It appears as though the entire post has now disappeared in the couple minutes since I posted the third.

Incredibly ridiculous.

The following comments were addressed to Nathan Adam, Scott Campbell and Paul McEnhill at netnewsdaily.com.

After comments 1 and 2 were posted, the information mentioned in my comments was removed and the original post edited.

COMMENT 1
===================

While there is some perceived “good” from this, the act of publishing rewards someone who obtained the information illegally.

Apparently the Patriot Act has been extended to cover corporate ethics…? And can be executed by anyone with a news blog? Give me a break.

Aside from issues covered by the Patriot Act (which is famously controversial in terms of personal rights and freedoms), most POLICE agencies are required to obtain warrants for this sort of monitoring. Cases are thrown out of court for acts like this.

Those here saying that Daniel is not a victim apparently feel that law does not extend to the Internet. Remember when they used to call it the Wild West?

This sort of thing serves the entire social media industry a disservice.

Personally, I expect that there is a serious karmic backlash for the ‘hacker’ and this ‘news’ blog, if not a serious legal issue.

Daniel, you’ve owned up to your mistake – that’s great. But don’t be bullied by some of these people saying you’re the one who is wrong.

I recommend that call whichever policing agency applies to you and file a complaint against this “news” blog.

I also think you should reach out to @ev at Twitter and see if he has words of wisdom for you. No doubt they’ve had some very highly paid lawyers investigating various routes in regard to the famous incident that obviously inspired this “news” blog and it’s (criminal) “source”.

Karma.

COMMENT 2
===================

PS: Regarding those who commented with “people’s lives are at risk”:

While this may or may not be true, the appropriate thing would have been to comment on the security issue – not the numbers.

Further, the screenshot I see in the “article” contains people’s email addresses, names and what-not.

By posting that you’ve committed the act you claim to be trying to prevent. You at least could have blacked out that private information.

“Good job!”

COMMENT 3 (Posted after the information was removed)
===================

Nathan: I guess you agreed with me, since you’ve removed the information.

My commentary was valid and respectful. And you’ve removed that as well.

So much for the transparency that this article was supposedly based upon.

You should have left what you had written, and amended it with an update.

These actions are not acts of journalism.

All this, well after the fact that you’ve tarnished someone’s name.

I believe you owe a few apologies.

Based on two comments that I left on the Net New’s Daily post that started this controversy, they have removed aspects of the post. And amended it.

They also removed my comments.

I am posting them here (following), as well as a third comment that I left there a moment ago in response to their new actions.

It all reeks of non-professionalism and unaccountability.

Good luck.

Apparently the Patriot Act has been extended to cover corporate ethics…? And can be executed by anyone with a news blog? Give me a break.