Talk:Moxie Marlinspike

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

what's WPA?[edit]

... runs a cloud-based WPA cracking service ...

WPA = Wi-Fi Protected Access, or something else? —Tamfang (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that. Equinox ◑ 20:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

As with other well known celebrities, Mr. Marlinspike’s “real name” and birth date (and other biographical information) should be listed. Simply because he is a “security researcher” – a polite term for “hacker” – does not mean he has a special opt-out for accurate Wikipedia data. 132.3.65.68 (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, a real name should be included, Mr. Marlinspike should not be the recipient of special dispensation that others do not enjoy. Johnny Squeaky (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yeah maybe i'm a dick for this, but according to allegheny county property records, his real name is MIKE BENHAM. no middle name/initial, not 'michael,' not sure why. 151.201.59.225 (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you weren't making this up, it wouldn't make you a "dick," it would make you a "snitch." Salaman88 (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this listing also makes it quite obvious, http://wingnutrva.org/2011/08/10/new-library-contributions-from-the-university-of-michigan/ 151.201.59.225 (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this must be another pseudonym, since it's a transliteration from Arabic meaning roughly "even behind the camels." A friend once told me that they saw Moxie's government ID, which had the name "Matt Rosenfeld" on it. Salaman88 (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that he shouldn't have "a special opt-out" for identifying data. Everyone should have the same option. —Tamfang (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the Slashdot story, Mr. Marlinspike reveals "Matthew" as his first name, but we still need to source "Rosenfeld". =//= Johnny Squeaky 03:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Rosenfeld" is completely unsourced and should NOT be part of a wikipedia article. If you google, you'll find dozens of web sites that cite wikipedia on this "fact". Even "Matthew" is debatable. Given that this person is intensely private, I doubt he would just give out his real first name in a public forum. More likely, Matthew is another pseudonym used to make a point, not his actual birth name.70.169.163.2 (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should we just remove it completely then? --Ronz (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. As much as I think the article should have his real name, the reference does only mention "Matthew" and not "Rosenfeld". The whole thing is a bit sketchy. My vote is to remove, unless someone want's to see if "the facts" can be ferreted out of the Intertubes... =//= Johnny Squeaky 18:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to make mention of the fact that Moxie Marlinspike is not his given (birth) name. It's possible that he made it legally an official pseudonym or even changed it through the court system, but I've never seen evidence either way. Point being, it MIGHT legally be his real name even though it's not his birth name, and it might not. He's done a very good job of keeping any association with his given name out of easily-accessed public records. Whisper Systems, INC was incorporated in Texas where you only have to list the name of the Registered Agent (who is often a 3rd party) in the public records. While I'm sure there are official legal records which would lead from Whisper Systems, INC back to his real name, I have no idea if they're publicly available or not. In any case, it would take a good bit of investigation and much of it would most likely have to be done by hand, off-line. 184.166.240.249 (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, we should have the real name, as with anybody else who has an article on Wikipedia. "Mike Benham" does seem plausible if you check Usenet postings: he was using this in 2002. 86.159.192.146 (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, what a bunch of unethical jackasses. You can't just publish someone's real name publicly if it could cause them trouble. He doesn't want his name known for a reason. And I don't care if other people have their data posted, most of them already have already made their names publicly available, but if someone wishes to remain unknown then it's not ok for some wikipedia neckbeard to violate their privacy. 188.27.206.14 (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't "wish to remain unknown": he is a public figure, who posts widely-read stuff on the Internet and attends conferences. The govt already knows who he is, anyway; they stop him at airports. 86.164.200.121 (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per legal transactions detailed @ https://www.dirt.com/gallery/moguls/tech/signal-moxie-marlinspike-house-los-angeles-1203414449/ & others linked @ https://www.reddit.com/user/alderwern/comments/ki4wmq/moxie_marlinspike_real_name_and_real_identity/, Mike Benham was correct @ birth, but now is changed legally to Moxie Marlinspike (with Matt Rosenfeld being an interim pseudonym). Anyone have any clarity? Moxie's back in the news, so it'd be great to have it accurate. TSamuel (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are the sources advanced to claim a different birth name for Mr. Marlinspike:

  • Matt Smith, Saudi's Mobily Denies Asking for Help to Spy on Customers, Reuters, May 15, 2013 ("Matthew Rosenfield, who uses the pseudonym Moxie Marlinspike").
  • James McClain, Signal CEO Moxie Marlinspike Buys Ultra-Mod Mar Vista Compound, Dirt.com (July 22, 2021) ("Born Mike Benham in Georgia but more commonly known by his Moxie Marlinspike pseudonym and also occasionally as Matthew Rosenfeld").
  • Various public records listing a person's name and street address with no clear link to our subject.
  • A now-unavailable blog post.

Per BLP, "Wikipedia includes full names . . . that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. * * * Consensus has indicated that the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified." Reuters is a reliable source. I'm unsure about Dirt.com ("DIRT is a tongue-in-cheek peek into the oft-clandestine real estate transactions of high-profile []or high-net worth people"), but it doesn't matter, since what we have falls short of the "widely published" criterion. Even if they were linked to Mr. Marlinspike, we are forbidden by BLPPRIMARY from using them: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." That leaves only one plausible source for each purported name, which is far too little.

Despite what some others have claimed above, there is no presumption in favor of publishing personal information of living persons; on the contrary, there is a strong presumption in favor of their privacy to be overcome only by either voluntary, authenticated disclosure by the subject himself or by a chorus of reliable sources. We do not use original research to write Wikipedia articles, and we especially do not use it to disclose private facts about living persons. We also have no obligation to determine whether the name by which a subject is known is his "real" name.[1]

Accordingly, I am removing any mention of either of these names. Rebbing 20:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale for removing the mentions, being that they are not substantiated by adequate, acceptable evidence, is unquestionably correct.
However, to argue that a person's name is private information of such order that it would bear withholding from an encyclopedia is an extreme exaggeration. 66.190.13.201 (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are high quality sources for his name, including the likes of the BBC and Reuters. Why does it keep getting removed with spurious references to BLP? BLP requires: high-quality sources (which it has), needs to not violate laws (it doesn't), needs to be neutral (much more neutral than excluding it because of his desires), needs to be verifiable (from high-quality sources, as already mentioned), needs to not be original research (don't think BBC articles are user generated). In fact, judging these reliable sources to be inadequate based on your original research is what would violate BLP... DimeCadmium (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you didn't cite the BBC article you say mentions Mr. Marlinspike's birth name, I'll assume it was this:
That gives us two usable articles for the name (the Reuters and BBC articles), which is far less than BLP's requirement that it be "widely published" by reliable sources. Moreover, I think that there are good reasons to doubt the value of the BBC piece: it lacks a byline, was not professionally proofread, and lacks the sort of depth which would suggest that the author had carefully checked his background facts. Cf. STICKTOSOURCE ("As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.").[2] When that article was published, our article used that name ("Matthew Rosenfeld, known as Moxie Marlinspike"), making this a plausible case of citogenesis.
It's not prescribed forbidden original research to investigate the veracity of sources and analyze their claims. Cf. OR ("This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources . . . ."). Rebbing 03:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, two usable articles. Except for all the other ones listed here, and all the other ones you can find on Google. Just two. 🙄
His name is not, in fact, Moxie Marlinspike and the fact the article pretends it is is misleading.
I do enjoy that you've decided you're better at judging the reliability of the BBC than the rest of Wikpedia, though. Wikipedia:RSPBBC DimeCadmium (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An assumed name is, according to the dictionary definitions and common usage, a name; and the sources cited in the article show no hesitation in referring to our subject as Moxie Marlinspike. (Most don't even mention that it's an assumed name.) The idea that only the name given on a person's birth certificate is his "real" name is a fiction, like the Hollywood trope of policemen reading arrestees their Miranda rights while leading them away.
All of the other sources referred to in this discussion fail either RS or BLPPRIMARY. Pointing out that the BBC is considered reliable doesn't address my criticism of this particular BBC article. Rebbing 06:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest just mentioning that this isn't his birth name, and nothing else, perhaps with a big <!-- PLEASE STOP CHANGING IT --> comment? That seems to be the only thing all the sources agree on.
(Also, apologies to Rebbing for misspelling your name in my last edit summary.) ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 03:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to adding the comment.
Greenberg (2016) states that he has a "different and far less interesting name on his birth certificate" and that "Moxie" was a childhood nickname. I'm weakly opposed to it, but I think it'd be permissible to mention that his name is not his birth name. How about this?
Personal life

Originally from the state of Georgia, Marlinspike moved to San Francisco in the late 1990s at age 18. The name Moxie Marlinspike is an assumed name partly derived from a childhood nickname.[1]

References
  1. Greenberg (2016); Wiener (2020).
Rebbing 06:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 07:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for the suggestion. Rebbing 18:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also added a stern comment near the top. Hopefully now we can all stop arguing about this. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 02:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ In most of the the United States, an alias or changed name adopted even without official process may be used as a "legal name." See Julia Shear Kushner, The Right to Control One's Name, 57 UCLA L. Rev. 312, 326–328 (2009).
  2. ^ A similarly unsigned, unproofread piece about the death of Mr. Harry Reims repeats without qualification the dubious, disputed claim that Deep Throat grossed $600 million.

Content[edit]

I think we seriously need to discuss the content of this article which is a Biography of a Living Person. In the current (as of 9 Sep, 1700 PST) the version is fairly truncated from what is was, and I think this is a better version... Why?

The previous version had (essentially) two sections that are now gone:

One: A section about Whisper Systems and a complete list of fairly all Whisper's software projects, regardless of market share / install base.

The problem here is that not only does Whisper Systems not even have a Wikipedia entry, but the software mentioned is somewhat niche, with (at present) a very small install base. These things being so, I question the notability and thus the appropriateness of such a lengthy inclusion. Talking about Marlinspike's involvement with Whisper Systems and perhaps a brief discussion of what Whisper Systems produces might be warented, but not to the degree of the original text. Perhaps Whisper Systems should have its own WP article and product list - if it is notable enough? And if it isn't notable enough, why include it here?

Two: A section comprising a fairly random list of lecture synopses for talks that Marlinspike has given at fairly random security conferences.

Here's the thing: Marlinspike is an active lecturer. Are we to add a new entry every time he gives a mean and rockin' lecture? I mean, who he is and the subject of his area of focus means there will be a lot of people in attendance and it will probably get a fair amount of press in the appropriate trade rags / web sites and so on. Do each of his appearances rise to the level of notability that get a Wikipedia entry? Over time that could become quite a list. What is the criteria for including any particular lecture / appearance?

I think what the article needs is a paragraph that helps readers get a good feel for what it is that Marlinspike does, and maybe - if relevant to the article - some reference to his most notable publications, if they can be worked in to the discussion of what it is he does.

Also, yes, I do not think Marlinspike was born with this name (though it is of course possible), and as a biography, this article should have his birth date and birth name. Simply because he is a Blackhat Hacker (or if you prefer White/Greyhat Hacker or even "Security Researcher") does not mean he should be exempt from basic biographical information.

However, the way the article use to read before it was truncated was pretty random and almost a geeky fanboy / vanity page. Marlinspike IS notable, but it should follow the same established rules and form of other well written BLP articles here. Yes?

Thanks ~//~ 76.22.32.86 (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His personal Web site has vanished[edit]

As of today, thoughtcrime.org is just a domain holding page — perhaps some cybersquatter scum has grabbed it. Consider removing the dead link from the article. 86.184.160.171 (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be there now. =//= Johnny Squeaky 05:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Squeaky (talk • contribs)

External links[edit]

The relevant policies/guidelines are WP:NOTLINK and WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No response? --Ronz (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See especially WP:ELNO #19 and #13, and note the links are available from his official website. --Ronz (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I've lost track of what was going on there. Your position is too many links? Personally I think external linkage should be kept to a minimum. I did think a link to Whisper Systems was fine. I don't think WP:ELNO #19 or #13 apply to that link:
WP:ELNO #19 says also "unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered", so let's look at that... I think #1 and #3 of that section apply.
WP:ELNO #13 says "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." And Whisper Systems is *directly* linked to the subject of the article.
Can we include the link to Whisper Systems? Do you object to that enough that you will seek to have it removed? If so, I'll leave it out, but I think it's relevant and fine... =//= Johnny Squeaky 04:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"and note the links are available from his official website" See WP:ELOFFICIAL where it says, "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. "
ELNO#19 specifically links to "should be linked" to WP:ELYES and "considered" to WP:ELMAYBE. None of the additional links that I removed meet ELYES or ELMAYBE criteria. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no practical difference between the external link to Thoughtcrime Labs and the external link to Whisper Systems. If Whisper Sys is no good, the same applies to Thoughtcrime Labs. =//= Johnny Squeaky 05:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potential ref[edit]

Detainment "Controversy"[edit]

The tone of the section exceeds that of an unbiased narrative. The fact is, that people who travel across boarders - especially the USA borders - know that they will have to pass through the gauntlet of the Customs folks. Being uncooperative will always cause you to be given more attention. There is no evidence that "Malinspike" is on any official lists, or received any more attention than any other uncooperative border crosser. Is it "right"? Probably not. But as *ANYONE* who crosses the US border on a fairly frequent basis *KNOWS* that if you are uncooperative, you will receive the "special treatment" regardless of who you think you are. "Marlinspike" is not special in this respect. The paragraph is clearly a biased point of view. =//= Johnny Squeaky 03:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to you to decide whether or not is true or not, it's about what WP:RS say about the event. And the reliable sources believe it is his ancillary connection to wikileaks caused him to be singled him out.
Also, when you reverted my change, you marked it as "minor", which it wasn't, as well as taking out a word I added. I added that he "may" have been added to a list, which I think properly reflects what the articles said. As you surely know, whether he's on a list or not is impossible to officially confirm or deny with the TSA. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While the paragraph is properly sourced that does not address the bias. There is no proof that he was singled out for anything other than being uncooperative, and the source does not in any way support the contention that he was singled out. PERIOD. As I said, he is not alone in being "probed" by US Customs, it can (and WILL) happen to you too, if you flip the Customs guy crap at the boarder. It's a fact. There is no proof Marlinspike was targeted. There *is* proof he made a stink at the boarder and for that (and that alone) received some special attention. =//= Johnny Squeaky 23:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the articles say that he was singled out _before_ he was "uncooperative" and refused to give up his crypto keys. I don't know about you, but I've crossed borders many times, and never been asked for a password. Also, the CNET article says, "He also said he is subject to secondary screenings." Though this is not elaborated upon, the TSA can mark people for secondary screenings with "SSSS" on their boarding passes, as was done with Nadim Kobeissi (another security researcher) in this image: [1]. But it doesn't matter if proof of SSSS (or anything else) is shown to your satisfaction in the article or not, we have to trust the journalists that reported the articles, not what we think might be true. So, by all means, edit the section to indicate to more accurately reflect what the articles say, but you can't argue that the issue is non-notable or biased. As I said before, If "proof" were the standard before writing an article, the only thing that would suffice as proof is an acknowledgement from TSA, which since they will never give, there would never be a journalistic article about TSA detainment. Finally, Mr. Marlinspike's treatment is part of a trend around computer security professionals being detained when crossing borders, so less proof is needed as there is more than sufficient proof that other computer security professionals like Jacob Appelbaum are being regularly detained. Read this[2] if you want to hear more details on how such detainments work. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's more about Mr. Kobeissi being detained, showing a pattern of detention by TSA that gives weight to the idea that it's not just a random border probe: [3] Just because Mr. Marlinspike's alleged detention wasn't thoroughly documented in the articles, doesn't mean it wasn't real. For all we know, Mr. Marlinspike might have provided detailed, compelling documentation to the journalists, who opted not to bore their audience with the details. Again, we have to trust the journalists, which is not coincidentally Wikipedia policy. It doesn't make the whole section "biased" because there aren't enough details/proof for your liking. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Marlinspike has a "persecution" complex. While is is a sad commentary on TSA "security theater", the fact is mere mortals such as myself that travel often, are often singled out for "secondary examination". It is simply something that happens if you cross the boarder on a frequent basis, especially if you "look funny" (the TSA might look at Marlinspike and conclude he is a dope smoking hippie that is probably moving narcotics). If he (and you and anyone else) think his treatment was unique, all I can say is: you clearly don't have dreads and travel very much and as for Marlinspike, he's know to have quite the ego - something that goes along with a "persecution complex". But whatever, I'm not able to help you see the unparanoid reality. Too bad, because quite frankly it should be MUCH MUCH more disturbing that the Boarder Nazi and TSA treat *a lot* of people this way, than just "security researchers" that fit a counter-culture profile such as Marlinspike =//= Johnny Squeaky 18:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't pretend to know what actually happened. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong - thankfully, it doesn't matter, as the way wikipedia is organized makes both of our opinions on this matter irrelevant. All the article has to do is accurately reflects the WP:RS articles. Per your comment on my talk page, I've removed the NPOV tag. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 05:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You speak of the TSA, but if you follow the articles, there were a number of actors involved in this over-a-year-long ordeal. TSA, CBP, DHS, multiple US consolates, and other unknowns. It seems unlikely that this is an "attitude problem," since the situation (as reported) begins before he even gets to the airport. He can't print a boarding pass online or at the kiosks, and has to have an airline ticketing agent call DHS and get permission to print one, which reportedly takes an hour. Then he's subjected to the SSSS screening stuff not only at the original airport, but at the connecting gate of any other airport he travels through, even domestically and even if he hasn't left security. Then every time he leaves the country, on his return flight someone from the US embassy will find him at the departing gate in the foreign airport using a picture on a phone, ask him questions, call the US, and clear the foreign airline to allow him to board. Then he's met by CBP *at the door of the aircraft* when it arrives in the US, is escorted to a room where he's questioned for hours, and his electronics are imaged or seized. I don't see where attitude could come into this. I've seen comments on twitter from other shocked security researchers who have traveled with him to conferences and have witnessed the entire ordeal, so the consensus doesn't seem to be that he is merely making up a story to conform to a "persecution complex." If anything he has been pretty quiet about it. Borium23 (talk) 07:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike the TSA Thugs / Homeland Security / Customs Cops as much as anyone, perhaps more than you since I travel quite a bit as a function of my job (with the DoD no less, but I still get the Anal Probe just like anyone else). But Wikipedia is not my soapbox, nor yours, nor Mr. Marlenspikes. Factual statements without political bias are what gives legitimacy to Wikipedia. =//= Johnny Squeaky 05:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Research Section[edit]

Notable to whome? Pretty standard hacking territory. Malinspike has only 13000 Google hits, which is pretty tiny, and is not at the top of the list for any of the subjects listed in the Notable Research Section. =//= Johnny Squeaky 18:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the quantity of Google references make sense as a measure of notability, but it looks more like 100k, almost all of which are WP:RS. Some of the items in the notable research category are responsible for the creation of entire RFCs (such as HSTS). Seems pretty notable. Borium23 (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please disclose your WP:COI relationship to the subject of this article? You have never edited any other article, yet this one seems to interest you exclusively? =//= Johnny Squeaky 23:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know the guy. This is the first time I've tried contributing to an article, and it has been surprisingly difficult. You keep making derogatory personal comments about the article's subject, do you have a WP:COI? Also, maybe you could respond to the substance of my comments before blanking the article? Borium23 (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convention dictates that I must accept your word in "good faith". Yet one wonders... =//= Johnny Squeaky 03:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are not interested in "compromise", but I would accept the "Research" section, but *not* the so-called "Controversy" section, which is ridiculous and simply hero-worship masturbation. For anyone who has traveled internationally on a regular basis, it simply smells like crap. RMS travels extensively and has NEVER had these issues, but than RMS probably doesn't give the TSA Thugs a hard time. =//= Johnny Squeaky 03:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it doesn't matter what you (or I) think, but what journalists paid to cover news, aka WP:RS, say about the topic. Have you spend any (or much) time in WP:AFD? Going through the AFD process a few times helped me learn the subtleties of notability, and I guarantee you that this article would be considered notable in that process. Also, you would be ignored if you attempted to use google search results as a notability metric. The controversy section is based on a CNet article, and should not be removed. And btw, his pseudonymous last name has an "r" in it -- you've omitted it on multiple occasions. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 06:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not your soapbox to forward your personal political views. Please do not add POV. =//= Johnny Squeaky 17:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify where you believe I said something that was a personal political viewpoint? I only mentioned Wikipedia policy WP:RS, WP:N and the WP:AFD process. Even though you may disagree with it, what I said is not the slightest bit controversial, and it is all well-established Wikipedia guidelines. Bring it up in WP:N/N if you still disagree with all of the other editors of this article, and want yet another opinion on the notability of the topic. By repeatedly blanking sections that you personally disagree with, you are ignoring impartial Wikipedia guidelines and pushing a POV, which leads me to believe that you have an agenda and should not be editing this article. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not noted in any academic and/or peer-reviewed papers, references are either self-published and / or blogs, personal web sites (original research), or other non-authoritative sources. For tech and science, there are certain standards, most/all of the referenced sources do not meet minimum standards. Mr. Benham's work might very well be documented in reliable sources, but those are not the ones used. Much of this might fall under "trivia" / "In Popular Culture" category. =//= Johnny Squeaky 05:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A 10 second google search would reveal that this is not the case. If what you want are academic references, there are plenty referencing this work (and more that *isn't* yet listed here as well, from the looks of it): The Most Dangerous Code In The World, Lessons Learned from Previous SSL/TLS Attacks, and Detecting And Defeating Government Interception are in the top few results. You're obviously dead set on blanking this page for some reason, but looking back over this conversation, it doesn't appear that you've managed to find anyone that agrees with you. Why do you think that you're the only editor of this article who feels this way? Do you have some kind of personal conflict with the subject? Borium23 (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Aliases[edit]

There's a BugTraq posting using the name "Mike Benham" here that is identical to the one on Moxie's personal website here, with the exception that the name Mike Benham was removed. I added Mike Benham as an "aka" after also finding a PC World article that cited Mike Benham. I have no confirmation that Mike Benham is Moxie's given or legal name, but it is clear that he has used the name Mike Benham in the past, hence the simple "aka".

I also found a 2003 article in SF Weekly about Mike Benham's search for community, and 'Hold Fast', a 90 minute documentary Moxie made, neither of which I saw an easy way to fit into the article, so I'm just posting them here as background material in case someone else finds them useful. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best to have the article note that Moxie is a pseudonym without trying to enumerate his additional aliases, since there are likely too many to list. The old software on his website has Matthew Rosenberg in the copyright headers, his old PGP key's identity was Johnny McDouglas, and he has given talks as Clement D. There are probably many more. Jakesnake22 (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jakesnake22, the difference between those other aliases and Mike Benham is that he was cited as Mike Benham by at least two different journalists in at least two WP:RS articles (PC World, SF Weekly), which I believe makes it a notable alias. He may have typed a throwaway alias into a PGP key field or copyright header, but since it hasn't been cited by any WP:RS, it's not worth adding to the article. Put another way, a reader could plausibly stumble upon the PC World or SF Weekly articles, or his first widely discussed bugtraq posting, then google "Mike Benham", and I think they would be best served by seeing Moxie's wikipedia page in the results. I've restored the aka Mike Benham. I tried various searches on the other aliases you mentioned, but found no WP:RS articles. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the name he published software under (for example) for a number of years is also notable. One could equally make the case that someone might stumble across such a piece of software or an old talk given under an alias, google those names, and be best served by getting the wikipedia page in the results. Unfortunately, however, I think he has used so many different aliases for notable purposes over the years that it would end up being a long list. In many cases there is no conclusive link that is easy to search for. Even one of the WP:RS articles that you mention would not have showed up with your diagnostic searches. Jakesnake22 (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This, however, is a name he has used several places several times. It's perficly legit to list is as an "aka". We should keep the reference. =//= Johnny Squeaky 06:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what I don't like about it is that singling out this one alias makes it seem like a "more legitimate" alias than others, and probably leads the reader to conclude that it is actually his legal name. The WP:RS sources this alias is drawn from are not reporting it as an alias of moxie's, but are rather articles that are reporting something else entirely which we happen to have made some kind of link to moxie. The sf weekly article has no overlapping information at all, for example. It wasn't reported that this was "him," we've just drawn that conclusion ourselves. If he used Matt Rosenberg on several pieces of software and Clement D in several talks, then why are those aliases less legitimate, if he has been known by those names on a repeated basis in different contexts? Jakesnake22 (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It *is* more "legitimate than the others in that he has used in a number of times in several contexts. =//= Johnny Squeaky 07:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reading over the detainment discussion, I think it's odd that you object to including content drawn from articles which *directly* report it (claiming POV), where as you maintain that this information, which isn't directly reported and is rather a set of conclusions that we have drawn from indirectly reported content, is relevant. It's obvious that you're not applying standards consistently and probably have some kind of a bias here. Jakesnake22 (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think now you are "baiting" me with the so-called "straw man". The "bottom line" is that is is clearly an alias Mr. Marlinspike has used on several occasions (I don't call him "Moxie" because unlike you, I don't know the man), and the use of this alias is documented in sources that are acceptable to Wikipedia standards, and therefore it can be included. Good bye! =//= Johnny Squeaky 18:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jakesnake22, anything that Marlinspike does using @thoughtcrime.org address or in person nowadays, regardless of the name used in a talk, would almost certainly be credited to the name "Marlinspike" by a journalist. Do you really think it's notable that he gave a talk under a different name (but obviously same person); used a PGP key with @thoughcrime.org address and a pseudonym; or released software under yet another pseudonym but the same @thoughtcrime email address? I don't. Often times, people get nicknames in the media and never lose them (see: Artist Formerly Known as Prince). He announced himself to the world as Mike Benham, and why the first name he used is especially significant. Every time I look, I find more references like a couple of articles credited to Mike Benham @thoughtcrime.
Also, the SF Weekly mentions the communitybooks project, which according to this slashdot post is also @thoughcrime.org, and verified again by an archive.org page. If you still aren't convinced it's the same Mike Benham, you or I could contact the journalist to confirm identity. She also wrote another article mentioning Mike Benham and Food Not Bombs, a group that Marlinspike appears to have been involved with on his website. I have zero doubts that the SF Weekly's article's subject is the same person. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that I understand your logic. I'm not contesting that this is an invalid alias, just that it isn't the only one. Are you saying that any alias he's used that's associated with thoughtcrime should be included, or not? Jakesnake22 (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Mike Benham is the only notable alias because it was used consistently for years: in press articles, in important bugtraq posting, in projects, and in a couple of essays. In the SF Weekly article, Mike Benham was the subject over the article, which is special in wikipedia as this established notability. The other aliases you mentioned don't appear to have been used widely, only as one-off thowaways, and I don't think they merit inclusion. I did look, and used many more searches than I cited. You said "I think he has used so many different aliases for notable purposes over the years that it would end up being a long list.", and that doesn't appear to be true. That said, I could be convinced of the notability of other aliases if you can find several references to multiple uses of another alias over a period of years, and ideally with at least one reference in a WP:RS. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like that name was used in a single press "event" and in a bugtraq posting about the same event. The SF Weekly article is potentially a second reliable instance, but it's somewhat suspect in that we're simply inferring that the subject of the article "sounds like" Mr. Marlinspike. In no case is there a WP:RS which directly reports that Mike Benham is an alias for Mr. Marlinspike. Matt Rosenberg was also used consistently for years: in software that Mr. Marlinspike published as early as 2001 and more recently in a 2011 story on Slashdot. This feels as significant an alias to me. I think we should include both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakesnake22 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there's consensus to include the "Mike Benham" alias. Because there are no objections to it, yet a dynamic is edit-warring over it, I've requested partial protection. --Ronz (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to its inclusion, but I do think it's a complicated question that probably deserves a small section in the article rather than a parenthetical aside. Jakesnake22 (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not complicated at all: He uses an alias, much like "Johnny Squeaky". Moxi Marlenspoke is not his real name. It's just that simple. =//= Johnny Squeaky 05:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that this academic paper: Lessons Learned From Previous SSL/TLS Attacks states that Marlinspike's real name is Matthew Rosenberg. That one has turned up in a few other places, should it be considered an additional alias? Borium23 (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed as (potentially) a BLP issue. If names are not his, they are *someones* and that person may be less than happy about being associated with Moxie. This is not a hypothetical, this has happened on wikipedia with dubious sourcing of individuals before.
  • BLP's require Reliable Sources. Not original research. 'Its his because this email posted to a bugtracker' is so very very far from being a reliable source you shouldnt be even making this argument.
  • As per Borium23 above, there is contradictory information. Infoboxs state factual information. Either all names are alias's, one is an alias and the other is his real name, maybe the academic paper is wrong, maybe moxie has 7 names - one for every day of the week. In a BLP where information is contradictory it shouldnt be in the infobox but explored in prose if necessary.
  • Seriously, no original research in a BLP. Stop doing it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to restore Mike Benham as the only alternate name backed up by two magazine articles that count as WP:RS.
This PC World article about Mike Benham's IE vulnerability report reads: ""I would consider this to be incredibly severe," Benham says in a newsgroup thread." This is a WP:RS stating that Benham was the one that released the vulnerability. The newsgroup thread in question is bugtraq post, which was signed as "Mike Benham <moxie@thoughtcrime.org>". Moxie hosts this same post on moxie.org, but with the name changed to "Moxie Marlinspike". These pages are also linked together by the notes section in this IT World article. On his website, Moxie writes that he released the vulnerability: "I originally published it as a proof of concept exploit for the BasicConstraints vulnerability that I released along with it."
I believe the above citations of two magazine articles and self-published claims above are enough to show that Moxie, at one time, used the name Mike Benham. Though not suitable for inclusion into a BLP because they are primary sources, the official filing for ownership of Quiet Riddle Ventures LLC is signed "Michael Benham". Quiet Riddle Ventures is listed as the seller of Signal, and is DBA Open Whisper Systems. The owner is listed as Mike Benham. And in a trademark coexistance agreement, "Moxie Marlinspike" signed as Founder of Open Whisper Systems.
I know this is contentious, so I'm seeking consensus before adding back into the article. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 04:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would be opposed to adding this. PC World is RS, but the article you cited does not mention Moxie anywhere. You have connected Moxie to this person via WP:OR: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moxie Marlinspike. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shuttleworth Foundation[edit]

Why did we remove the part about the Shuttleworth Foundation? Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lead was getting a bit long (see WP:MOS/LEAD#Relative emphasis) and it was only sourced with a primary source (the Shuttleworth Foundation's own website), so I removed it from the lead. On the Shuttleworth Foundation's website, he is currently listed as an alumni (alumnus?).[4] Should we start a new section listing all of the various organizations that Marlinspike has been associated with in the past? --Dodi 8238 (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've now listed the Shuttleworth Foundation in the Recognition section. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Moxie Marlinspike. 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:

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) 17:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Institute for Disruptive Studies"[edit]

Googling this mainly finds references to Marlinspike himself. What is it? Who runs it? Is it just a name he's made up for himself (and thus not really worthy of mention here)? Equinox ◑ 01:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's "a lab devoted to privacy, anonymity and computer security" according to the source. I think its mention in an independent reliable source merits inclusion here. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A year later and all the organic search results for it only return impersonators now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9FC0:4C:1597:EDB3:C528:A893 (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality[edit]

"Nationality: American". I dont think that is a nationality at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brujua (talk • contribs) 13:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Moxie Marlinspike. 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:

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) 07:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life vs. Career[edit]

" In 2004, Marlinspike bought a derelict sailboat and, with three friends, refurbished it and sailed around the Bahamas while making a "video zine" about their journey called Hold Fast." Does this belong in a section about his career?

Should perhaps we create a seperate category for Personal Life, such as many other biographical articles have, and include this there? 156.110.59.26 (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moxie_Marlinspike&oldid=1211106917"