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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 there some way that the real Satoshi could affirm his existence
Why?
What does it gain anybody?
Let's say that is the guy, he didn't lose the key, and he has access to a valuable resource. So what? I know several people who are fairly wealthy, their wealth does not define them, nor does it make them inherently powerful or anything. What is the point of having them prove their wealth to someone?
About the only thing anyone would want is to hear stories. No matter if that is the man or not, the real bitcoin owner does not want to share stories. Sticking microphones in his face and asking him questions about his life is unlikely to encourage him to share personal stories. There is nothing to gain by trying to point out that a person has a valuable object when the person has insisted for years they don't wish to discuss it.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
As Eleanor Roosevelt said: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
Lets get back to discussing Bitcoin..... the idea.
"News at 11."
That's the whole story folks. The fact that he did something notable doesn't remove his right to privacy.
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!!!
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.
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 yet millions of dollars have gone missing and the Bitcoin inventor apparently requires anonymity?
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
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?