Someone on Twitter seems to have identified the company, though I don't know if it would be against any rules to post it here, so I'm a bit reluctant in doing that.
At least they posted pictures of the building. I would not be surprised at all if the location and company eventually is identified as a result of that.
Someone on Twitter seems to have identified the company, though I don't know if it would be against any rules to post it here, so I'm a bit reluctant in doing that.
I'd say better not, especially given that another top post from today is this one: How one man was wrongly accused in Kongsberg attack – many international media outlets picked up on speculative...
The company identified on twitter could be the correct one, or it might not be... so better to wait until it's verified by a source that can actually be trusted, rather than jumping the gun and potentially contributing to a witch hunt.
I didn't say it should be forbidden, but what's the harm in holding off on sharing something like that until it's verified by someone more reputable than random twitter users?
I didn't say it should be forbidden, but what's the harm in holding off on sharing something like that until it's verified by someone more reputable than random twitter users?
My biggest problem with this article was their un-willingness to name the company that was doing so much harm. I vet my new sources heavily so I am not familiar with the alternative new source...
My biggest problem with this article was their un-willingness to name the company that was doing so much harm. I vet my new sources heavily so I am not familiar with the alternative new source universe online, but I have relative who I suspect get most of their news from these sources. With out the names of the sites that this "Hacker x" created the information is nearly useless to me. It is just speculation and as such, affords no tangible action to help mitigate the harm.
It's analogous to writing a new story about a convicted child molester living and active in a community where the reporter presents evidence of clear, and continued wrong-doing, but then gets coy when it comes to revealing the name of the person. It leads to speculation and worry without a constructive path forward.
I don't see this as too many steps removed from the actions of the subject of the article.
Someone on Twitter seems to have identified the company, though I don't know if it would be against any rules to post it here, so I'm a bit reluctant in doing that.
I'd say better not, especially given that another top post from today is this one:
How one man was wrongly accused in Kongsberg attack – many international media outlets picked up on speculative tweets
The company identified on twitter could be the correct one, or it might not be... so better to wait until it's verified by a source that can actually be trusted, rather than jumping the gun and potentially contributing to a witch hunt.
I didn't say it should be forbidden, but what's the harm in holding off on sharing something like that until it's verified by someone more reputable than random twitter users?
Looks like there’s no need to debate this specific case: he named the company on Ars itself.
My biggest problem with this article was their un-willingness to name the company that was doing so much harm. I vet my new sources heavily so I am not familiar with the alternative new source universe online, but I have relative who I suspect get most of their news from these sources. With out the names of the sites that this "Hacker x" created the information is nearly useless to me. It is just speculation and as such, affords no tangible action to help mitigate the harm.
It's analogous to writing a new story about a convicted child molester living and active in a community where the reporter presents evidence of clear, and continued wrong-doing, but then gets coy when it comes to revealing the name of the person. It leads to speculation and worry without a constructive path forward.
I don't see this as too many steps removed from the actions of the subject of the article.
Edited some mistyped words.
I agree with the sentiment, but it feels likely that he didn't break any actual laws.
Yes, that is a weakness of the current laws, isn't it?
Pretty interesting investigative journalism piece detailing the origin of 2016 spike in fake news