Am I the only one who feels that Brian's tendency to include lots of personal details (of suspects and people he doesn't like) in his articles is weird and creepy?
His reporting looks more and more like the Daily Mail of cybersecurity.
Occasionally very good investigative journalism, yet always aggressively devoid of class.
Yes, not sure what it adds to the articles either. The only thing that it ends up doing is making any miss from his end a much more serious thing, because he basically can't get stuff wrong without more or less defaming someone (which has happened in the past)
Could you be more specific about the personal details he's including that you find creepy? Are they things a major newspaper would include? That's Krebs' background.
Pretty much everything. From his name, to his mother name and birthplace, photos of him as a teen, etc.
Especially for young people the decent thing to do is to not name them in this kind of reporting.
Now not only he, but also is his mother, have to live with this article being the first result when you google either of their names. What did his mother do to deserve this? Should something he (possibly) did as a teen haunt him for the rest of his life, even assuming he is found guilty and served his sentence? It's absolutely disgusting and despicable.
> Are they things a major newspaper would include?
Yes. If they're the Daily Mail, which is the bottom of the barrel. There's a special place in hell for some of those journalists.
The position you're taking here is that "young" suspects in crime reporting should be unnamed? If so, what's an example of a newspaper that respects that norm?
Nearly every news organization in Germany (even for adult suspects and convicts)[1] will rarely publish names, and also many of the more reputable ones in Britain will weigh public interest against privacy as a matter of policy. At least in Scotland it is even illegal to name suspects under 18.
You'll find mention of the issue in many journalistic ethics codes, and many newspaper's policies. For a US example from the SPJ's Code of Ethics[2]:
> Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.
> Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, [..]
> Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.
> Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.
> Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication.
In the UK, for radio and TV, the Ofcom Broadcasting Code contains similar guidelines in less straightforward language.
Note that their argument tends to be around the biasing impact on the persons life. As they are unlikely to follow up on the criminal outcome there won’t be a chance to clear the persons name.
In this case I think Krebs is on solid ground as it’s a) not a minor crime b) he can later follow up.
But it’s certainly not an area that is black & white.
Just to be clear, the minor crimes announcement I linked to wasn’t about crimes by minors, it was about the seriousness of the crime.
I confusingly talked about both. My broader point was that the norm is changing in the us towards not naming suspects. And there are ethics conversations around this in the industry.
But I think krebs is on solid footing for this particular case. He’s well within the norm.
The article reports that the fellow is 20, and that the reporter talked to the fellow's mother. It seems very unlikely that Krebs fucked up and the fellow is actually 17. (He couldn't be any younger than that because he wouldn't have been able to enlist.)
It is. Comparatively it is even very common in most of the Anglosphere, however not for lack of trying by more ethical journalists. If you search for "the juvenile suspect" on google news, you'll get plenty of hits for US newspapers (and occasionally police) applying some consideration.
In the west, English speaking countries are the odd ones out: For example in Germany, Poland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Finland, Switzerland, Austria, and France, identifying suspects (not just juvenile ones) is either uncommon or even forbidden by law.
I guess you're just unaccustomed to America's loooooooooooooooooooongstanding free speech regs.
Many people in more restrictive countries (like Germany and the UK) are pretty shocked by what USians are permitted to say. Similarly, many USians are shocked by what folks in more restrictive countries are NOT permitted to say.
Krebs is an American journalist, living in America, writing for an American publication. The standard to use here is an American one, not any others.
> I guess you're just unaccustomed to America's loooooooooooooooooooongstanding free speech regs.
I'm reasonably certain that I know the extents of what you can and can't legally say in the US better than most people who live there. National differences in these things happens to be one of my areas of interest, but that is besides the point.
I'm viewing this through an ethical lens. Legality doesn't enter into it beyond recognizing that laws that deal with crime are often informed by morality.
chmod775 point is about ethics, not legality. (Though perhaps by "publication standard", you're saying that what's considered ethical is also judged by American standards?)
Ethics is the study of morality. And while you're correct that people have subjective ideas of morality, it absolutely does not matter for the sake of this conversation. You are detracting.
Just because in some place a practice is considered to be okay (morally, whatever), does not mean it is okay, has to be tolerated without comment, and is beyond criticism by those with differing views.
Just based on the value of fairness and that punishment should be decided in an actual court, not the court of public opinion or handed out by some guy named Brian, it is wrong regardless of where it occurs and I've made my reasoning for that pretty clear in this thread. I stand by that and you are still free to make some actual argument to the contrary. If the argument is just "in this country a lot of people feel it is fine", that's okay, just not very convincing to anyone I would imagine.
> Just because in some place a practice is considered to be okay (morally, whatever), does not mean ... [that it] has to be tolerated without comment...
Sure, I agree. If you were USian, I would defend to the death your right to speak openly and publicly about your concerns. [0]
And just because you feel strongly about your incorrect opinion about a widely-held-to-be-acceptable practice in USian journalism doesn't mean that I have to let that incorrect opinion pass by without comment.
It's a big world, and there are differing opinions on many, many things... morals (and the formation of explanatory systems overtop of the same) included.
[0] Whereas if you're in a more draconian jurisdiction that would prohibit such comments, I'll be publicly miffed about it and express my deep displeasure.
> Federal authorities have arrested and indicted a 20-year-old U.S. Army soldier on suspicion of being Kiberphant0m...
The article also claims to have spoken on the record with the accused's mother, so I have no reason to doubt the article's claim about the fellow's age.
Nope, I've heard others mention it before as well. I subscribed to the newsletter at one point and I don't think I've gotten a single useful technical article (which is fair, that's not necessarily his niche), but I have gotten a bunch of emails that just doxx random people.
Perhaps he believes that humiliating criminals and exposing their related actions is a good way to dissuade others from committing such crimes. (We'll never know what he prevented, so it can never be proved.)
More widely, the US "justice" system is wild and much more concerned with vengeance than actual justice. What criminals? We have someone who was indicted. The guy might be completely innocent, but his name will forever be plastered around the internet as a "criminal" to be humiliated.
In other developed countries, there is a presumption of innocence which also applies publicly. You're kept (pseudo) anonymous until sentencing, to make sure no innocent people get labeled as criminals.
Retribution (not vengeance) is a legitimate component of justice. Not the only one.
But if there is a singular summary of the last decade’s failed attempts at criminal-justice reform, it’s in ignoring the very human need for retribution in resolving injustice.
> there is a presumption of innocence which also applies publicly
This is never universally applied. Particularly when it comes to crimes of corruption, which this case approaches.
> Retribution (not vengeance) is a legitimate component of justice. ...
> if there is a singular summary of the last decade’s failed attempts at criminal-justice reform, it’s in ignoring the very human need for retribution in resolving injustice
Many people would agree with you, imho, but it's not a truth universally acknowledged. I don't see what good it does: is it more than some good feeling for the injured party? That seems not worth the costs and risks, including promotion of violence (in some form) as a solution to problems, rationalization of personal retribution and vengence (probably few distinguish between those terms), and possible harm to an innocent person (if the wrong person is convicted).
If retribution only benefits the injured party and not the state, and if I'm the injured one and don't want it, can I opt out of it?
I do value deterrence and being made whole, and sometimes those overlap with retribution. And I'll say this about retribution: it could make it possible for the criminal and victim to move forward, including if they know each other. The criminal has paid their debt to the victim and guilt is absolved. Insufficient payment might undermine that.
> it's not a truth universally acknowledged. I don't see what good it does
It keeps people from taking the law into their own hands. We can debate the merits of retribution, but not that it’s a seemingly-innate part of human nature. (It’s an open question if we can condition it out of ourselves. But that’s pretty serious social engineering that, to my knowledge, no society has achieved. We aren’t bonobos.)
> If retribution only benefits the injured party and not the state, and if I'm the injured one and don't want it, can I opt out of it?
Our sense of retribution is more than transactional. There is a perception of collective harm that’s explicit in our system of public prosection—it’s the people versus a criminal, not the victim.
> It keeps people from taking the law into their own hands.
Definitely an upside, though the punishment of trial (and the victim being heard), conviction, repayment, etc. may be sufficient for that.
> We can debate the merits of retribution, but not that it’s a seemingly-innate part of human nature. (It’s an open question if we can condition it out of ourselves. But that’s pretty serious social engineering that, to my knowledge, no society has achieved.
Here I think you overstate it. I believe a large number of people, maybe the majority, do not choose retribution.
'Innate' has become a loaded word, and one used (not necessarily in this case) politically to make the speaker's argument into something inevitable. Stepping back from that:
Lots of things are 'innate'; people focus on the more harsh ones, but so are goodness, a desire for justice, fairness, love, hunger, laziness, sleepiness, etc. And innate drives are not all-powerful or determinative; some are barely noticeable and some powerful, often the same one varying greatly (consider sex drive, for example). And of course our actions depend, very much, on our will and reason and choice.
The Christchurch terrorist in New Zealand. Unlike in the US, his name and mugshot were never plastered around media, and his name is still popularly unknown.
Multiple footballers in the UK who were accused of sexual harassment. People tried guessing who they are, but all police released was "a footballer in his 20s from Manchester is under investigation for sexual harassment/assault/etc".
> Christchurch terrorist in New Zealand. Unlike in the US, his name and mugshot were never plastered around media, and his name is still popularly unknown
Not one example of it being done properly. One country. (I’ll grant New Zealand as a likely candidate.)
> tendency to include lots of personal details (of suspects and people he doesn't like) in his articles is weird and creepy?
I think it's weird and creepy when LEO eagerly distribute suspects' personal details (via PR, website, etc). Which they seem to do at every possibility - even if doing so doesn't advance community safety in a demonstrable way.
Journalists, however, have a duty to honor their extra 1A protections by holding the powerful to account. I believe a default position of including identities in a story helps insure that the powerful are known when they behave badly.
It's an imperfect default but I think it's better than every alternative.
I don't see how you're going to catch people like this without doxxing them. They rely on opsec and misdirection to avoid getting caught. Do you have examples where the information was gratuitous?
The following isn't really directed at you, but are more general questions for the folks who are throwing around doxxing claims:
When the has-never-been-sealed Federal Grand Jury indictment that the article links to has the fellow's full name and alleged area of operation during the alleged crime, is publishing their full name in your article doxing them?
If it isn't, is providing screenshots of their publicly-available Facebook profile photos doxxing?
Is providing the presumably-willingly-given-for-publication name of the person's mother who you performed an on-the-record interview for the topic of the article doxxing?
Is it doxxing to provide details from previous investigative articles that you've done into folks who use their handles to credibly publicly declare that they've committed noteworthy computer crimes?
I don't get that at all. I understand this to point to an attempt at scrubbing information that could lead back to him personally -- but done poorly as Krebs pointed out that other personal photos continued to exist on the Facebook account afterwards.
His reporting looks more and more like the Daily Mail of cybersecurity.
Occasionally very good investigative journalism, yet always aggressively devoid of class.