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

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the main thing that makes you think he isn't the BitCoin creator?

Satoshi "Bitcoin" Nakamoto was a computer scientist experienced in publishing scientific papers. He was a native English speaker with a flawless control of his writing, mixing at will American and British English to confuse his trackers. Satoshi "Old crazy dude" Nakamoto has not published anything in his life and the quotes and alleged online profiles he created for himself reveal a tenuous grasp of the English language.

Satoshi "Bitcoin" Nakamoto wrote on the first try a very complex cryptographic application in C++ that turned out to have only a handful of security bugs. We have no ideea if "Old crazy dude" can even write code, let alone of this quality.

There is basically:
  - no publication history
  - no proven experience in writing crypto code (let's handwave that by saying he worked for "the military")

What we do have is him believing he is Satoshi Bitcoin Nakamoto and declaring it to a journalist, i.e proof he is a old crazy 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

[darkain]

No real way to verify it, but there is a surefire way to discredit it!

https://twitter.com/mikko/stat...

Re:But He Isn't

[wonkey_monkey]

She writes for Newsweek for Christ's sake.

And there was me thinking He just wanted us to live a good life and be nice to our neighbours. Who knew?

Re:But He Isn't

[JaredOfEuropa]

Coincidences happen. There's a guy sharing my first and last name (my last name is very uncommon; it's spelled in an unusual way), went to the same university and faculty, and wrote his master's thesis on a subject close to my line of study. He's about my age, too. People often mistake us on LinkedIn, and I get asked sometimes about certain papers he wrote (he remained in academia). Sometimes it takes some effort to convince people that I am not the other guy.

I'm just glad he's not a criminal... or founder of a cryptocurrency.

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.

Re:But He Isn't

[Raumkraut]

So an "official" SN account has denied this being the "real" SN.
The question I ask is: Why didn't that "official" account post a denial for each of the other times someone has been suggested to be "the guy"? Why does this Satoshi Nakamoto get a denial, and not the others?

Methinks he does protest too much.

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.

Considering that the story is apparently wrong

[_xeno_]

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."

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.

Re:Even if it's accurate

[Frobnicator]

I think it's absolutely wrong to out someone who is actively trying to remain out of the spotlight

Let's say for argument sake that it is accurate. That is the bitcoin owner, who isn't spending any of the bitcoins.

The person does not want to talk about it. If he is serious about that, waving microphones in front of the man is NOT going to encourage him to be forthcoming with personal stories.

So what does it change? Nothing!

There is no benefit to anyone. Now if the guy wanted to open up and share stories, that is what the media is hungering for. But he isn't doing that.

The BEST thing the guy could do is say "Yes that is me. I have nothing more to say, and I don't think I ever will. Now get off my lawn." and then refuse to say anything more. In fact, judging by the story, that is EXACTLY what he did say. There is no story or controversy around it. This is just some guy who has access to something valuable.

Some of the media folk may want to ask him questions, hoping to make a buck when he shares a story, but if he chooses not to share anything they'll quickly lose interest when the next something shiny comes around.

Abhorent

[rahvin112]

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.

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.

The more I read...

[kajong0007]

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.

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.

Oblig Monty Python

[OutOnARock]

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!!!