[leigh_t]

> This has a tinge of pettiness to it

I don't think it's petty at all to link to publicly available information, when others have requested that information. Google-fu differs between individuals.

I do find it particularly petty that someone would go to great lengths to expose the private details of the life of a man who just wants to be left in peace.

[anigbrowl]

So it's OK for you to use your Google-fu, but not for her to do the same thing?

I, for one, am quite interested to know more about Satoshi Nakamoto and this article is responsive to my curiosity about him. As someone else has pointed out, a great deal of information is public anyway in the form of property tax records and what not. If this were not the case I would get much less direct mail.

[revdinosaur]

Well that line of reasoning is exactly what I was referring to. The reporter doing due diligence and fact gathering is in ill taste, but responding in kind and releasing personal information about her is justified? That doesn't hold water, logically. I don't think anyone is that naive. It's alright if you're upset about divulging Nakamoto's personal details, it's the tit-for-tat mentality that comes across as childish.

[leigh_t]

Well there seems to be some misunderstanding about who released what. I have not released anything because I didn't have to.

All I have done is link to some items that she released into the public domain on a previous occasion.

Sharing the stupidity of others is a long-lived internet tradition. It's almost adage status; be careful what you post, it may come back to haunt you later. The same is true of this, I suppose.