[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> next time he talks about emulating Nintendo games or whatever

This seems like a straw man, though? What if they just... continue to not do that? (I think this is what the other commenter meant with "concern trolling".)

> Not to begin to even mention now some shady criminal might hold a grudge against Daigle.

This is 1) not a problem a lawyer will help you with and 2) not a practical concern for most people in the US and Canada. For example, Brian Krebs continues to (read: he's not dead or otherwise intimidated into silence) put his name behind many similar reports of illegal activity. There is a reason law enforcement investigates and prosecutes violent crime.

I don't really see a practical reason for this person to avoid putting their name behind this report. The only reason that seems to make sense is if this group is not a criminal enterprise. Then they might be at all inclined to file a lawsuit.

[mtlynch]

>For example, Brian Krebs continues to (read: he's not dead or otherwise intimidated into silence) put his name behind many similar reports of illegal activity. There is a reason law enforcement investigates and prosecutes violent crime.

Brian Krebs invests a huge amount into keeping his home address a secret and has extensive surveillance at his home to keep intruders out. He was once SWATed and another time someone ordered heroin to his home and called the police to frame him for drug trafficking.[0]

It's a bit of a miracle that Krebs continues his reporting. Krebs' courage and opsec is not very easy to achieve, especially for a 23 year old blogger like OP.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42354602

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

These points are not convincing. That paragraph says that he expends effort to keep his home address secret but then admits that those efforts are in vain because he’s been mailed things maliciously (to his home address) and SWATed (at his home address). It’s also not likely that surveillance will keep intruders out; it would help the criminal investigation after his house is burned down, except that hasn’t happened.

I agree that he’s courageous but only because he receives many threats, not because he faces imminent dangers. His protection comes from the fact that a criminal enterprise will only bring attention to themselves by purchasing his murder, which is true because law enforcement investigates and prosecutes violent crime.

[mtlynch]

>That paragraph says that he expends effort to keep his home address secret but then admits that those efforts are in vain because he’s been mailed things maliciously (to his home address) and SWATed (at his home address). It’s also not likely that surveillance will keep intruders out; it would help the criminal investigation after his house is burned down, except that hasn’t happened.

The article says that he moved to a new home because of these incidents and now takes extreme measures to keep his address a secret.

I don't understand how you can make the argument that retribution from criminals is "not a practical concern" because Krebs still does his reporting in spite of the risks. SWATing and attempts to frame him for a serious crime aren't just threats - they occurred. He could have died or been imprisoned.