Anyone can be doxxed in the way you describe--harassed, slandered--for any reason, and a lot of people have been for terrible reasons. This thing has nothing to do with justice against idiots or hateful people. There are already courts, professional organizations, etc for that. It's nothing more than a disgusting, immature, backwards trend that has become an opportunity for hateful people themselves.
>doxing me by posting my home address, contact information and personal history without any recourse
Why should that information be protected in the first place? It's not much different than a phone book. Your full name, address, phone number, etc are all linked to your identity. Once someone has one, it becomes nearly impossible to stop them from getting the others.
The problem with doxxing is that it usually comes with a threat of violence from ideological opponents. I think what many people should be fighting for is the right to anonymity. For your identity to never be revealed in the first place. Free speech can't truly be expressed if having the "wrong" opinion leads to some wingnut smashing your head with a bike lock.
>Are you attempting to bring attention to the fact that doxxing is rarely prosecuted, even though it's illegal and there's boatloads of evidence that it is in fact a form of violence?
We should really stop with the scope creep attempts around "violence".
> The whole premise of “doxing” being a problem is that people have a right to say things on the internet that would get them in trouble in real life.
Mmm. In some cases terribly dangerous things to their health, like being gay in a country that forbids it. Or criticising a government that forbids it. Or saying something that only becomes illegal or publicly reprehensible after the fact.
>Personally, when I see wrongdoing, I like to expose it.
If you have irrefutable proof, you should be going to the appropriate LEA. If you don't have that proof, you should not be posting someones home address to the masses to do with as they please and masquerading it as irrefutable proof.
We have all heard horror stories of innocent people being mistaken for criminals (sharing a common name, case of mistaken identity, malice or negligence of the person doing the doxxing, etc.) and having their lives threatened or ruined due to overzealous internet-warriors playing vigilante. Recall the 'Boston Bomber' + Reddit/4chan debacle? Innocent people being doxxed left and right to a vengeance hungry crowd. Not to mention that other innocent people who happen to live at the same address are subject to the punishment you unilaterally decided to hand out.
If you think that is an acceptable risk in the name of your personal sense of justice, I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye on the matter.
>This is not at all the same as an anonymous person doxxing someone
If Krebs doxxed you or I doxxed you, the result for you is the same. I fail to see your point here.
> "If you don't want to be harassed, you shouldn't have a public presence."
I did not at all mean that. What I meant was that doxxing is a complex attack surface. If someone is already high-profile and public, they can't really be dox'd. If someone isn't, then staying anonymous is a more harder task than avoiding being dox'd. That's all I was saying.
If anything, I think that people who choose not to be anonymous need more social / political support, not less.
> Like sibling says, doxxing implies that you'll post their personal info online.
It's unfortunate that so many people don't know what the word means, because now we're redefining the word to a very specific and malicious definition that makes communication about nuances around the intersection of rights here more difficult.
> there is a high risk that you THINK you've identified who the bad actor is but actually the person you decide to "retaliate" against had nothing to do with what was done to you.
I mean, you'll know their IP address, login, email, ISP and whatnot at a minimum. If the target is a comprimised computer, notifying them is the bare minimum you should do. So I'm sort of confused what kind of final consequence you're imagining here.
I think folks just see the word "doxxing" and their pattern matching misfires.
> threatening to reveal their personal information, such as their legal identity
What's the problem with that? Bad things on the internet happen more often than not because of the lack of responsibility.
Doxxing has become the primary sin in the Internet religion but it would solve all kind of problems. I am going to commit that sin and say that Doxxing is the solution, you can downvote me and make my comment greyed out and censor me when you argue against censorship.
Instead of deleting content, simply make sure that it's linked to someone who can pay for it if it turn out to be something to be payed for.
The Anonymity argument is only good when you are actively persecuted by a state actor. I don't agree that you deserve anonymity because the public will demonise you. If you hold strong believes that can be met harshly by the general public, you better be ready for the pushback and think of ways to make it accepted. That's how it has been done since ever.
Therefore, when a content is questionable maybe the users should be simply KYC'ed en left alone until a legal take down order is issued. If its illegal(like illegal porn, copyrighted content, terroristic activities etc), go to prison for it. If its BS get your reputation tarnished.
People aren't just expressing their opinion. Instead a whole bunch of people are engaging in actual illegal harassment, when these mobs start up.
No, I am not talking about criticism. I am talking about the actual harassment that often comes out of these mobs. Harassment such as death threats to you, your friends and your family, and the like, all because someone said something dumb on twitter or whatever.
> We have all heard horror stories of innocent people being mistaken for criminals
Sure. All the horror stories involve doxxing by anons. This is not the same at all.
> If Krebs doxxed you or I doxxed you, the result for you is the same. I fail to see your point here.
Well if he was wrong to doxx me, I'd be able to sue him into oblivion. If you doxxed me, there'd be no repercussions for you. That personal liability pretty much ensures that Krebs isn't going to doxx me unless he's absolutely certain that he's right.
> Just because someone has been charged (not convicted) doesn't mean anyone is justified in doxing them.
Maybe, maybe not. Personally, when I see wrongdoing, I like to expose it.
He did it under his own name on his own blog, taking on significant personal liability in doing so. This is not at all the same as an anonymous person doxxing someone.
> Ask yourself why you consider it right to shame them by name, when OP did not consider it right to do so.
To prevent people from getting ripped off.
Doxxing is the wrong metaphor here because it implies someone being put in a vulnerable position because of their private activity. It isn't "doxxing" to name the restaurant in town which persistently fails health department inspections, or the contractor who can't install shingles competently. Why? Because that's business, and business is in the public sphere. Providing bad reviews prevents those bad actors from harming other members of the public.
> I think that's a problem. But it cannot be solved by laws.
I actually think that there is a solution that not many people have mentioned.
What we can do is actually fund enforcement of the actual really bad stuff that people do during these hate/harrassement type situations.
And by that I mean, when people make death threats against someone, or harassment or target them in a similar way, then you have a government run doxxing squad that finds out who sent the death threats, and they arrest them, send them to jail, and put a felony on their record, even if it is a 1 time/first offense.
Right now, if you send a bunch of deaths threats to people, you'll probably get away with it. But if the government actually enforced the law, and sent you to prison, the first time you did that to anybody, well I think the worst of the "cancel culture" type harassment would end really quick.
> Person loses access to modern technology, is deported, would be unable to reach anyone once deported, and would never be allowed to return.
So this person should get a penalty which in some ways is more severe than what murderers get?
> No, blaming victim is obviously irrational.
Okay, but I mean, if I publish my own name and address in a public space, and then someone else who doesn't like me takes that information and republishes it in a manner I disapprove of, is that person still a doxer?
That's an extreme example but doxing almost never involves information which is not already publicly accessible to someone stubborn enough. It just involves following threads, correlating information, using public databases, etc.
> I was stunned at how someone with zero evidence and an obvious axe to grind could rally such disdain for someone else with little more than a few unsubstantiated social media posts.
I feel that this is due to the weird place victimization occupies in our culture combined with how anti-social social media is.
It's extremely easy to issue accusations and threats and have them be read by literally millions of people. You would never dare vocalize these same threats and and accusations publically - and even if you did, in the pre-internet days, it would reach far far fewer people.
At some point we to start thinking about strengthening our libel laws to act as a deterrent to this type of online behaviors. It's depressing to consider MORE litigation as the solution here, but I don't think we can depend on the good nature of people and rationality to ultimately prevail.
Anyone can be doxxed in the way you describe--harassed, slandered--for any reason, and a lot of people have been for terrible reasons. This thing has nothing to do with justice against idiots or hateful people. There are already courts, professional organizations, etc for that. It's nothing more than a disgusting, immature, backwards trend that has become an opportunity for hateful people themselves.
reply