Your opinion on journalists who buy stolen data?
6205 sats \ 27 comments \ @mallardshead 10 Feb privacy
Seems this is a no-go conversation in that community. The newsroom standards and handbook guides I've managed to get a peek at don't include guidelines on how to handle it. Who'd admit to it? The backend loosely follows a related adage:
“Most classified information is useless; it’s classified not because of its content, but because of how it was obtained.”
Anyway, I can’t find anything good online regarding this practice, but I’ve goofed off with OSINT tools enough to know how valuable data on the darknet is for many of them; wether that’s confirming a lead, following dough, location stuff, tying things together, etc. I’ve also poked around in TOR’s basement enough to read data brokers advertising stolen data in a way that’s curiously…well read this banner ad:
So that’s the Q for stackers: how do you feel about the practice of buying stolen data for journalism (IF it indeed happens)? Is it immoral, a betrayal, and steel-toe to privacy’s hazels? Any cases you can justify it? Lots of sats for replies.
My personal opinion as a maxi, is it’s okay so long as they use bitcoin to do it.
write
preview
related posts
664 sats \ 0 replies \ @fred 11 Feb
“Never lie, steal, cheat, or drink. But if you must lie, lie in the arms of the one you love. If you must steal, steal away from bad company. If you must cheat, cheat death. And if you must drink, drink in the moments that take your breath away”
My 2 sats on this!
reply
697 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 10 Feb
They are supporting an illicit market that we are all victims of, but stories have support that they otherwise wouldn't. I struggle to get upset with the journalists. I always find myself looking upstream for blame.
reply
541 sats \ 0 replies \ @mallardshead OP 10 Feb
I agree with that, esp upstream, and those that collected and lost it. Too, @hueso makes the point: The line is crossed not when the information is gathered but when it is published. Which it really never is, not in the reporting we're talking about, it's used to make those stories have support they otherwise wouldn't. 🤷‍♂️
reply
676 sats \ 2 replies \ @grayruby 10 Feb
It's interesting because intuitively I want to say it depends on the stolen data they are procuring but then who becomes the arbiter what stolen data is ok and what stolen data isn't?
We can probably all agree that there would be a moral case for a journalist to buy stolen data that reveals say a secret plot to steal a nuclear weapon. (I know this is a far fetched hollywood example here but you get the gist). Whereas we can probably all agree that it would be immoral for a journalist to buy stolen data that reveals some politician or business leader purchases Viagara from his local pharmacy once a month.
Unfortunately 99.99% of instances will not be this black and white so it is hard to say.
reply
50 sats \ 1 reply \ @mallardshead OP 10 Feb
That makes a lot of sense. It must be navigated itself case by case. I can definitely see the NY Post doing a one paragraph Viagra story ; )
reply
583 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 10 Feb
Remember the NY Post twitter account was suspended in October 2020 to suppress Hunter Biden laptop story and the censorship succeeded. Amazing how effective coordination between big tech and television and newspapers can quash any story, very 1984, very Orwellian
reply
591 sats \ 3 replies \ @brave 10 Feb
Wikileak live by this model so why can't individuals do?
reply
20 sats \ 2 replies \ @mallardshead OP 10 Feb
Yeah Wiki sort of pioneered it, kinda realizing a reality the cypherpunks talked about years prior. Would you say a line is crossed if it isn't government data? Say hospital records or university registrar?
reply
571 sats \ 1 reply \ @hueso 10 Feb
The line is crossed not when the information is gathered but when it is published. Wikileaks reviews and redacts all the data before publishing, removing PII and so on in order for it not to cause any harm.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @mallardshead OP 10 Feb
Good point.
reply
591 sats \ 0 replies \ @joyepzion 10 Feb
Edward Snowden stole information too but it really did help us know what the government was doing to its citizens
reply
571 sats \ 0 replies \ @Atreus 10 Feb
I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole. It basically tells the thieves to keep stealing, even if their only customers are "Interested Journalists."
reply
500 sats \ 1 reply \ @DiedOnTitan 12 Feb
Interesting question. The morality depends on context. When supporting a war, stolen data can be extremely useful. OSINT sources such as Bellingcat and Cristo Grozev in particular did in fact buy stolen telephone data to unveil the russian team that programmed the bombs dropped on civilians in Ukraine. This is one of the few instances of journalists publicly acknowledging buying stolen data. https://ijnet.org/en/story/how-bellingcat-uncovered-truth-behind-russian-missile-strikes-ukraine
reply
124 sats \ 0 replies \ @mallardshead OP 12 Feb
Great reply! I didn't know about that ?cat story. I respect the hell out of everything they've done over the years. Funny this comment section, initially I didn't expect so much support for the practice
reply
586 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinIsTheFuture 11 Feb
NO go. The bigger the market the more stolen data and higher price tag for it. Hard pass, NEXT!
reply
400 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinosphere 11 Feb
Information is always free.
If you don't want your information in everyone else's hands, don't share it.
/End of conversation.
reply
533 sats \ 0 replies \ @lunanto 11 Feb
Stealing data can also fall into the Whistleblower Protection Act so go for it and as the writer suggests, better get your payment in Bitcoin
reply
533 sats \ 0 replies \ @030e0dca83 10 Feb
The goal of journalism is to show data as it is no matter how bad it is. If we have bias it's not true journalism
reply
674 sats \ 0 replies \ @Entrep 10 Feb
My personal opinion as a maxi, is it’s okay so long as they use bitcoin to do it.
The highlight of this post
reply
427 sats \ 0 replies \ @Tef 11 Feb
“ My personal opinion as a maxi, is it’s okay so long as they use bitcoin to do it.”
Agreed!
reply
200 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 10 Feb
Was that the excuse for suppressing Hunter Biden laptop story in October 2020?
The Pentagon Papers were stolen material
reply
30 sats \ 1 reply \ @mallardshead OP 10 Feb
note: the last sentence was obviously a joke
reply
427 sats \ 0 replies \ @bloodtrail 10 Feb
yeah that was a jarring way to end it 🤣. i think it's helping drive and monetize the criminals. guess I don't know enuf about it. just my gut reaction
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 28 Feb
I would love to see the voter database in AZ especially Maricopa County
How many are non citizens? How many are dead? How many no longer live at that address? etc etc
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 28 Feb
the Pentagon Papers were stolen by Daniel Ellsberg.
Do you have a problem with his theft?
I think it depends on the gravity of the story
I actually have no problem with it with few exceptions. We live in a time where journalists have abdicated their duty to be objective and fair and balanced.
Look at substack success
If the story saves lives or debunks conventional wisdom or exposes something nefarious, I think it's justified.
Buying data to dox people is not justified.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SaToSHiWoMaN 12 Feb outlawed
stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SaToSHiWoMaN 11 Feb outlawed
stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.