[thomaslangston]

I don't think he was harsh enough.

I think you're too forgiving of some really awful behavior. Writing a beautiful article or being motivated to get the story doesn't excuse it. The fact that most of the readers of the article won't care doesn't either.

She did cross the line. I would be furious if someone I didn't want to talk to (and who knew it) did what she did. The fact she published his private information leads me to believe no consideration was really ever given to how _why felt.

The one line about deciding not to go to his house didn't sway that belief. The decision could have been made to avoid liability in a potential harassment lawsuit as easily as concern over _why's feelings.

[redthrowaway]

What you decry is standard journalistic fare. Tracking down a central figure in your article is a mark of investigative journalism. The individual's desires for privacy do not, by that fact alone, afford them the right to never have anyone try and contact them.

We respect his privacy both because of his contributions, and because his feelings are clear. That does not mean everyone else on Earth is obliged to.

[MaysonL]

We respect his privacy both because of his contributions, and because his feelings are clear. That does not mean everyone else on Earth is obliged to.

They're obviously not obliged too, but when they don't, they're acting in a shitty fashion, and calling them out on it is definitely worthwhile.

[droithomme]

Trying to contact him is one thing. Publishing the current location and employer of a peaceful person who wishes to remain anonymous and private in an article, for no legitimate reason, is totally different. Surely you see the difference? Or do you.

[newman314]

Tracking someone down because you suspect wrongdoing is not the same as someone who as far as I can tell has done nothing but contribute to the Ruby community.

It's all about context.