Talk:Electron (computer hacker)

Correction

Suggesting Jones' name is "unverified" is wrong. He appeared in court under this name and is identified in the book cited in the article's sources.Grimhim 06:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Which book is that? --Michael Snow 05:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The second one cited. "Hackers" by Apro & HammondGrimhim 06:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't have access to this book, and all of the sources available to me only use the handle and never mention a real name. The Sunday Age makes a point of not using the real names, as does Dreyfus. That seems to be the pattern of reputable publications. Why would this book do it differently? How and where does it make the connection? Keeping in mind the considerations in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and the implications of what is ascribed to this person, I'm still concerned about whether there is a reliable basis for naming him based on a source published years after the events. --Michael Snow 08:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by not having access to the book. It was, and probably is, still available in Australian book stores. The fact that you live in the US is hardly a reason to rule that their identities are not "verifiable". To say so would be an act of extreme arrogance.

Here are some points to consider.

1. Even-Chaim, Woodcock and Jones were all named and their photographs used in "reputable" Melbourne newspapers at the time of both their arrest, throughout their lengthy court cases and on their convictions.

2. The book, written by the police officer who pursued and arrested them, names them.

3. The Sunday Herald Sun story, which appeared around the time the book was published and which is also cited, named them.

4. News reports of their arrests and convictions, which used their real names, can still be found on the internet. Try googling them.

5. All Wikipedia articles on notable hackers identify them primarily by their real names. You don't explain why, in the case of these three individuals, you think Wikipedia should suddenly deviate from this practice and hide the names of these three when they have all received widespread publicity.

6. Your argument that the "implications of what is ascribed to this person" creates less than a "reliable basis" for identifying them is specious. All three were arrested, charged and convicted in an Australian court. They were named in court and publicly identified at the time and again last year when the book was published and a newspaper article written on the case. It has been established beyond doubt who the individuals were behind these computer handles. Like any individuals who have been convicted of criminal offences, they bear the consequences of their actions. Do we now revisit all Wiki articles on convicted offenders and delete names because you fear they may suffer from being named?

I don't know what else to say to you, other than that their names belong in these articles. If you remove them, I'll reinstate them.Grimhim 09:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Many countries, including your own, recognize a limit on how long individuals must "bear the consequences of their actions". For details see Living Down The Past. For these offences, that time is well past.

The July 31st 2005 Sunday Herald Sun article written by Graeme Hammond (the co-author of the book you refer to) appears to have used only Phoenix's real name. --Iglooesque 11:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Then I'm not sure where this is all heading. Wikipedia doesn't exist to pass judgment on people or decide how long they should be punished. It simply records facts. The real names of these "notable hackers" is on the record.

I don't see how a debate can spring up on whether their names should now be politely avoided in a public document on their notoriety/achievements. If so, it must be time to revisit the whole list of "notable hackers" and remove all their real names ... or perhaps just those who you decide have born enough of the consequences for their actions. Let's take that to its logical conclusion: The Unabomber, the Yorkshire Ripper, any other criminal known by an alias but ultimately unveiled and convicted. Delete their names as well? Get real. My reverts today, incidentally, were of names removed supposedly because they were "unverified". In fact, as listed above, there is ample verification.Grimhim 12:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on the information I could access, it wasn't verified, I didn't say it wasn't verifiable. If you're better placed to have access to the sources, it's up to you to provide the verification. I asked how and where the book makes the connection and didn't get a response. If you want to rely on contemporary news reports (and I actually have tried searching for those), then you should cite those directly.

The claim that all hacker articles identify them primarily by real names is simply untrue, as the best-known example (Tron (hacker)) would indicate. Wikipedia practice is to use common names, generally based on whatever's common in the literature, and for this kind of subject the pseudonym is often more common.

Negative information about living persons requires a higher level of reliability, due to concerns like potential defamation. It may have been "established beyond doubt" elsewhere, but right now here it's only been asserted without supporting information. --Michael Snow 22:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I base my comment on Wiki conventions on identifying hackers on the list of notable intruders at the hacker (computer security) article. However I can add sufficient supporting information to make the connection between this guy's handle and his real name verifiable.Grimhim 23:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Verification?

From Apro and Hammond, 2005, p. 116:

Force was happy to give him up, providing me not only with Electron's real name - Richard Jones - but his address as well.

--Thedangerouskitchen 14:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Michael, is this sufficient? Can we consider Electron's identity verified?

--Thedangerouskitchen 13:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It's already incorporated in the article as it stands. Thanks for providing some of the context I was asking for earlier, though. --Michael Snow 22:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case then, can we consider moving this article back? --Thedangerouskitchen 12:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I oppose that. It seems pretty clear that the convention in literature on the subject is to use primarily the handle for identification, and Wikipedia should do the same (see also Wikipedia:Use common names). Most of the sources don't even mention a real name, and even the one you've cited apparently takes 116 pages to get around to it, while also identifying other people by handles instead of real names. --Michael Snow 16:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It takes 116 pages because the story is told chronologically, from the very start of Apro's career in the police force. --Thedangerouskitchen 14:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I do, however, take your point about common names and I'm happy for the article to stay where it is, for now at least. --Thedangerouskitchen 14:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal

Those who have read Underground would be aware that there are a few elements of Electron's personal life that might be considered significant and worth mentioning. Any thoughts? --Thedangerouskitchen 15:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think if it's handled briefly and sensitively, it's worth inclusion. The effects of his withdrawal from hacking and the aftereffects of his arrest were covered at length in the TV doco, so he's obviously not so touchy aboout it. They are quite relevant to his case and, I guess, the practice of hacking to some degree.Grimhim 23:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electron (computer hacker). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071203120712/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/claa1989n1081989301/s9.html to http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/claa1989n1081989301/s9.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)