你必須知道的熱門單字：doxxing
摘錄自：天下雜誌 經濟學人電子報 2014/3/14
2014-03-12Web only
作者：經濟學人
 |
| 圖片來源：天下雜誌 |
3月6日，《新聞周刊》（Newsweek）聲稱找出了比特幣發明者的真實身分，掀起一陣波瀾。《新聞周刊》指出，以「中本聰」為假名的比特幣創造者，事實上是一位名為中本聰的64歲男性；這位中本聰先生表示自己並非比特幣創造者，確實，在美聯社的訪談中，他連比特幣的名字都說不太出來。不過，除了比特幣的內部運作之外，還有一個相當令人費解的東西，也就是那個用來描述揭露比特幣創造者真實身分的詞：「dox」。
「dox」（有時亦拼作「doxx」）一詞大約是在10年前以動詞的形式出現，意指惡意駭客收集個人及私人資訊，而這些資訊通常會在違反個人意願的情況下公開。許多人對這類行為十分反感，熱門線上論壇Reddit的使用者亦是如此。
更近期一些，記者吸收了這個詞；部分記者現在會不帶貶意地使用此詞，以此詞代表深度調查報導。這模糊了惡意數位侵犯與高貴新聞工作之間的界線；《紐約時報》的科技記者曼吉歐（Farhad Manjoo）簡潔有力地總結了此詞的意義轉變：「doxxing就是報導新聞的新名字。」2012年，線上新聞網站Gawker的作家，利用doxxing相關的技巧，揭露一位Reddit版面管理員的真實身分。此舉引發了兩極反應；記者支持不屈不撓的報導精神，Reddit使用者則認為網路匿名性應該是不可侵犯的領域。那究竟是不屈不撓的報導，還是毫無意義的揭露──是好的doxxing，還是壞的？
《新聞周刊》記者古德曼（Leah McGrath Goodman）那篇揭露中本聰真實身分的文章，也激起類似爭議。既然比特幣創造者竭力保持匿名，調查記者公開其身分是否為適當之舉？有些人認為，公開他的身分有利說服民眾信任波動劇烈的比特幣；其他人擔心，由於牽扯大量金錢，那可能會危害他的個人安全。但要是正如許多比特幣支持者所想，古德曼找錯了人，這則報導就成了舊有定義下的doxxing：冷酷無情、草率又毫無意義地公開他人隱私。（黃維德譯）
©The Economist
Newspaper Limited 2014
The Economist
The Economist explains
What doxxing
is, and why it matters
By The Economist
From The Economist
Published: March
12, 2014
Mar 10th 2014,
23:50 by C.S-W.
ON MARCH 6TH
Newsweek made waves by claiming to reveal the identity of the inventor of
Bitcoin, the digital currency. According to the magazine the pseudonymous
Satoshi Nakamoto is in fact a 64-year-old man called Satoshi Nakamoto. The Mr
Nakamoto in question, for his part, has denied he is Bitcoin's inventor. Indeed
in a subsequent interview with a reporter from the Associated Press, he
struggled to name Bitcoin correctly. But as impenetrable to most people as the
inner workings of the cryptocurrency is a curious word used to describe how
Bitcoin's supposed inventor was uncovered: Mr Nakamoto was "doxxed".
The term
"dox" (also spelt "doxx", and short for "[dropping]
documents") first came into vogue as a verb around a decade ago, referring
to malicious hackers' habit of collecting personal and private information,
including home addresses and national identity numbers. The data are often
released publicly against a person's wishes. It is a practice frowned upon by
users of Reddit, a popular online forum, and many others.
More recently
journalists have co-opted the phrase. It is now used by some, in a
non-pejorative sense, to mean deep investigative reporting. This has blurred
the distinction between nefarious digital intrusion and noble journalism.
Farhad Manjoo, a technology reporter for the New York Times, pithily summed up
the change in the word's meaning: "doxxing is the new name for
reporting." In 2012 Adrian Chen, a writer with Gawker, an online news
website, exposed the identity of Michael Brutsch, a Reddit moderator, using
techniques associated with doxxing. Mr Chen's revelation split observers into
two camps: journalists who applauded Mr Chen's tenacity on one hand, and users
of Reddit, who enjoy the sense of anonymity the internet can provide and feel
it should remain sacrosanct on the other. Was it tenacious reporting or
needless exposure—good doxxing or bad?
The article
claiming to reveal the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto by Leah McGrath Goodman, a
Newsweek journalist, has caused a similar rumpus. It has raised the general
question of whether it would be appropriate for an investigative reporter to
unmask Bitcoin's mysterious inventor, who has striven to remain anonymous. Some
argue that revealing his identity would make it easier to persuade people to
trust the notoriously volatile cryptocurrency; others worry that it might
compromise his personal safety, given the huge sums involved. But if, as many
in the Bitcoin community believe, Miss McGrath Goodman has got the wrong man,
then this would be a true doxxing of the old definition, the callous and
careless exposure of a private life for no purpose whatsoever.
©The Economist
Newspaper Limited 2014
沒有留言:
張貼留言