Comment by Tinyyy
6 years ago
I’m not trying to dox the author, but I just want to point out that he blogged about his own name on SCC(in 2019 no less), which is quite counterproductive if he wanted his last name private.
Edit: The linked blog post was still live prior to the site takedown, so I’m assuming it’s acceptable to link to an archive of it.
You can easily find Scott's last name in multiple places. He makes a point though, being able to dig out his last name is very different from publishing it in the New York Times.
He was also concerned about people finding his blog starting from his name, mostly for reasons having to do with his work. He even mentions this in his post. People are saying that he didn't do a good job of protecting his privacy anyway - that's quite wrong, dude knows what he's doing.
> being able to dig out his last name is very different from publishing it in the New York Times
It's on Wikipedia. How's that "digging out"?
I can't see it on Wikipedia. Do you have a link?
8 replies →
I would delete it. He deleted his posts. His name was protected through security by obscurity. A weak defense, but it had been enough so far.
Highlighting a way people can find the name encourages others to dig.
I honestly don't even share what seems to be the majority opinion in the thread. If someone runs a public blog of the size that SSC has, which is not small by any means, and has previously partaken in real world events and his name has already come up I don't think one can argue that there is reasonably expectation of pseudonimity in that regard.
It's not acceptable. You should respect the author and his fears and remove the link.