[mirimir]

Sure, that's what some journalists do. But Krebs' thing is being a grey-hat vigilante. He does social engineering on forums. He trades data with other vigilantes.

> ... you mean "reports", which is what reporters do ...

So this doxx site just reports on people, no?

The distinction between him and the doxx site he writes about is subtle.

[tptacek]

Mainstream reporters semi-routinely break actual laws to break stories, and are received as heroes for it.

[mirimir]

I'm sure that the doxx site in TFA is "received as heroes" by some. As with many things, much depends on whose ox is getting gored.

Also, "semi-routinely break actual laws" is a huge bin. Reporters also get sued for libel. And sometimes lose.

Edit: And hey, once you're "break[ing] actual laws", you're a criminal. And by Krebs' standard, you're fair game.

[tptacek]

Sure? OK? And?

[mirimir]

It was dumb of me to get into this thread. Arguing about the morality of Krebs' blog in a discussion about neofascist (and arguably, ironic neofascist) doxxing and SWATing was off-topic whataboutism. So sorry.

But for what it's worth, I'll briefly clarify my position. I'm rather anarchistic, but not very collectivist or communitarian. I believe that we're all free to do what we like, consistent with our principals and values. Notwithstanding whatever laws exist. And that includes self defense, and weeding out troublemakers.

So in that sense, I agree that Krebs has the right to doxx supposed criminals. But I also believe that others arguably have the right to act against those who attack them. And of course, everyone else has the right to act against those who attack them, recursively.

So it's fair to root for Krebs, and to attack neofascist doxxers. But, in my opinion, it's deceptive to argue that one is moral, and the other is evil.