I shot Michael Brown

Michael Brown

I shot Michael Brown.

This is the time we live in. Faceless “hacktivists” announce a name and call him a killer. Then swarms of wannabe journalists and righteous citizens of justice begin plastering his picture throughout cyberspace.

You can still find news stories labeling a man a killer, and see his face…because “Anonymous” pointed the finger at him and said he was the guy.

There is no time to wait and see. Roll with it. After all, Anonymous has been correct sometimes. Wait for the promised tweet to release his address and get the cameras rolling as a fist with a microphone knocks on the door.

I did not kill Michael Brown.

But it apparently would not take much to falsely link me to something a whole heck of a lot of people would be angry at me for doing. All it seems to take is a similar location and loose connection. This is a cyber risk we all live with. The Anonymous-tied Twitter account that released the name and photos was suspended but deletions do not mean false information is erased.

No one apologizes when a baseless accusation is made by a faceless group or person given a megaphone via social media. When names are cleared of wild allegations, they are discarded. It makes for a great, interesting follow-up story–an outstanding crawl at the bottom of the screen or tease before a commercial break: “Mike Brown killer misidentified…so who was is it?”

The man Anonymous said shot Mike Brown dead in a street in Ferguson, Missouri is not a cop. He never was, according to the police department and his family. His family says he’s a dispatcher. Turns out, Anonymous’ ability to hack into accounts (in this case into Ferguson’s websites and databases) doesn’t make them sleuths.

But this gets scarier. Officer Darren Wilson shot Mike Brown, Ferguson police said.

Googlers extraordinaire found a “Darren Wilson” and posted his face to websites. Problem is, it is St. Louis City Sgt. Darren Wilson, not the Darren Wilson who is a 6-year veteran cop in Ferguson.

I’m not about to defend or denounce the shooting of a young man by police, because I don’t know the situation that led up to it and I’m not familiar with the investigation. I’m not particularly happy with police tactics following the community’s outrage over the shooting of Brown (seemed a tad much, to say the least) but this isn’t about that.

This is about the innocent people caught in the shrapnel of rage and access. I don’t want to ever Google myself and see my picture connected to a terrible act I had no part in. And there are several other Chad Hemenways out there, from what I gather. Keep your noses clean, boys.

In all seriousness, this type of thing worries me. My name and picture and personal information can be wallpapered in perpetuity to the Internet if the wrong person or people suspect I’ve committed a serious crime or unethical act.

Additionally, I realize there are reasons to keep information under wraps. But it does not appear advisable to add kindling to a fire and put other people’s privacy in jeopardy by attempting to stop the actual press, mistreating protesters and entirely disrespecting the public’s right to know. I am no expert in the balance needed to keep the public informed while attempting to conduct an investigation, especially today.

However, it does not take an expert to recognize a failure in managing this risk. For the guy who had his Facebook pictures plastered everywhere in connection with this tragedy, this is particularly true.