It also has something to do with the so called "Hackerparagraph" [1] under which whitehat hacking is basically impossible in Germany. Even writing a program that could potentially be used for hacking is a crime. If you followed the law word for word the authors of e.g. curl could be charged under this law.

1: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbereiten_des_Aussp%C3%A4hen... [de]

>There (...) isn't a warm connection between the CCC and the BND in Germany

Fun fact: In the 1990s, the CCC e.V. was declared a terrorist organization by the BND. Also, a lot of members have been sued for Landesverrat (high treason) for disclosing found vulnerabilities and/or doing journalistic work.

For example, the netzpolitik guys have been sued for high treason twice.

Just as a side note on how competent the German state is to use their existing talent to work on issues in cyber security.

> If a hacker collaborates with the BND they do run a risk of many of their peers not wanting to collaborate with them anymore.

Another fun fact: There is no effective witness protection program in Germany. You have to have been attacked twice (and the offender has to be successfully prosecuted with you as a witness, that has to happen twice so we talking about 10+ years legal delay) before you can apply for the witness protection program.

And they're asking themselves why all the witnesses in high profile cases from Europol/Interpol keep disappearing ...

Well at least the german state can collaborate with russian agents in projects like wirecard and not violate any laws when threatening journalists reporting on its collaborations.

>but AFAIK there generally isn't a warm connection between the CCC and the BND

nor should there be.

Similar to how us American hackers have a huge dislike and distrust of the FBI.

Your own law enforcement agency will lie to you, manipulate you, raid you, extort you, and imprison you over bullshit.

Maybe the special agents watched the talk in their free time

mod reveal

It implies to me they _shouldn't_ be releasing his name. In this case it sounds like they very much should be naming him.

So basically it's like Terrorism or Genociding, where if it's against the team you are rooting for, it is that, and if it's not against your in-group it's just War?

I'd rather "doxxing" just mean "de-anonymizing" because that's 1) how I already read it, 2) removes the whole "who is the more moral side in this dispute therefore has the right to make the accusation" problem

So it is doxxing if the doxxed committed wrongdoings from the perspective of... the doxxer? Ideals, morality, alignment, goals and purpose are and have always been a static constant for all humankind. There is no pineapple pizza, it is a lie, for I don't like it, and therefore nobody else ever did either.

If someone wasn't previously known, only an alias or alter-ego, but you then link those together with a real-life identity, that's very much the definition of "doxxing", at least the original definition, maybe it's different today? Positive or negative doesn't really matter, just like "shooting" or "jumping" in itself isn't positive or negative, it's just a verb.

This does seem close to the original intent of "doxxing", where information ("dox") is publicized that connects a real-world identity to a previously anonymous online persona. These are hackers in the classic sense who were going out of their way to stay anonymous.

The dilution of the word doxxing has been interesting, though. Some of the recent "doxxing" controversies have been about figures who weren't all that anonymous to begin with. The pop culture meaning has been extended to cover any mention of someone's real identity at all, even if it wasn't a secret.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

Wait. Is that what's happening here? Are they expecting the international criminal to be given a right to privacy until he's convicted?

I think this is not how wanted lists work, here in Germany at least. Do they work this way where you are living? The goal of wanted lists in Germany is to find the person the police is searching for to put them in front of a court if the prosecution can make a case.

Perhaps this goes back to leftist terrorism in Germany in the 1970s, they would not use the code names of terrorists on the wanted lists but their real names to find them, because this is what they wanted - but I don't know.

Back in the day, being doxed meant having your real name, address, phone number, email, etc. posted online for anyone to do what they would.

This seems to be just issuing an arrest warrant.

Uh, you think they should just put "UNKN" on the wanted list instead of the person they believe is UNKN? That's not very helpful...

what do you think will happen when people find out that their neighbor is secretly a pretty wealthy criminal?

Who knows, but I'm also not sure how you avoid that situation. Presumably, to be "doxxed" like this, there's substantive evidence he is actually the criminal. Strikes me as just one more downside of being a successful (but now identified) extortionist.

Semantic shift happens over time. A 2026 article is supposed to communicate to 2026, not 1996, readers.

I can't find it in the jargon file: http://catb.org/jargon/html/D.html

Certainly, criminals also have a right to privacy. However, the limited publication of personal data of criminals by law enforcement is generally a legally legitimate measure. Doxxing, on the other hand, is generally a process that violates the fundamental right to privacy.

not the state, but the law

Innocent until proven guilty (in a court of law)?

ethics and morality are not interchangeable are they?

anyway individuals willingly give to teh state some autonomy in return for the safety of governance... that's the social contract free people have with government

"doxxing" a Russian ransomware group is the kind thing to do. bombing them out of existence is within the remit of the range of ideas a government could resort to...

"Identifying a criminal" doesn't imply that it's done by the government, and being done by the government doesn't imply that it's done to a criminal. This comment seems like quite a leap.

They put the person on a wanted list.

I mean doxxing is totally incorrect. Let's say for example there was a person on film near a crime scene, even though the police know they weren't directly involved there is no violation of privacy in the US if the police post their picture and ask for them to come forward. Or even later find out their name and look for them publically.

If we'd follow your line of thinking prosecution of those responsible for MH17 were also to remain anonymous. Which is obviously ridiculous.

If growing weed is illegal in Germany, and someone unknown grew a lot of weed in Germany, they end up being sought, and (eventually) their name and other details could end up in a police warrant.

The comparison is moot though since growing weed in Germany requires physical presence in Germany. The alleged cybercrimes could've originated from anywhere in the world due to the nature of the internet.

It just isn't doxing unless you don't see legal merit in the German police and German authorities. Which is obviously rhetoric the Russians want others to follow.

No, it doesn't, at least not to me. I can disagree with a law while also agreeing to obey it and that those who break it should have consequences. I can hold these two opposing ideas because that is the basis by which governments function. If everybody gets to decide for themselves what should be/not be a crime, then we don't have a society. Society is about compromise. What I'm seeing is not compromise. What I'm seeing is people dismissing the whole of law because there's one they don't agree with, or an application or even abuse of the law that offends them. It's an abandonment of balance and a dismissing of rational conversation.

Sure, but do you consider this specific case a real crime?