, you're already on shaky grounds of having to somehow define which is which in what case. You can argue "we can decide that on a case-by-case scenario", but then you'll inevitably overstep the boundaries. Doing a mea culpa and saying you're moving the boundary a bit is great for the future, but doesn't negate the overstepping that has already occurred.
So, that out of the way.. I think at the heart of it are two things:
1. The author's suggestion that this information is already public; and, given that she did indeed find the name through public records and went from there, one could argue that if it's already public, it doesn't matter that she published it all conveniently in one place.
Or does it? Considering the information was indeed public, but nobody bothered with it until this article, and considering the response it has gotten (overwhelmingly: great journalism in finding the person, questionable journalism at best in publishing the details), clearly it does matter when you start aggregating all of those bits and pieces into a single document; doxxing.
Some countries even have laws against doing that, fully acknowledging that the individual bits and pieces may well be public, but that aggregating them is not allowed.
2. Whether or not these details added anything to the story besides sensationalism. I.e. the photo of the house which included house number; would the story have been worse, or less believable, etc. if that had been blurred out? While the internet sleuthing machine would undoubtedly have found the address without that bit of information eventually, it would certainly have taken substantially longer. Imagine next that there were no picture of the house, merely a description that the person lived in just an ordinary house. Now the internet sleuthing machine (and that includes other media) have a monumental task ahead of them; it could be any house in the city mentioned. Would you have taken the author's word for it, though? The evidence that they had found the person they were after would have to be a lot stronger to lend weight to words than does a picture - human nature tends to do that.
Think of interviewees who agree upon the interview as long as they are not identified and are made unrecognizable (silhouette shots at best, voice warbled). This could be anybody making up any sort of story. The reason we often trust these interviews anyway is because what facts said can be verified, and because we tend to trust the interviewer based on their reputation.
We generally don't say "well unless I can see the person's face and hear what they sound like, I'm going to dismiss this interview".
You have to think to yourself how low the trust in the author of this piece has to be, and how shaky the facts on the actual subject material ("is this person Satoshi Nakamoto?") , that they saw no other recourse than to release personal details that could be verified instead ("we don't know truly if this is Satoshi Nakamoto, but it is 'A Guy', and 'A Guy' can be found here, go ahead and look him up for proof that it is 'A Guy'").
Reputable investigative journalists usually allow people who don't want to be found to remain 'not found', no matter how much bits and pieces of public information end up pointing to them; be that victims or perpetrators of terrible crimes. Without that, they're just the next doxxing TMZ, chasing people downs streets with cameras and pummeling them with leading questions.
Note that I'm just as opposed to doxxing of the author in question. While it seems like just deserts, it's really just perpetuating the problem. Rather than attacking the author, it would be more interesting to get an in-depth interview with her on her motives, thoughts (before/during/after), etc.
is that if this the Satoshi Nakamoto of BitCoin fame, the Newsweek has just doubled his wealth.
If he hasn't then Newsweek has just made him as wealthy as the other Nakamoto.
As Eleanor Roosevelt said: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
Lets get back to discussing Bitcoin..... the idea.
It looks almost as if they looked up a phone book and found the first match with a computer background, then published the guy's address before he was positively identified as the author.
"News at 11."
That's the whole story folks. The fact that he did something notable doesn't remove his right to privacy.
Hmm, very similar to JD Salinger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Salinger)
For all of you arguing that college requirements for non-technical courses are BS, this is a great counter-example. If you have no idea of what _Catcher in the Rye_ is, nor who Salinger is, then you are at a disadvantage vs. the Harvard (etc) graduates.
There are two problems with the article. The more important one is that there is no proof in the piece-- Z-E-R-O. There isn't one thing that a competent journalist would consider evidence, much less a court. Some people say "He's smart enough." BFD. , It's like my saying "Lee McGrath Goodman is a pre-op transexual" and giving as proof "The writer has a girl's name but behaves like a dick." , The logic in the article isn't even plausible, in that it asks us to believe that the creator of Bitcoin (who is paranoid about their privacy) used his birth name to sign the original document. Or, conversely, that a genius scientist who worked on top-secret projects and cared about privacy and security, would use his name to create the currency. , The second issue is, as the comment notes, that it's a total and grotesque violation of privacy. I thought Caleb Hannan's "Dr. V's Magic Putter" (which outed a transexual who wanted to keep that fact private and resulted in her suicide) was bad. This borders on the pathological. This woman has no evidence and yet she holds this guy guilty and puts him in danger. , It's not just that people who lost money on Bitcoin might damage him-- it's the criminals who might torture him to death to get the $400 million in Bitcoin she claims he has.
They'd been investigating this guy for months. A combination of things led to this story being exposed. Newsweek were about to make a print comeback, Mt Gox went under the journalist (and her two "forensic analyst" sidekicks) had to print something. End result a media ready to run with anything true or not, lots of web hits to Newseek, poor guy being harassed. Newsweek win in the short.
Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
In the US, there's a fundamental right in the constitution, the right to be left alone. This reporter violated this man's right to be left alone, placing him and his family in a life threatening situation. I think that this reporter will have to be held financially accountable for all costs to protect and relocate these people and give them a new identity.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Do we already know where Leah McGrath Goodman lives? Someone has a photo of his car?
Maybe a pic of him with his family?
This is so familiar. From some mafia films?
Vajk
In fact, there is at least one Satoshi Nakamoto in Japan who claims to be bitcoin's inventor (though nobody believes him, of course).
Brian: I am not the messiah!!!
Crowd: Only the true messiah would deny he is the messiah.
Brian: Ok, I'm the messiah!
Crowd: HE'S THE MESSIAH!!!
I'm not sure it's 90% incompetence. More like 45% incompetence and 45% actively pushing any sensationalist BS that will sell with no regard for the truth.
Now we have the internet with it's easy access to information it's become obvious just how must rubbish professional journalists spew.
Brian: I am not the messiah!
Crowd: Only the true messiah would deny he is the messiah.
Brian: Ok, I'm the messiah.
Crowd: HE'S THE MESSIAH!!!
Though unless there's a cryptography + programming + economics expert who's known by almost no one - which is pretty damn unlikely - then there's only a limited number of people it could be anyway and from what I've read he's the #1 suspect.
What right to privacy is that? He had an expectation of privacy but no right to it.
The problem here is false positives. If you slowly go through all the Satoshi Nakamoto's in the entire world, what is the probability that you _won't_ find one who fits the profile of a secretive computer geek? Chances are that that is basically what we are seeing here.
The list of circumstantial evidence is fairly convincing, but it must be weighted against the odds of _not_ finding such a person. If you look for a person with the name "David O'Neill" who could fit Bitcoin Satoshi's profile, odds are you will also find such a man, with just such a set of circumstantial evidence.
On top of all that, there are details of the story which, bluntly, make it seem fabricated. The line about the cop who knew about "the guy who invented bitcoin" reads conspiculously like either an embellishment or an outright fabrication
I don't think the story has much credibility. Then again, I have a pretty low opinion of journalists anyway.
P.S.
*Stands up* I'm Satoshi!!
May the Maths Be with you!
and I am not David Houde
Your argument would be more believable if this guy claimed to be the real deal, and the known legit twitter account outed him as a liar. For him to deny it, and his twitter account to also deny it doesn't prove anything.
and yet millions of dollars have gone missing and the Bitcoin inventor apparently requires anonymity?
Since when has Newsweek been known for journalism? As with most tabloid pieces, this one is 95% speculation and hearsay.
I found the article distasteful and inconclusive.
I don't follow bitcoin enough to know one way or another, but there's a commonly stated idea that the guy who invented bitcoin is sitting on a big stash of coins because he was able to mine them when it was much easier to do so.
If that's true or even if it's a strong maybe, if Newsweek could find him then presumably anyone motivated enough, good motive or bad, could find him, and the idea that he's sitting on a lot of bitcoin ought to be a big motivation for black hats to find him. And by black hats, I don't just mean networking black hats, but the kind of black hats operate on a more physical level, be they organized crime, intelligence service types or others of a similar ilk.
You could make an argument that publicity actually helps him in this regard, because it raises his profile enough that it makes it more difficult to use violence or intimidation against him.
None of this is necessarily an ethical argument for outing him on circumstantial evidence or outing him at all, but as bitcoin has grown in publicity the risk of being outed has only grown for him. He could have controlled the process by controlling his own public exposure instead of being "outed".
It is alleged that he frequents a web discussion forum and is using his old dorm addresses as his user name. (Would like to know how it feels if papparazzi camp out in my front yard, that is all).
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
He's a very naughty boy!
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.
There is no story without the sensationalism and journalistic conjecture.
Is Newsweek above this sort of tabloid investigative journalism or are they one of many failing and desperate former dead tree rags? Circulation was down from a historical high of 4 million worldwide per week in 2003 to just 1.5 million in 2010. The most liberal-leaning of the former Big 3(with Time & USN&WR), was sold by the Washington Post for $1 and assumption of it's liabilities in August 2010 and merged with the news and opinion website to create The Newsweek Daily Beast Company.... quite possibly to lend a credible name to blog-like reporting.
It's a story, as our interest implies, but it deserves no extra credibility mod points for being associated with Beastweek.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I fail to see, what's so particularly American about this case of paparazzi-journalism.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
So of course the answer is...No
@E-Rock Why do I never have mod points when someone cuts to the heart of the matter? What will be the public benefit of knowing the meatspace ID and location of the bitcoin architect? None. +1 Insightful at the very least.
... are in the business of talking up BTC, aren't they? The principle of crypto "currency" might be somewhat transformative, but I haven't yet seen any scenario in which BTC or any of the others would "fundamentally transform the economy".
You're assuming she's telling the truth and not just some racist hag who mistakes accent for "imperfect English"
No beer and no TV make Homer something something
Yes, as far as I can see, if you "corner" a market in BitCoin then you can control its price. A BitCoin, like a dollar or a diamond, is worth exactly what someone will pay you for it.
There was a similar flurry about virtual goods in Second Life, I vaguely recall.
Back on topic, is anyone alleging that the "real" Satoshi Nakamoto has cornered the market? If there is a real concern that the bitcoin architect could bring the edifice crashing down, I'd say that that was a good reason to stay well outside the said edifice.
Hubbard figured out a long time ago that the best way to make a lot of money was to start a "religion".
Bitcoin, like scientology, is a religion (with money as its god), and a small number of fanatical zealots (whose net worth is tied up in it) who will defend it no matter how ridiculous it looks to people uninvolved in it.
Nakamoto is truly brilliant. It's brilliant to start up your own currency, pile up a bunch of it for yourself, then convince others that it is worth something in real money terms. The real stroke of genius is that since it is anonymous, he can cash out before everyone figures out he has exited his own house of cards. It isn't a quite a pyramid and it isn't quite a Ponzi scheme. Since mining coins becomes more "difficult" as more coins are mined, it guarantees that the folks who started it up when mining coins was easy and cheap, will get paid the most and first.
News reporting, whatever little there is left with all the talking head crap, has adopted the software development model. Post a story in "beta" so that you can beat everyone else to the punch; although, sometimes the errors are so blatant it's probably more akin to an alpha release. By the time the appropriate fixes come along the damage is done and everyone has moved on.
There's no accountability whatsoever. But what do you expect in a culture driven by celebrity and craving the next sensationalistic fix like a drug addict?
Of course they should not have. What the hell was the point? Whether he is the founder or not makes no difference. This is Hollywood ET style journalism. Who gives a crap about anything to do with the founder? It belongs in People magazine not a business or technical journal. So anyway you look at it, it was dumb.