AdChoices
AdChoices

Kashmir Hill Kashmir Hill Forbes Staff
Welcome to The Not-So Private Parts where technology & privacy collide full bio →
I'm a privacy pragmatist, writing about the intersection of law, technology, social media and our personal information. If you have story ideas or tips, e-mail me at khill@forbes.com. PGP key here. These days, I'm a senior online editor at Forbes. I was previously an editor at Above the Law, a legal blog, relying on the legal knowledge gained from two years working for corporate law firm Covington & Burling -- a Cliff's Notes version of law school. In the past, I've been found slaving away as an intern in midtown Manhattan at The Week Magazine, in Hong Kong at the International Herald Tribune, and in D.C. at the Washington Examiner. I also spent a few years traveling the world managing educational programs for international journalists for the National Press Foundation. I have few illusions about privacy -- feel free to follow me on Twitter: kashhill, subscribe to me on Facebook, Circle me on Google+, or use Google Maps to figure out where the Forbes San Francisco bureau is, and come a-knockin'.
Tech 19,570 views

The Outing of Bitcoin Creator Satoshi Nakamoto Is Brilliant Journalism

In Newsweek, finance editor Leah McGrath Goodman claims to have outed the mysterious creator of the digital currency Bitcoin. The Japanese-American man lives in California and incredibly, is actually named Satoshi Nakamoto. Though the man, who now goes by Dorian S. Nakamoto, would be a multi-millionaire given Bitcoin’s current value of $645.50 and his estimated possession of 1.5 million of the coins, Goodman reports that he lives a humble life in Los Angeles’s San Bernardino foothills. She’s likely right in her speculation that he hasn’t cashed in because doing so would have outed him, as he would have had to reveal his identity in some way to the Bitcoin to USD intermediary he used. Many in the Bitcoin community have reacted with disbelief and outrage at the “doxxing” of the reclusive creator arguing that the exposure is a massive invasion of privacy. But if true, the article is just an act of great investigative reporting.
AdChoices
AdChoices
Nakamoto himself didn’t want to discuss Bitcoin with Goodman, calling police when she came to his home, but he did seem to admit to being the creator by not denying it and making statements like this: “I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it. It’s been turned over to other people. They are in charge of it now. I no longer have any connection.”
Those in the Bitcoin community were upset that Goodman included Dorian’s real name, a photo of him, and a photo of his home. Their argument is multifold: that his request to remain pseudo-anonymous should be respected, that his safety is imperiled by outing him as a multimillionaire, and that the level of detail in the story is unnecessary. “You really should take off the picture of his house… what are you, insane?” writes one commenter on the story. “Its sort of a shame that this article went out of their way to prove the identity of a man who clearly didn’t want to be revealed,” writes another. “Article writer comes off as a Ruthless type.”
On the wealth exposure, TechDirt’s Mike Masnick asks, “Question: for those freaking out about Newsweek ‘revealing’ Nakamoto, are you similarly incensed when paper reports on big lottery winners?”
“I’m disappointed Newsweek decided to dox the Nakamoto family, and regret talking to Leah,” tweeted Gavin Andresen, a Bitcoin developer who took the reins of the project after Nakamoto pulled out in 2011. Goodman reports that Satoshi’s absence from the Bitcoin project in the last few years coincides with 64-year-old Dorian’s health issues since that time, including prostrate cancer and a stroke.
  1. @truth_eater Do you feel it was a good idea to out the personal information of an individual connected to an embattled tech? #bitcoin

@EntropyExtropy Good question. Pictures and info people are asking about (including residence and car) already public. His name too.#Bitcoin

AdChoices
The journalist herself is taking questions on Twitter and says she needed to include the details she did to “offer a sense of his humanity.” Leah McGrath Goodman argues that including a photo of his car and residence was not an invasion of privacy because those things “are already public.” This of course is a cue for a discussion about the difference between privacy and obscurity, but yes, she’s right, once he was outed, it provided the pieces needed to track down where he lived. It wasn’t a necessity to include a photo of his home and car in the story beyond proving the humility of his lifestyle, but it also wasn’t very private. I was able to get his address and pull up a photo of his home on Google Google Street View in less than 10 minutes; and yes, the Google Street View photo of his home includes his car. As for details Goodman did not include, she says that ”did not publish his current email, which is private;” she obtained it “through a company he buys model trains from.”
Google Street View has an even better photo of Nakamoto's home. Once his identity was clearly established, this was no longer private information.
Google Street View has an even better photo of Nakamoto’s home. Once his identity was clearly established, this was no longer private information.
“This was a dick move to Satoshi who didn’t desire this in any way,” says security expert Mikko Hypponen. “It’s a big scoop, but a shitty thing to publish all this information.”
Other journalists have tried to out Satoshi Nakamoto in recent years, most famously Joshua Davis in the New Yorker, but have been unsuccessful. Their reports consisted of vague finger pointing and speculation. Goodman’s report is a thorough and convincing one. She did public record digging to find him. According to Forbes researcher Sue Radlauer, Dorian Nakamoto is one of three Satoshi Nakamotos living in the U.S.; another one passed away in Hawaii in 2008 and two others live in Japan. As Mathew Ingram notes, “It’s interesting how everyone chose to believe the secretive hacker mastermind pseudonym thing [when it came to Bitcoin creator's identity]. The truth is boring.”
AdChoices
AdChoices
It may be boring but it’s impressive that Goodman apparently succeeded where others have failed. While Dorian S. Nakamoto refused to talk at length with her, she did interview many people in his life, including his brothers, children, ex-wife, and former colleagues, all of whom found the idea that he is Bitcoin’s creator compelling given his libertarian views, background as a computer engineer and work on classified military projects. They also claim his writing style matches that of Nakamoto.
Is it fair to say that it’s an invasion of privacy to prove that a man who identified himself as Satoshi Nakamoto when he created Bitcoin is in fact a man named Satoshi Nakamoto? He created something that has become a global phenomenon, caused governments to wring their hands, and taken on immense real-world value, with a billions-dollar market cap. The need to know the creator, who himself holds much of the currency, was important. This is not tabloid journalism; this is very much in the public interest, and important for those adopting and investing in the Bitcoin system to know.
Mike Hearn, a Google engineer who became a Bitcoin developer in recent years was more sanguine about the outing. “I don’t know if it changes things that much,” says Hearn by email. “I guess he won’t rejoin development or anything. I’m not even sure if he still watches. I’d like to think he does and he is satisfied with how things have turned out.”
Nakamoto may have wanted to distance himself from the project by using his middle name in its authorship but there was some pride and desire to be associated with it in not taking on a true pseudonym. It must have gotten bigger than he ever expected, and with the arrest and prosecutions of other currency creators, he may have feared the financial Frankenstein cooked up in his computer laboratory. Now that his thin veil of anonymity has been stripped away, will he be free to cash in? In that way, she may have done him a favor.
It’s a journalist’s job to invade privacy, and to report things that people often don’t want reported, to tell stories people don’t want told. Respectable journalists try to do this in a way that doesn’t cause unnecessary harm, or unwarranted intrusion into people’s personal lives. The Bitcoin story is too big and too important not to be fully investigated and told. When Nakamoto sent his project out into the world in 2008, under his real name no less, it was inevitable that he would one day be unmasked.
AdChoices
AdChoices
It’s certainly ironic. Just as Bitcoin is less anonymous than people think — it’s a huge traceable public ledger after all — so is its creator.
*With reporting contributed by Andy Greenberg

Post Your Comment

Cancel reply

Post Your Reply

Please log in or sign up to comment.
Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.
  • stevenb stevenb 6 hours ago
    I think there’s no question that the investigative journalism here is, indeed, brilliant (or at least inspiring). However, I don’t know if I can go along with the suggestion that the outing is brilliant journalism.
    Yes, a lot of the information was already public – you just had to know where to look. Eventually, this probably would probably have come out anyway. But we’re not talking about the hypothetical ‘eventually’ – we’re talking about now, and this story. Would it have been a lesser story if those ‘public’ details were left for the reader to dig up rather than effectively handed on a silver platter? Would it have been a lesser story if the name that the person is using was left out, and only non-private information were used as proof that they had found Satoshi Nakamoto were published?
    Your article’s conclusion that “The Bitcoin story is too big and too important not to be fully investigated and told.” seems to imply that releasing the details such as name, age, address (indirectly, but certainly made blatantly easy to find), family member details, etc. is something that -had- to be done.
    But then I wonder why it should stop there? Why shouldn’t we be told whether he votes democrat or republican? Why aren’t we being told what his religious affiliation is? It could be of vital importance to ‘The Bitcoin story’ what this person’s sexual orientation is.
    Or is it? And it the conclusion is that it isn’t, then take a few steps back and wonder again whether all that other ‘public’-made-frontpage-public information was really necessary for this part of ‘The Bitcoin story’ to be told.
    • Called-out comment
  • Author
    Kashmir Hill Kashmir Hill, Forbes Staff 4 hours ago
    I think her initially emailing him under the pretext of talking about trains was, as my colleague Andy Greenberg termed it on Twitter, “ruthless.” But the rest of her reporting and writing is what one would expect — and hope for — with this kind of story. Were she to simply say, “I met the real Satoshi Nakamoto and he lives in California,” I think most readers would be doubtful. His family members agreed to speak with her, and apparently agreed to do so under their real names and identities. She had to provide certain details about his life to prove the case and affirm that he is in fact Bitcoin’s creator. Beyond that, the fact that he used his real name as his “pseudonymous identity” goes far to undermine the idea that he expected to remain unknown forever.
    • Called-out comment
  • skylights skylights 6 hours ago
    Good article.
    • Called-out comment
  • + expand 7 comments
    - collapse comments
    • Skippy Skippy 4 hours ago
      Just because all of the information she found was technically already public doesn’t mean it’s okay to publish it like that. We’re not talking about legalities or rights here; we’re talking about simple human ethics. There is absolutely no reason for her to invade his privacy like that except to get the “big scoop.” Worst of all, though, is that she could have written pretty much the same article WITHOUT those details. She’s a disgusting image of what the public hates most about journalists, equivalent to celebrity paparazzi.
    • Daniel Daniel 4 hours ago
      “It’s a journalist’s job to invade privacy, and to report things that people often don’t want reported, to tell stories people don’t want told.”
      To what end? To provide a check on power, or to satisfy morbid curiosity? If it’s the latter, then your profession deserves no respect.
    • TNT2U2 TNT2U2 3 hours ago
      Ms. Hill, can we have your address and a photo of your house? Then I don’t have to do my “Brilliant investigative journalism”.
    • kerry kerry 2 hours ago
      Andrea Chang (Tech Reporter, LA Times), said this:
      “Nakamoto, when I asked him in elevator why he told Newsweek he used to be involved with bitcoin: “No no no I was never involved.”
      Is it still “Brilliant Journalism” if Leah McGrath Goodman got it all wrong? ;)
    • kt12 kt12 2 hours ago
      Putting the man’s personal information, such as date of birth and house location, and accompanying pictures, in the article when he clearly didn’t want to be interviewed, is egregious. I also found her disbelief (and implied judgement) of his modest lifestyle, given his wealth, pointless and needling. Her apparent ‘surprise’ (from her TV interview) that an outing of Nakamoto would cause upset, despite the fact that he repeatedly chose not to have contact with her, to the extent of calling the police, I found to be disingenuous and calculating.
      You might call it brilliant- it’s basically tabloid journalism.
    • The claim that “the outing is brilliant journalism” is nowhere justified in the article. One paragraph does mention the fact that other journalists already attempted to determine the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto. But then the author dismisses them as “vague finger pointing and speculation”. The funny thing is that those “speculations” are probably more accurate that the dubious claims made in the Newsweek article — claims derived from a simple denial by an old man and interviews with a few of his relatives. That’s not “brilliant” journalism. That’s shoddy journalism. It’s only a matter of days before it’s determined that the 64-year-old had nothing to do with bitcoin.
    • Jege Jege 54 minutes ago
      Hi, I normally love your stuff, but this time I disagree. Doxing someone who wishes to remain anonymous and has done nothing wrong is a shitty thing to do. Period. The fact that she is a journalist, i.e. someone will pay her to do this, cannot magically change that. I mean, she intentionally harmed someone by lying to him, going against his wishes and bringing him exactly the attention he has tried so hard to avoid.
      What makes it worse is gaining his confidence by pretending an interest in his hobby. That is pretty damn cold. What makes all of it a lot worse was the tone of the article. The (pretty badly written article) paints him as a sad, almost pathetic figure, who she then tricks and betrays. The thing reads like ‘here is how I kicked a puppy. Stupid puppy, clever me’.
      I am also not convinced of the public interest angle. We have no real right to know what people intend to do with their money, even if it may affect us.

Don't miss...

know more..
Top 10 Things to Know Before Buying a Car in 2014
know more..
10 Subtle Signs of Bipolar Disorder
know more..
Funds That Deliver High Income
know more..
10 Most Reliable 2014 Luxury SUVs
attr(data-icon)
Share
Share this page
117
274
15
2
3
0
Next Post
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%