> 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.
> Your freedom ends where my beings. You may be free of saying whatever you want, but if that ends up doxxing information about me that I didn't want to reveal, or it ends up spreading misinformation about me that ends up in death threats, then you are NOT free to do that.
You just described investigative journalism.
Doxxing is not itself a violation of your rights, it’s just taboo when it’s done in the small.
Only when it’s done with the intent of causing illegal harm, such as “X lives here, go kick his ass”, would it be a violation.
> 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.
> 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.
>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.
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.
> 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.
Lies don't end lives, people do. You can't say that a lie "caused" someone to do something. It may have influenced them, but they are ultimately responsible for their actions. More generally, I don't think we should be in the business of policing second or third order effects. Responsibility ultimately ends with the perpetrator of an action. If someone lies to one (or many) people, and some of those people go on to murder: punish the murderers, move on with life.
> Doxxing
Not sure what's wrong with this TBH - publishing public information shouldn't be a crime. Some sites have anti-doxxing policies, some don't.
> Calls for violence against individuals
Direct threats of violence are already illegal. People that make them should be arrested.
> Child pornography
Already illegal - find and imprison the pornographers. We already do rather a good job at this.
> Dangerous medical misinformation
In addition to the obvious idea that people are responsible for their own worldviews, any process to distinguish "misinformation" from "information" requires an oracle that everyone can agree to trust. We have no such oracle.
> Copyrighted information.
Reproducing copyrighted material is already illegal and pretty well enforced.
> mostly as a ruse to keep from having to invest in any kind of monitoring of their services.
Why do you think it's OK to impose these costs onto businesses? Why should companies who effectively provide a digital bulletin board be responsible for policing its contents? Why not have... you know... the police be responsible for policing? Then you can clearly and directly send any complaints about their effectiveness to your local representatives, who will actually be empowered to do something about them.
> The internet seems to specialize in this sort of "doxxing". Why? My theory is that the internet, even if you have a real name for a handle, still distances and dehumanizes others to the point where it's hard to understand the pain you're causing.
That's a good theory. My personal theory is there are a lot of psychopaths and sociopaths in the world, and the internet lets them find each other and form communities that revel in causing misery.
> Hogwash. We have harassment, stalking, libel, defamation, and slander laws in meatspace for a reason. The fact that doing it on the Internet exempts you from these laws because enforcement isn't "cost effective" is a problem.
All those are illegal online too. But if I go to the pub and discuss some harassment with my friends that I'm going to do later, the pub clearly isn't held liable for this. Why? Because even if he owns it, the pub owner has no responsibility for what is said inside of the tavern walls.
So, what is taking place on these forums is rarely illegal.
> The question at this point is whether we put laws in place such that individuals can seek cost-effective justice, or whether we wait until so many people get burned that they start clamoring for the government to step on the Internet with jackboots.
And then they move to mailing lists, or FMS. Then what? You going to shut down Tor as well?
My opinion is this: people should grow thicker skin. Those who fail to do so pose a threat to society, insofar as they call for further censorship. Therefore, anyone who is harmed by these people can post-hoc be considered to have deserved it.
It used to be the case that people were recommended to not use their real name on the Internet for basic safety reasons. Now they are encouraged to do so, and whoever doesn't is branded a 'troll'. Who is really at fault here?
> 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.
>Is the problem with that that it becomes too easy to doxx someone? That we like having a centralized authority that we can "trust" for authentication / authorization / pseudo-anonymity?
Dox, send child pornography through, use to sell narcotics, plan hitman assassinations with, etc, etc. Not to mention all the fun stuff organized bands of miscreants can do to other people. Just look at Wil Wheaton's adventure with Mastodon for an example.
> Doxing, as in compiling public information about people on the internet did happen, but …
There’s no “but” here. This is a common talking point defending this forum — “at least they didn’t explicitly do something worse” — but doxxing is unethical and illegal. Period. This forum encouraged, enabled, and glorified it.
> the forums were not about swatting and doing so is against the spirit and the rules of the forums. That said if someone was swatted it is fair game for that event to be documented on the forums.
This is bullshit designed to evade responsibility with a wink and a nod. The forum provides the means and glorifies the result, but believes that its hands are clean because they don’t explicitly setup a SWAT autodialer.
> In the case of the internet where most of it is privately owned it will require the companies and individuals to protect freedom of speech to have freedom of speech on the internet.
> I think folks just see the word "doxxing" and their pattern matching misfires.
Or maybe you're trying to weasel out of what you said and are now going for broke.
Linking once again to define words, we go to Wikipedia[0]:
> Doxing is the Internet-based practice of researching and broadcasting private or identifiable information
> Doxing may be carried out for various reasons, including to aid law enforcement, business analysis, extortion, coercion, harassment, online shaming, AND VIGILANTE JUSTICE.
>I believe that individuals making death threats or rape threats on the internet are generally making individual choices with full knowledge of the repercussions. I do not believe they have any reasonable excuse justifying their actions. The responsibility for understanding and identifying how deeply they can damage another human is solely theirs.
Fine. What are you going to do about it?
Imprison them? Highly counterproductive. Complain about them on the internet? They live for that. Sit back and do nothing?
Grandparent proposed a positive course of action that they believe will effect change. Asking whose fault or responsibility the problem is is missing the point; what we should focus on is how to solve it.
> 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.
> Stopping someone from physically harming someone else can come with severe -punishment- as a deterrent and is much more serious than sharing -any- type of data online. Stopping someone from making a digital parody of someone else gets closer to free speech territory and is a lot more complicated.
This statement is hilarious because we cannot even do the former for schoolchildren, let alone the latter. Between casual bullying resulting in fatalities due to the utter disinterest of the administration at play, to school shootings where police cower outside while someone murders children en masse.
Apparently being a child now is just grounds to have people make pornography of you, bully you relentlessly, with the distinct possibility you might die in a hail of gunfire one day for literally no reason.
No wonder the birth rate has cratered.
> You can make it illegal or try to detect and restrict sharing it in popular apps because it hurts feelings
CAN and SHOULD. INCREDIBLY illegal. Like registering the creator as a sex offender illegal, because that's what this is. It's a sex crime.
> but neither can ever be effectively enforced in an internet that allows open source applications and anonymity. See: piracy.
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.
reply