After gaslighting and running cover for FTX, now the same media houses like WSJ and NYT are seeking to DOXX real names and address of over 1 Million FTX customers

NYT, Bloomberg and WSJ are seeking to DOXX every single user of FTX. To this effect, they have filed a motion to intervene, seeking disallow redacting of the names of 1 million plus users of FTX.

They are specifically asking for doxing names and addresses and bring up CelsiusNetwork bankruptcy as an example

Whats funny is they are not even a party to the proceedings. These media companies NYT/WSJ are not either creditors, nor debitors nor involved anyhow in the proceedings. Yet they have filed a motion to disallow redaction of personal information of FTX customers.

If this motion is allowed, potentially the names and address and holdings of every single FTX users could be available freely on the web. After already losing their money to FTX, they could now be the target of scammers and fraudsters. This is a huge privacy invasion any which way you look at it - but not for these media houses who tried the very best to cover up SBF's crimes, and now that is done, they are seeking to further harm the same customers who SBF robbed dry.

This is the WSJ that gave \"foot massages to a criminal\"

Now the same WSJ wants to doxx users?

And this is how NYT covered SBF: \"He is a human who made poor choices\"

Yeah, just a poor human who stole customers deposits and diverted that into every other scheme that came across his desk..

Suddenly they are pretending to be such a big fighter for the truth that they want all the names out in public and unredacted.

The moral of the story is that if you use a KYC exchange, your personal information could potentially be made available in a public document.

Edit:

The document filed by NYT/WSJ can be read here:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65748821/196/ftx-trading-ltd/

It appears the media is fine with not doxxing addresses, but still wants the names of the users to be doxxed. However regarding addresses, they still claim "absent evidence of a genuine threat to the safety of the creditors, such redaction should not become the norm." Even with just the names and account balances, there can be significant threat to users. Who is the media to decide if there is a "genuine threat" to the safety of users? Some users may be at risk with just their names unsealed

The current FTX administration (headed by John Ray) have sought to redact all the customer details, they believe that they can have creditor claims filed in a secure manner without doxxing all the customers. However the media, despite not having any say in the matter as either creditor or debtor, is seeking to barge in and prevent sealing of customer information, so they can run stories on the users who have already lost their money in this scam.

You can read the document filed by FTX administrators seeking to redact customer information here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65748821/95/ftx-trading-ltd-and-the-financial-times-ltd/

The current FTX administrators claim:

placing the Indemnification and Exculpation Motion under seal is of the utmost importance to preserve the confidentiality of the Debtors’ sensitive commercial and financial information the disclosure of which could put a significant amount of the Debtors’ assets at further risk of cyber-attacks or other malicious activity.

This Court has routinely authorized debtors in other chapter 11 cases to file under seal confidential information.

However, the WSJ and NYT claim creditors list must be unsealed and users must be doxxed for no reason, despite FTX administrators claim that doxxing users could lead to significant risks for debtors assets and further cyber attacks or malicious activity.

If the FTX administrators request is granted, the creditors list will remain sealed and only the court, and certain authorized individuals will be able to access the creditors list to enable creditors to file claims while maintaining their privacy.

If the NYT / WSJ request is granted, the creditors list will be made public, putting all the users personal information at significant risk.