Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:fpig: :hankey: :burn: :cdc: :twatson: :bjarte: :rimshot: :popcorn: :D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek: :clap: :dance: :doh: :drool: :hand: :liar: :naughty: :pray: :shhh: :shifty: :snooty: :think: :violin: :whistle: :nin:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#62

by Richard Dworkins » Thu Sep 03, 2015 3:15 am

My tuppence.

Doxing is exposing the name and details an anonymous or pseudonymous person. I don't care whether the person's details are freely available elsewhere, fora and social media should grant the individual the decency to be the name and avatar they choose.

Once one steps outside a forum in order to find out more about said person, in order to reveal name and details one is engaged in doxing. While there may be many self-rationalisations for doing so, it is still doxing. However both the name and the details (phone number, address, employers details etc) are important. To reveal the "real" name of a person online is not enough, it is, as I mentioned before, just bad form, rude if you will.

Certainly one could say that once you have an RL name anyone could then find more details. They could, they might, but then they would be doxing, not the person that put name to pseudonym.

A person that places a name to a pseudonym is more likely a gossip/drama-monger rather than an out and out snitch.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#61

by TedDahlberg » Thu Sep 03, 2015 12:30 am

Lsuoma wrote:Copied from the main thread. Because you can never get enough Lsuoma!

Thought re doxxing.

Yes, there is almost always an element of uncertainty about it, so making a bright-line rule is next to impossible. Overall the Pit actually does a pretty damn good job about policing and preventing it. I don't want it to be seen as a fetishistic thing, since that just gives DayDays, Flanhead, etc., something to hang their pissing and whining on and try and play gotcha! games.

So, here you go:

I, as Pit Digger in Chief, frown very, very strongly on doxxing and sharing personal/private/IRL information that is not trivially found at all times. If I believe it's done with malicious intent that is even worse. I expect everyone to use common sense when posting stuff - if you are including details in your post that a reasonable person would expect that the subject would not want shared, think very carefully before you do so. You could end up with a ban. If you make an honest mistake, PM me or one of the mods and we'll try to put the genie back in the bottle, but can't guarantee so to do.

If a newbie does something, unless it's particularly, egregious, they MAY get a free one-time pass. Or maybe not. If a regular does something, no excuses - you fucked up, and you're gone.

None of us (except DayDays, Steerzo, Flanhead, and Colon) is perfect, so there may be mistakes. I rely on the collected wisdom of the Pit to help out here. I've been a dick in the past and will likely do so again. But together we can get it jut about right.

I'd appreciate comments and thoughts on this from regulars who post in good faith. Any holier-than-thou cunts can fuck off. Trying to parse every edge case is a worthless exercise, and I'm going to ignore comments from turds who are trying to lay oh-so-clever traps.
I think this is very reasonable. Doxxing is the kind of thing that is very much dependent on the specific situation. Having a general rule of "think before you act" and then having a discussion about it when doxxing appears to have taken place through malice or mistake seems like the best solution to a complicated problem.

I post here under my real name, and I'm pretty sure I've mentioned which town I live in, and certainly which country. I've got a link to my updated-for-one-month-a-year blog in my signature. The bar for doxxing me is quite high. Someone would basically have to post my home address, and even then I don't think I would be too upset because it's not as if it's that hard to find. At the same time most people post here anonymously, and at least a few have professional reasons why they don't want their personal information getting out. For them I'd say the bar for what's considered doxxing is far lower than for me, and the consequences for doing so ought to be harsher. Which I guess is a long-winded way of saying; it depends. And I think Lsuoma's suggestion is a good one, because it will never be clear cut.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#60

by rayshul » Wed Sep 02, 2015 10:51 pm

d4m10n wrote:I know who [REDACTED] actually is, because she isn't all that careful.
Fehehehehehehe

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#59

by deLurch » Wed Sep 02, 2015 4:39 pm

On a side note, when discussions of 'doxxing' come up on reddit (may it rest in peace), I believe a large part of the concern is contextual. The audiences on reddit can be much larger and much less predictable.

Now let's say someone's tweet becomes a topic of casual conversation on a gaming thread, and someone goes "Hey, I know him. He is actually a developer for X game at microsoft, so he does actually know what he is talking about in terms of this game's design. Pretty cool guy." No big deal right? because no one is chomping at the bit to go after this guy, or ruin his life. They are just discussing a game.

Take the same guy, different forum say SRS, say the crowd is chomping at the bit due to some accusation or what he said at a conference, maybe he laughed at a dongle joke. The crowd is looking for blood. Someone goes 'Hey, I know who he is. He works for Company X!' What that crowd does from there is somewhat predictable.

So in terms of how people informally use the term doxxing, really comes down to context, of events. No one would consider it doxxing in the first instance, however in the 2nd, many people would.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#58

by free thoughtpolice » Wed Sep 02, 2015 3:04 pm

If someone conventionally uses a nym in addition to (rather than in place of) their real name, like Melby or myself, then of course the point is moot. No need to protect what is consistently being held out to the public.
Even Damion doesn't think Flanders was doxxed?

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#57

by d4m10n » Wed Sep 02, 2015 1:55 pm

Brive1987 wrote:All this "if it's public" business is bullshit.

Oggie has revealed his full name in an environment that links to his nym. Fair game? I think not ... because its far from clear that's his magic intent.

Skep sought to seize the initiative in light of a clear threat (but not an actual full dox) by a public release. FtB now uses that as a justification of harm. But it is public. Melody's business address? Public. Melody's home address? Public. Latsot's name and home address? Public.

So who is the clever dude / Gal who is going to write the ROE? Ha. Yeah.

Just don't play games - if someone is using a nym use that.
Agreed on all points.

Basically, if someone is consistently using a nym in lieu of their name, respect that even if you can dig up their actual IRL deets with some amount of effort.

I know who [REDACTED] actually is, because she isn't all that careful. Same goes for [REDACTED], [REDACTED], and [REDACTED] who all blog and comment at [REDACTED]. But I'm not about to publish that information unless they pose an actual threat to someone, and even then publication would be limited to those in a position to avert harm.

If someone conventionally uses a nym in addition to (rather than in place of) their real name, like Melby or myself, then of course the point is moot. No need to protect what is consistently being held out to the public.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#56

by John Greg » Wed Sep 02, 2015 10:54 am

Aha! :nin:

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#55

by John Greg » Wed Sep 02, 2015 10:54 am

The following is copied from the main thread (mainly for my sake to help me keep track of all ideas).

Lsuoma said:
Thought re doxxing.

Yes, there is almost always an element of uncertainty about it, so making a bright-line rule is next to impossible. Overall the Pit actually does a pretty damn good job about policing and preventing it. I don't want it to be seen as a fetishistic thing, since that just gives DayDays, Flanhead, etc., something to hang their pissing and whining on and try and play gotcha! games.

So, here you go:

I, as Pit Digger in Chief, frown very, very strongly on doxxing and sharing personal/private/IRL information that is not trivially found at all times. If I believe it's done with malicious intent that is even worse. I expect everyone to use common sense when posting stuff - if you are including details in your post that a reasonable person would expect that the subject would not want shared, think very carefully before you do so. You could end up with a ban. If you make an honest mistake, PM me or one of the mods and we'll try to put the genie back in the bottle, but can't guarantee so to do.

If a newbie does something, unless it's particularly, egregious, they MAY get a free one-time pass. Or maybe not. If a regular does something, no excuses - you fucked up, and you're gone.

None of us (except DayDays, Steerzo, Flanhead, and Colon) is perfect, so there may be mistakes. I rely on the collected wisdom of the Pit to help out here. I've been a dick in the past and will likely do so again. But together we can get it jut about right.

I'd appreciate comments and thoughts on this from regulars who post in good faith. Any holier-than-thou cunts can fuck off. Trying to parse every edge case is a worthless exercise, and I'm going to ignore comments from turds who are trying to lay oh-so-clever traps.
Good post, I think. As are several others above.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#54

by Lsuoma » Wed Sep 02, 2015 10:49 am

Copied from the main thread. Because you can never get enough Lsuoma!

Thought re doxxing.

Yes, there is almost always an element of uncertainty about it, so making a bright-line rule is next to impossible. Overall the Pit actually does a pretty damn good job about policing and preventing it. I don't want it to be seen as a fetishistic thing, since that just gives DayDays, Flanhead, etc., something to hang their pissing and whining on and try and play gotcha! games.

So, here you go:

I, as Pit Digger in Chief, frown very, very strongly on doxxing and sharing personal/private/IRL information that is not trivially found at all times. If I believe it's done with malicious intent that is even worse. I expect everyone to use common sense when posting stuff - if you are including details in your post that a reasonable person would expect that the subject would not want shared, think very carefully before you do so. You could end up with a ban. If you make an honest mistake, PM me or one of the mods and we'll try to put the genie back in the bottle, but can't guarantee so to do.

If a newbie does something, unless it's particularly, egregious, they MAY get a free one-time pass. Or maybe not. If a regular does something, no excuses - you fucked up, and you're gone.

None of us (except DayDays, Steerzo, Flanhead, and Colon) is perfect, so there may be mistakes. I rely on the collected wisdom of the Pit to help out here. I've been a dick in the past and will likely do so again. But together we can get it jut about right.

I'd appreciate comments and thoughts on this from regulars who post in good faith. Any holier-than-thou cunts can fuck off. Trying to parse every edge case is a worthless exercise, and I'm going to ignore comments from turds who are trying to lay oh-so-clever traps.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#53

by Matt Cavanaugh » Wed Sep 02, 2015 10:10 am

Exposing sock puppets, or linking them to someone who also uses their real name, does not constitute doxxing, as:

* The purpose of the sock is not to preserve anonymity, rather to deceive;
* The only harm caused to the sock puppeteer is to uncover their deceit.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#52

by Matt Cavanaugh » Wed Sep 02, 2015 10:04 am

Doxxing: The willful dissemination of private information about a person who has taken steps to preserve their anonymity, said information being neither readily available nor freely released by said person, and with intent to cause tangible harm to said person.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#51

by John Greg » Wed Sep 02, 2015 9:45 am

Brive said:

So who is the clever dude / Gal who is going to write the ROE? Ha. Yeah.

Um, me?

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#50

by German StrutBoatsman » Wed Sep 02, 2015 4:22 am

I don't get your point, James. Using a nym basically has two functions. It prevents someone goes after your employment, circle of friends or tries to mess in your private life in general. Secondly, you don't have to justify your online activities when applying for a job, dating someone new etc., i.e. when your real name is being googled.

First case makes zero difference in TF's and TJ's case. If someone wants to stalk you in RL, it doesn't change if he gets your contact data from wikipedia or ED.
There's also no difference in the second case. Both real names link directly to the nyms.

Once your halfway known on the net and your name is out there, it usually doesn't make a difference how you behave. I totally get why TF dealt with it the way he did. He at least didn't have to care about it after that instead of trying to control what he can't control anyway.

TJ's real name was used by the commentariat in PZ's new Tim Hunt thread, btw. Not doxxing I guess, but bad style anyway. But I also thought that about using TF's real name because both usually go by nym in the online activities.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#49

by James Caruthers » Tue Sep 01, 2015 11:51 pm

Old_ones wrote:I do know that Thunderf00t was pretty clear that he was going to embrace being public as a fuck you to the doxers.
I guess this is just one of many things that makes me prickly about ol' Tfoot.

He pretty obviously was pissed off about his personal info being leaked. So this "oh, look at how much I don't care" bullshit didn't fool anyone and make him seem like a petulant little kid. And now that he's done it, he can't go back and say "I don't want you guys addressing me by this name that I publicly put in my videos, or using any of this personal information I decided to release publicly."

I'm positive Thunderfoot's viewership is larger than any would-be doxxer's internet footprint, so he shot himself in the ass for nothing.

TJ handled doxxing about as gracefully as anyone can, when the porn videos came out. He made shoving bananas and boiling oil up your ass seem cool. :burn:

People also generally don't refer to TJ by his full legal name or even really mention it. Because he doesn't. The few people who hate TJ and spread his dox around form an absolutely tiny proportion of the total people who know about Amazing Atheist. Looks like a college dropout is smarter than a genius-tier scientist of pure brilliance. :P

https://www.google.com/search?q=thunder ... 8&oe=utf-8

2nd result

Doxxers didn't do this to thunderfoot. Thunderfoot did this to thunderfoot because of the way he reacted to doxxers. Yes, I am victim blaming him. :lol:

Compare to TJ:

https://www.google.com/search?q=amazing ... 8&oe=utf-8

7th result and a less reliable source (Know Your Meme vs Wikipedia.)

As with mountain lion rapes, you can't always protect yourself (rapist gonna rape and doxxer gonna dox) but you can "dress for success" as it were and manage the aftermath if you do get dox-raped. :dance:

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#48

by James Caruthers » Tue Sep 01, 2015 11:39 pm

mike150160 wrote:Is there magic in "intent"? If you link real world info with internet persona with the intention of real world harm then you're a cunt. Discuss.

Oxford entrance exam 1981
Intent certainly has a role in whether or not the dox dropping was malicious.

Thunderfoot was originally anonymous but was doxxed. It was not an accident to reveal his real name and other personal info, but was done maliciously.

However, AT PRESENT, to reveal Thunderfoot's real name or to speak it in addressing him, on any media platform where Tfoot is speaking, is not doxxing. Thunderfoot's real name is on Wikipedia, as is a bunch of other personal info. If it's on wiki, it's not doxxing. Same for public twitter profiles imo although I realize that's a bit more private than Wikipedia. Tfoot himself has made videos giving out his personal information like candy. That was his decision on how to react to the original dox, when he could have done the opposite and neither confirmed nor denied the truth of any of the released dox. It was his choice and as a result, his personal info is on websites far more legit than Encyclopedia Dramatica.

So essentially:

When the information was private and Tfoot did not want his info revealed, revealing it was doxxing.
However, now that the information has been revealed numerous times by Thunderfoot himself and is on Wikipedia for anyone who types "thunderfoot" into Google to find, to use his real name cannot be considered doxxing because the information is so public.

One could make an argument also about certain famous internet personalities being a sort of public figure. Doxxing is, in a way, similar to how the paparazzi stalk and photograph celebrities. Or it can be like that.

I bring up the particular case of Tfoot only because I remember it from ye olde days of atheists fighting with creationists and I remember seeing all that info on his wiki page and thinking "damn, why would anyone want all their shit on wikipedia like that?"

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#47

by rayshul » Tue Sep 01, 2015 11:13 pm

Aw fuck, I posted on the main thread instead.
____
I think it is inappropriate to raise this information or provide it publicly in the forum; I think if someone is using a pseudonym consistently in one place there is a presumption that they wish to be treated "anonymously" in this place. I am not sure I would call it doxxing but I would not think it was in keeping with the pit's moral stance and commitment to freedom of expression.

However, I don't think there's a problem in the slightest in doing this research, particularly if you are running a site like this, and taking any appropriate actions or conferring with others (moderators) about the situation.
____

I do not think every incident of doxxing is malicious and intent matters.

Also.

In the case of doxxing of any kind I believe there is an element of the public interest that needs to be weighed against the harms caused by doxxing someone. Is there public interest in doxxing a well-known "healer" as a fraud under their real name? I would say yes.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#46

by Parody Accountant » Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:24 pm

Doxxing is the deliberate disclosure of identifying documents.

There are two thresholds.

1)
If the person is using their real name, then releasing previously unavailable identifying details counts as doxxing: home or work addresses, phone number. Facebook doesn't count as doxxing here.

2) If a person ALWAYS uses a nym, it is doxxing to out their real name.

For the pit's purposes it's important that the act was intentional, imo.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#45

by deLurch » Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:18 pm

x_?_x wrote:So, though I am a newer member here, I have lurked for a while. I have been active in other dark corners of the interwebs, as well.

My attitude towards do--X--ing is simple: if you can find it on google, it's not exactly private. I cringe at the idea of 'fair game,' but if you can find it on google, it's not private and, therefore, not really 'doxing.'

I only speak for myself, of course, and will abide by whatever the group determines to be acceptable or unacceptable.
To be fair, Surly had her home address as her fucking registered business address when she cried foul about it like a moron. I personally think she was full of shit, and was just looking for any reason to try and nail Vacula. Vacula played the issue too soft like a dough boy and let them railroad him.

So I don't think information that you can find in a directory, such as registared business addresses, or whois information is doxxing, HOWEVER I think that there should be a distinguished choice between doxxing, and what is permitted on these boards. So while something might not be bad, it's appearance of being bad ended up being the distinguishing choice as to if we should remove said information or not.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#44

by Brive1987 » Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:53 pm

Oh and Surly's business address? Public. Zvans's home address and public SM blogs and profiles for close family members? Public.

Public as a basis for disclosure in an online conflict charged arena is bullshit.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#43

by Brive1987 » Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:49 pm

All this "if it's public" business is bullshit.

Oggie has revealed his full name in an environment that links to his nym. Fair game? I think not ... because its far from clear that's his magic intent.

Skep sought to seize the initiative in light of a clear threat (but not an actual full dox) by a public release. FtB now uses that as a justification of harm. But it is public. Melody's business address? Public. Melody's home address? Public. Latsot's name and home address? Public.

So who is the clever dude / Gal who is going to write the ROE? Ha. Yeah.

Just don't play games - if someone is using a nym use that.

On the other hand I have no qualms letting FtB know their arse is hanging in the wind just so they contemplate their navel before conducting their own malicious dox. but that's a different matter altogether.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#42

by screwtape » Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:58 pm

For me, it becomes doxxing when information is revealed that individuals have not released themselves. If you have to do some detective work to figure out who someone is in real life and publish that, it's doxxing. If their real name is on their blog or twitter account, it isn't - they have consented to it being public by publishing it themselves.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#41

by Bourne Skeptic » Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:55 pm

NO CROSS-POSTING

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#40

by Bourne Skeptic » Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:54 pm

James Caruthers wrote:Doxxing is private, personal information which is not widely available to the public.

Those who continuously publicly mention their job, full name, home state etc in their blogs or twitter accounts are not able to claim doxxing when someone takes note of that information.

Sending pizzas to PZ's doorstep would still be rude though.
People might sabotage trampolines and polish marble floors.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#39

by fuzzy » Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:47 pm

Pogsurf connected himself to Wiesner here in the Pit via Youtube last December viewtopic.php?f=31&t=429&p=244179&hilit=Luton#p244179 .

Between that and Guest's mention that googling Flanders+slymepit yeilded pog/wiesner's blog guest post "~just saw a slymepit post from my old friend Peter", and his pitpost "~Weisner texted me he has harvested IPs" viewtopic.php?f=31&t=444&p=302780&hilit=Weisner#p302780 , well I assumed everyone else was rolling their eyes like me at this supposed coincidence.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#38

by mike150160 » Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:34 pm

jimthepleb wrote:
mike150160 wrote:Is there magic in "intent"? If you link real world info with internet persona with the intention of real world harm then you're a cunt. Discuss.

Oxford entrance exam 1981
Oxford were always ahead of the game. Internet questions before the invention of the internet is seriously impressive. Now that'll be a ten pound two shilling fine for not wearing your sword into the examination.

Aye, in those days packet data came in real packets, with postage stamps.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#37

by Aneris » Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:25 pm

I should add that it shouldn't be the Slymepit's job to bring people to justice, even if they are an online nuisance. The only notable exception is, common sense, averting greater harm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#36

by Aneris » Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:16 pm

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description of doxxing, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it. Adapted from: I know it when I see it.

I'd go with second order: If what I am doing could reasonably be seen as maliciously disclosing information that was unpooled or private, then I should be banned for it. If what I am doing looks like an edge case, like when the doxxing is really more like google top hits obtained with no effort or creativity whatsoever, then it could be just a fair warning to be careful there. The key with doxxing is really the intention: why is someone doing it? Why use a different name (or location etc) when there is a perfectly functional pseudonym? Everyone can dream up a rationale, so the burden must be on the person who does it to explain why they needed to point out the other information, and the case should be heavily stacked against them. If there is just a whiff that this is done to cause any form of real world harm, then it's a clear case of doxxing as I understand it here.

It's not doxxing when the name is used publically on twitter, youtube, blogs or on Facebook, when these profiles are in active use and publically shared within the community (i.e. someone hosts discussions on his facebook wall, and links to it in public). Public here always assumes widely visible, major platforms, not obscure private sites. HOWEVER, even when the other information is public in such a way, people should refrain from bringing it to the Slymepit unless there is concrete benefit and reason. It should also be, as always, proportional. It is widely known that certain characters hail from Minnesota, and there is no reason to be careful in these case.

TL;DR
Bottom line, the Slymepit should not act as source of information that steps out of line of what is generally known. We can swim with it, but should never stick out in this regard.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#35

by German StrutBoatsman » Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:14 pm

feathers wrote:I'm sympathetic to your ideas, but to gauge someone's intent of malice would require a tribunal. It is not a definition one or two moderators can use in the heat of the moment. It would also arguably lead to endless discussions.
There will always be cases where you won't get everyone to agree if someone meant harm, was wantonly negligent or just a bit too enthusiastic with the information gathering. Better to discuss it when the situation arises as if trying to formalise a criterion that has to cover ever case. Criteria can always be gamed by people with malicious intent, and you will always have Damion to try how far he can go without actually violating a rule.

As for the 'heat of the moment', if in doubt moderators can edit the info out so it's not longer available at the Pit. Everything else isn't urgent then, especially bans.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#34

by Old_ones » Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:11 pm

mike150160 wrote:Is there magic in "intent"? If you link real world info with internet persona with the intention of real world harm then you're a cunt. Discuss.

Oxford entrance exam 1981
It might be relevant in extreme cases. The case where Skeptickle was doxed by PZ would be an extreme where malice is obvious. The opposite extreme (and probably the one more relevant to pit purposes) would be a case where a borderline dox was committed by someone who didn't realize they were doxing, who apologized and agreed to amend their behavior upon being confronted.

I think it's worthwhile to account for differences such as that, and probably also whether the person in question has a history of skirting the line with respect to doxing. If intent is ambiguous then it should just be disregarded as a consideration in the response.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#33

by Wild Zontargs » Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:08 pm

Chiming in:

As I said in the other thread, blatantly public info (google search for 'nym turns up a Real Name on the first page of results, the info is on your public blog, etc) doesn't count as doxxing IMO. Releasing the results of a custom-crafted google search to hunt for any archived communications where you slipped up and linked them? Technically "public" but arguably doxxing, plz donut.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#32

by CaptainFluffyBunny » Tue Sep 01, 2015 11:14 am

Cunt of Personality wrote:
Lsuoma wrote: Unwanted pizza deliveries? I don't understand.

:think:
Pineapple topping with extra pineapple.
For Benson, presumably.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#31

by CaptainFluffyBunny » Tue Sep 01, 2015 11:13 am

German StrutBoatsman wrote:There must be some attempt of the target to create anonymity for his nym. If the target is linking his nym to his personal homepage, RL, CV, and job, all this is up for discussion IMO. To contact his employer or call his home number should be out of bounds, but this is not a problem of doxxing.
It must be actually clear for the doxxer he is doing something the person doxxed is actively trying to prevent, then it's doxxing and a ban should follow.

We should also respect if someone tries to keep different web activities separate even though there might be traces between different nyms. That's a grey area, and if this is violated mistakenly and without malicious intent, it should not result in a banning.

Each case differs so I don't think we'll find a one-rule-fits-all kind of solution here.
Well said. While there have been many good suggestions that may help refine doxxing, in the end some specific cases are going to be very grey areas. It will be interesting to see the final document.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#30

by jimthepleb » Tue Sep 01, 2015 11:04 am

mike150160 wrote:Is there magic in "intent"? If you link real world info with internet persona with the intention of real world harm then you're a cunt. Discuss.

Oxford entrance exam 1981
Oxford were always ahead of the game. Internet questions before the invention of the internet is seriously impressive. Now that'll be a ten pound two shilling fine for not wearing your sword into the examination.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#29

by Billie from Ockham » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:58 am

feathers wrote:I'm sympathetic to your ideas, but to gauge someone's intent of malice would require a tribunal. It is not a definition one or two moderators can use in the heat of the moment. It would also arguably lead to endless discussions.
I'm also sympathetic but the history of hate-crime legislation has taught me that rules/laws that depend on intent are doomed to misuse and abuse.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#28

by Old_ones » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:56 am

Really? wrote:
Old_ones wrote:
What do you think about people who openly identify themselves on the internet with their own pseudonyms? For instance, Thunderf00t and The Amazing Atheist both are open about their names. I've referred to The Amazing Atheist as "TJ" on this forum before, and I didn't and don't consider that doxing. Its publicly known that this is his name, and to the best of my knowledge he is comfortable with that fact being known.
Thunderf00t and The Amazing Atheist are both open about their names NOW. It's my understanding that shitheads doxxed them with the express intent of screwing with them. Which is exactly what happened.
That did happen to Thunderf00t. I don't know if it did to The Amazing Atheist or not, because I don't follow him very closely. I'm not defending the initial release of their names in either case (assuming both of them were doxed) but I do know that Thunderf00t was pretty clear that he was going to embrace being public as a fuck you to the doxers. He made a video publicly announcing his name to youtube.* If they'd tried to get their docs back under wraps, I would still consider it wrong to refer to them publicly as their real names.

*Amusingly, PZ Myers was in that video. Oh, how times change.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#27

by Billie from Ockham » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:56 am

Old_ones wrote:What do you think about people who openly identify themselves on the internet with their own pseudonyms? For instance, Thunderf00t and The Amazing Atheist both are open about their names. I've referred to The Amazing Atheist as "TJ" on this forum before, and I didn't and don't consider that doxing. Its publicly known that this is his name, and to the best of my knowledge he is comfortable with that fact being known.
As long as they have, themselves, linked the two, it's not doxxing (to me) to repeat it. Maybe I can express it in terms of a defense against the charge of doxxing: if you can cite where the person in question has linked the nym and their real name, you are innocent of doxxing. I know that Thunderf00t has linked the nym to his real name, so that isn't doxxing. I also know that he'd prefer to keep the two separate (although he's been worse and worse about doing this), so I never use his real name, but it wouldn't be wrong (under my view) if I did.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#26

by Lsuoma » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:54 am

feathers wrote:
Really? wrote:At the risk of feeding the Flanders "fire," I will say that it occurred to me that the real name may not be their real name. (I haven't investigated because I don't care.) It's interesting to contemplate what it means to link the identities and so on, but perhaps the guiding principle should be:

Does it expose information that could subject an individual to real-life problems AND are those possible problems disproportionate to the person's "offenses."

Case study:
Doxxing Skep Tickle did indeed subject her to possible real-life problems and those who did it knew that. Skep Tickle did not cause any real harm. The Horde was being stupid and those who doxxed her were adopting a facade of righteous indignance.

Verdict: This was doxxing and it was wrong.

Hypothetical case study:
Doxxing Nerd of Redhead may subject him to possible real-life problems. I don't happen to know what they might be aside from stress to Redhead. Nerd of Redhead says a lot of stupid things on FTB and he's annoying, but doxxing would be disproportionate.

Verdict: It would be doxxing and it would be wrong.
I'm sympathetic to your ideas, but to gauge someone's intent of malice would require a tribunal. It is not a definition one or two moderators can use in the heat of the moment. It would also arguably lead has already led to endless discussions.
FTFY

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#25

by Cunt of Personality » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:52 am

Lsuoma wrote: Unwanted pizza deliveries? I don't understand.

:think:
Pineapple topping with extra pineapple.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#24

by Billie from Ockham » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:51 am

feathers wrote:
Billie from Ockham wrote:To me, doxxing is linking a real name to a nym. It does not matter how much effort was involved; if you say something along the lines of "[nym] is [real name]," then you have doxxed.
That is way too strict. Naming someone like James '00lon' Billingham, who's been on the goddamn BBC, would be doxxing? That's just nonsense. David Mabus/Dennis Markuze, who spammed over a hundred websites during a decade? Any of the five gazillion associations between a name and a nick that someone can get from Twatter or a public Facebook account? If you call that doxxing, you'd better close the Pit now.
Actually, the first example you give would clearly fall under my gray area, as the person in question has done highly related things under both labels. Thus, the question would become has he linked the two, himself, and the answer is now Yes, so doing so again would not be doxxing.

I don't know enough about your second example to say anything.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#23

by feathers » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:49 am

Really? wrote:At the risk of feeding the Flanders "fire," I will say that it occurred to me that the real name may not be their real name. (I haven't investigated because I don't care.) It's interesting to contemplate what it means to link the identities and so on, but perhaps the guiding principle should be:

Does it expose information that could subject an individual to real-life problems AND are those possible problems disproportionate to the person's "offenses."

Case study:
Doxxing Skep Tickle did indeed subject her to possible real-life problems and those who did it knew that. Skep Tickle did not cause any real harm. The Horde was being stupid and those who doxxed her were adopting a facade of righteous indignance.

Verdict: This was doxxing and it was wrong.

Hypothetical case study:
Doxxing Nerd of Redhead may subject him to possible real-life problems. I don't happen to know what they might be aside from stress to Redhead. Nerd of Redhead says a lot of stupid things on FTB and he's annoying, but doxxing would be disproportionate.

Verdict: It would be doxxing and it would be wrong.
I'm sympathetic to your ideas, but to gauge someone's intent of malice would require a tribunal. It is not a definition one or two moderators can use in the heat of the moment. It would also arguably lead to endless discussions.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#22

by Really? » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am

Old_ones wrote:
What do you think about people who openly identify themselves on the internet with their own pseudonyms? For instance, Thunderf00t and The Amazing Atheist both are open about their names. I've referred to The Amazing Atheist as "TJ" on this forum before, and I didn't and don't consider that doxing. Its publicly known that this is his name, and to the best of my knowledge he is comfortable with that fact being known.
Thunderf00t and The Amazing Atheist are both open about their names NOW. It's my understanding that shitheads doxxed them with the express intent of screwing with them. Which is exactly what happened.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#21

by mike150160 » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:42 am

Is there magic in "intent"? If you link real world info with internet persona with the intention of real world harm then you're a cunt. Discuss.

Oxford entrance exam 1981

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#20

by Really? » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:39 am

John D wrote:The "Flanders Incident" was not doxing in my opinion. Information was just a click away that connected Flanders to his other identities, including his real name. No one should expect anonymity if they leave this much of an internet trail.

Now, if an admin of a blog were to use the person's personal email to track them down, then that would be doxing. Private info that is given to an admin is expected to be reasonably well protected.

I think it was Surely Amy who got pissed when someone published her business address. The funny thing about this is that she linked her own name of Surely Amy to her business and the address. All this was already public. In my opinion, if you are going to use the internet to conduct business you should behave in a professional manner. You can't expect to act in a controversial way and then expect it to not affect your business if you have tied your internet name to your business.

It gets murky to me when someone gets a person's real identity and then does an exhaustive search to find their address or employer and then publishes the info. This is a pretty dickish move and should be avoided. I was not even in favor of Mykeru and his phoning PZ's employer. This is totally dickish and should not be done. At the same time however, in PZ's case, he is using his position at a University to give his blog a certain authority. He could always post anonymously if he wanted to keep his professional and personal life separate. But... it is really his choice to publish the way he does. What Mykeru did was not doxing... but it certainly was dickish.
I don't know what I have to add, but I love that we're working through this issue as a group. (Or trying to.)

At the risk of feeding the Flanders "fire," I will say that it occurred to me that the real name may not be their real name. (I haven't investigated because I don't care.) It's interesting to contemplate what it means to link the identities and so on, but perhaps the guiding principle should be:

Does it expose information that could subject an individual to real-life problems AND are those possible problems disproportionate to the person's "offenses."

Case study:
Doxxing Skep Tickle did indeed subject her to possible real-life problems and those who did it knew that. Skep Tickle did not cause any real harm. The Horde was being stupid and those who doxxed her were adopting a facade of righteous indignance.

Verdict: This was doxxing and it was wrong.

Hypothetical case study:
Doxxing Nerd of Redhead may subject him to possible real-life problems. I don't happen to know what they might be aside from stress to Redhead. Nerd of Redhead says a lot of stupid things on FTB and he's annoying, but doxxing would be disproportionate.

Verdict: It would be doxxing and it would be wrong.

Another hypothetical case study:
Sarah Nyberg is an anti-gamergate person who, I have just learned, seems to be a fan of child pornography and all kinds of creepy shit.

[youtube]FPKOSvo3AJM[/youtube]

I don't happen to know how much of her social media presence is linked to her real identity, but people could conceivably obtain her information (more than the chat logs that seem to be going around) and report it to the community and possibly to the authorities.

Exposing the private information could possibly affect Nyberg's life because the authorities don't seem to like child exploitation. That much is clear. The second half of the test is the sticky point. Do her statements and possible actions deserve doxxing? Is the possible response disproportionate?

Verdict: I don't know. I am guessing the Slymepit would and should consider it doxxing, but we might not shed tears if others are on her case.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#19

by Old_ones » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:38 am

Billie from Ockham wrote:To me, doxxing is linking a real name to a nym. It does not matter how much effort was involved; if you say something along the lines of "[nym] is [real name]," then you have doxxed.

Conversely, I do not see linking two nyms as doxxing, regardless of whether one or both nyms is widely known to be a certain (real) person. Anything along the lines of "[nym1] is [nym2]" is fine to me. It's the crossing of the line between nym and real life that underlies doxxing to me. Anything that occurs entirely in one of the two worlds is not doxxing to me.

The only gray area for me is when someone writes related posts under both a nym and their real name, such that a coherent conversation with or about the person requires the linkage between the nym and the real name. My suggested solution for this is to ask if the person has ever acknowledge the nym when writing under their real name. If they have, then OK. If they haven't, then it's doxxing. Yes, this allows people to be completely hypocritical, saying or doing one thing under a nym and another thing in real life. But that's a small price for all of us to pay to protect the anonymity provided by nyms.
What do you think about people who openly identify themselves on the internet with their own pseudonyms? For instance, Thunderf00t and The Amazing Atheist both are open about their names. I've referred to The Amazing Atheist as "TJ" on this forum before, and I didn't and don't consider that doxing. Its publicly known that this is his name, and to the best of my knowledge he is comfortable with that fact being known.

I wouldn't consider Pogsurf to have been doxed by FT for the same reason. He has a twitter account which links the two, and its probably higher profile than his presence here. If FT doxed Pogsurf, then so did others at an earlier time, because screenshots of his tweets have been shared here before, and they say his name right next to the nym. IMO if there is a strong indication that a person isn't trying to conceal their name, then the person can't be doxed as such. Revealing information that isn't common knowledge about them still would be, though.

I agree completely with your second paragraph about matching two pseudonyms. Well spoken.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#18

by feathers » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:32 am

Billie from Ockham wrote:To me, doxxing is linking a real name to a nym. It does not matter how much effort was involved; if you say something along the lines of "[nym] is [real name]," then you have doxxed.
That is way too strict. Naming someone like James '00lon' Billingham, who's been on the goddamn BBC, would be doxxing? That's just nonsense. David Mabus/Dennis Markuze, who spammed over a hundred websites during a decade? Any of the five gazillion associations between a name and a nick that someone can get from Twatter or a public Facebook account? If you call that doxxing, you'd better close the Pit now.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#17

by Lsuoma » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:31 am

Cunt of Personality wrote:When I were a lad, doxing was revealing previously unknown real-world personal information about an internet persona in a venue (such as SomethingAwful's HellDump) where there was a reasonable expectation that they would receive crank calls, unwanted pizza deliveries and miscellaneous items in their mailbox that they might find useful were they ever to decide to kill themselves. The expectation of harassment was an important component.

Times have changed.

That said, I don't much care what definition and rules the Pit comes up with.
Unwanted pizza deliveries? I don't understand.

:think:

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#16

by Cunt of Personality » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:28 am

When I were a lad, doxing was revealing previously unknown real-world personal information about an internet persona in a venue (such as SomethingAwful's HellDump) where there was a reasonable expectation that they would receive crank calls, unwanted pizza deliveries and miscellaneous items in their mailbox that they might find useful were they ever to decide to kill themselves. The expectation of harassment was an important component.

Times have changed.

That said, I don't much care what definition and rules the Pit comes up with.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#15

by German StrutBoatsman » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:22 am

There must be some attempt of the target to create anonymity for his nym. If the target is linking his nym to his personal homepage, RL, CV, and job, all this is up for discussion IMO. To contact his employer or call his home number should be out of bounds, but this is not a problem of doxxing.
It must be actually clear for the doxxer he is doing something the person doxxed is actively trying to prevent, then it's doxxing and a ban should follow.

We should also respect if someone tries to keep different web activities separate even though there might be traces between different nyms. That's a grey area, and if this is violated mistakenly and without malicious intent, it should not result in a banning.

Each case differs so I don't think we'll find a one-rule-fits-all kind of solution here.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#14

by Phil_Giordana_FCD » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:19 am

James Caruthers wrote:Doxxing is private, personal information which is not widely available to the public.

Those who continuously publicly mention their job, full name, home state etc in their blogs or twitter accounts are not able to claim doxxing when someone takes note of that information.

Sending pizzas to PZ's doorstep would still be rude though.
Yeah, I agree.

And it would be even more rude for the pizza delivery guy. Not everyone wants their tip in cum-covered squid bits.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#13

by jimthepleb » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:18 am

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I don't give a fuck, none of you will ever know who I am IRL!!!
Everyone will know when you finally put out 'The Sarkeesian Effect.' Luckily you know all the shortcuts.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#12

by James Caruthers » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:13 am

Doxxing is private, personal information which is not widely available to the public.

Those who continuously publicly mention their job, full name, home state etc in their blogs or twitter accounts are not able to claim doxxing when someone takes note of that information.

Sending pizzas to PZ's doorstep would still be rude though.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#11

by John D » Tue Sep 01, 2015 9:57 am

The "Flanders Incident" was not doxing in my opinion. Information was just a click away that connected Flanders to his other identities, including his real name. No one should expect anonymity if they leave this much of an internet trail.

Now, if an admin of a blog were to use the person's personal email to track them down, then that would be doxing. Private info that is given to an admin is expected to be reasonably well protected.

I think it was Surely Amy who got pissed when someone published her business address. The funny thing about this is that she linked her own name of Surely Amy to her business and the address. All this was already public. In my opinion, if you are going to use the internet to conduct business you should behave in a professional manner. You can't expect to act in a controversial way and then expect it to not affect your business if you have tied your internet name to your business.

It gets murky to me when someone gets a person's real identity and then does an exhaustive search to find their address or employer and then publishes the info. This is a pretty dickish move and should be avoided. I was not even in favor of Mykeru and his phoning PZ's employer. This is totally dickish and should not be done. At the same time however, in PZ's case, he is using his position at a University to give his blog a certain authority. He could always post anonymously if he wanted to keep his professional and personal life separate. But... it is really his choice to publish the way he does. What Mykeru did was not doxing... but it certainly was dickish.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#10

by Phil_Giordana_FCD » Tue Sep 01, 2015 9:56 am

I don't give a fuck, none of you will ever know who I am IRL!!!

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#9

by Steersman » Tue Sep 01, 2015 9:50 am

John Greg wrote:I think doxxing is nothing more nor less than disclosing non-public (private; semi-private; hidden) identifying information, in particular, meatspace names, addresses, locations, and other specific identifying information that can potentially be used to, or directly puts an individual in meatspace risk to their job, safety, and/or personal reputation.

I think the disclosure of identifying information that is publicly available to at least two depths of search is not doxxing.

Discuss; clarify; expand.
Interesting question, although the cases we've run across suggest that hard and fast rules are a little "problematic".

But seems there are at least two main aspects to the question: whether doxxing is always and necessarily wrong, and what types of information are "fair game". Relative to the first, it seems there might well be cases where it is justified - say if someone has committed a crime or gives some credible indication that they are about to do so. Seems that our "nyms" aren't really any type of the proverbial "get-out-of-jail-free card", and that it is unreasonable for anyone to expect that that is the case. Seems that respecting some claims to privacy is somewhat of a matter of courtesy that doesn't have to be respected if someone is being a real dickhead.

And, relative to the second, it seems that the type of information is even more of a gray area. Consider the case of Skep tickle: the information that led to the exposure of her IRL name was in fact public so it seems technically not doxxing even if it was kind of a crappy thing to have revealed it - there was no partifcular reason to expose it, and those doing so were merely expressing and illustrating their pettiness. And likewise with the later efforts by those paragons of virtue, Meyers & Watson: even though Skep had confirmed her identity in between those events, there was no justification for them to have repeated the information, other than confirming that pettiness.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#8

by Tapir » Tue Sep 01, 2015 9:48 am

I think a lot comes down to relevance.

1) Truthy_Bastard is a blogger who has just written a series of hit pieces against the 'pit with accusations of racism and misogyny and all those good things. Her real name and location are easily viewable from her blog.

2) Truthy_Bastard is a blogger who has just written a series of hit pieces against the 'pit with accusations of racism and misogyny and all those good things. Her real name and location are easily viewable from her blog. She also moonlights as a guest blogger for White-Power-NOW. Her real name and location are easily viewable from her blog.

3) Truthy_Bastard is a blogger who has just written a series of hit pieces against the 'pit with accusations of racism and misogyny and all those good things. Her real name and location are easily viewable from her blog. She also moonlights as a guest blogger for White-Power-NOW. Her real name and location are easily viewable from her blog. In real life her job is a community out-reach officer.

A clumsily written set of examples but with 1 and 2 her personal info is irrelevant and therefore doxing, regardless of the hypocrisy. In example 3 she's fair game (IMHO)

Unless there's some pressing reason for referring to or revealing an internet persona's real life information (no matter how horrible they are) then we're in doxing territory, even if that information is only a click or two away.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#7

by Billie from Ockham » Tue Sep 01, 2015 9:42 am

To me, doxxing is linking a real name to a nym. It does not matter how much effort was involved; if you say something along the lines of "[nym] is [real name]," then you have doxxed.

Conversely, I do not see linking two nyms as doxxing, regardless of whether one or both nyms is widely known to be a certain (real) person. Anything along the lines of "[nym1] is [nym2]" is fine to me. It's the crossing of the line between nym and real life that underlies doxxing to me. Anything that occurs entirely in one of the two worlds is not doxxing to me.

The only gray area for me is when someone writes related posts under both a nym and their real name, such that a coherent conversation with or about the person requires the linkage between the nym and the real name. My suggested solution for this is to ask if the person has ever acknowledge the nym when writing under their real name. If they have, then OK. If they haven't, then it's doxxing. Yes, this allows people to be completely hypocritical, saying or doing one thing under a nym and another thing in real life. But that's a small price for all of us to pay to protect the anonymity provided by nyms.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#6

by John Greg » Tue Sep 01, 2015 9:25 am

x_?_x said:
I only speak for myself, of course....
Indeed, and that's precisely what I'm looking for.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#5

by jimthepleb » Tue Sep 01, 2015 9:23 am

As an example:
Phil Giordano is a musician in the band Fairyland. He lives in Nice with his gf Ali. (Not doxxing)
His address and phone number are:....(IS doxing)
I also think there is some wiggle room around intent. If someone were to link to a facebook convo (something that I'm personally quite uncomfortable with) then third parties info is freely available however the intent of the original poster was not to reveal info about the third parties.
It's somewhat murky and I'll be interested to see what consensus we can reach.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#4

by x_?_x » Tue Sep 01, 2015 9:15 am

So, though I am a newer member here, I have lurked for a while. I have been active in other dark corners of the interwebs, as well.

My attitude towards do--X--ing is simple: if you can find it on google, it's not exactly private. I cringe at the idea of 'fair game,' but if you can find it on google, it's not private and, therefore, not really 'doxing.'

I only speak for myself, of course, and will abide by whatever the group determines to be acceptable or unacceptable.

Re: Discussion on what is and is not doxxing

#3

by John Greg » Tue Sep 01, 2015 9:03 am

Oh, and, as the Pit's resident professional technical writer, I'll take it on my shoulders to gather together all input from this thread, and come up with a series of drafts that we can work with, vote on, and use to create consensus and a solid definition of doxxing and doxxing rules.

Top