The formal definition of doxxing is somewhat nebulous:
‘‘Identifying information’’ could mean something as simple as a name. That’s different than say, a social security number or an address. But it seems Wikipedia thinks the definition of ‘‘identifying information’’ leans more toward the private information.
So when someone says, ''Do you support doxxing?" that word seems to have a very broad or imprecise definition.
‘‘Look, there’s Jim!’’ is a whole different thing than, ‘‘This is Jim Smith, he lives at 456 Watercress Street, he has a daughter aged 10 who lives with him and a 19 year old daughter who lives at this address in Chicago… Here is his phone number, his banking information,’’ etc. etc.
I think that’s a fair and valid question, and I don’t know if I always know the answer to that question. I’m not a doxxer and I would suggest that the average person avoid it unless they want to find themselves in legal trouble.
I tend to look at doxxing as something that is probably best reserved for those who have a background in professional investigations, such as professional journalists. Some guy who decides to become a social justice warrior by using a twitter account is probably not in a position to do that successfully. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a place for doxxing. I think it’s similar to patrolling your neighborhood. It’s probably not best to play security guard without a professional background in law enforcement or private security, where you have a better understanding of the ethical and legal boundaries involved.
I unfortunately don’t have time at the moment to consider the specific cases you mentioned. As a hard and fast rule, I’m not in favor of releasing private information that is clearly intended to remain private, and there may be applicable laws against that depending on the specific conduct involved. What I’m referring to are cases when some idiot decided to participate in a mob rally in full public view and then becomes a “victim” of being identified by a few activists who want to shame them. I don’t necessarily see anything wrong with that provided that they get the right guy. If someone doesn’t want to be associated with Neo Nazis…then he should stop hanging around neo Nazis (in public at least).
I don’t even see people agreeing on what exactly doxxing is, so unless I’m missing something specific, it’s completely disingenuous to imply illegal activities are being advocated. In fact I’ve seen many people referencing this as one of our only ‘‘legal means of recourse,’’ which may or may not be true depending on how we are defining doxxing, and others saying, ‘‘but obviously let’s not break the law,’’ so your claim that anyone is advocating illegal activity looks very much like intellectual dishonesty.
Suck it up, snowflake. As long as we have trolls excusing and defending the Nazis, we or at least I will have ZERO problem with anyone who photographs a Nazi, waving a Nazi flag, in a public place. And putting it up everywhere.
You don’t need a name or home address, you don’t want it. The picture alone is enough. Just make it a good sharp picture so the dirt bag’s family and employer and neighbors and the police will recognize him.
Are you even paying attention to this thread? Seriously, this comment indicates to me you haven’t even read it. A number of people have expressed that they are unclear on what, exactly doxxing means and how it differs from identifying a person’s social media account based on a photograph.
I just pointed out how the definition of doxxing is incredibly broad, the exact post before yours.
[QUOTE=Spice Weasel]
‘‘Identifying information’’ could mean something as simple as a name. That’s different than say, a social security number or an address. But it seems Wikipedia thinks the definition of ‘‘identifying information’’ leans more toward the private information.
So when someone says, ''Do you support doxxing?" that word seems to have a very broad or imprecise definition.
‘‘Look, there’s Jim!’’ is a whole different thing than, ‘‘This is Jim Smith, he lives at 456 Watercress Street, he has a daughter aged 10 who lives with him and a 19 year old daughter who lives at this address in Chicago… Here is his phone number, his banking information,’’ etc. etc.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not illegal to try to identify a person in a photograph or to call them out on Facebook. I have not seen a single person in this thread advocate publishing addresses, phone numbers or social security numbers.
"Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but because out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed.
That word is “Nazi.” Nobody cares about their motives anymore.
They joined what they joined. They lent their support and their moral approval. And, in so doing, they bound themselves to everything that came after. Who cares any more what particular knot they used in the binding?"
I’d suggest the best outcome is ignoring Nazi rallies completely - they have small numbers from what I gather, and giving them publicity only starts fights. As long as they’re fairly small, ignore them. Then the protestors can see no-one supports them.
Look, if someone is front and centre at a Nazi rally and gives a quote to a reporter about “Making this country great for the white man” again or whatever, then yeah, sure, they don’t get to be surprised when people discover they don’t want to associate (or employ) an actual Nazi.
However, I am much less comfortable with people being targeted just for being present at such an event - maybe they’re also Actual Nazis™, maybe they’re misguided rednecks, maybe they were just passing through and got caught in a crowd shot.
All this does raise an interesting question. Let’s pretend you open the paper one day and Mr Hilter from no. 88 up the street is on the front page holding a Swastika flag in one hand and a copy of Mein Kampf in the other at a Nazi demonstration.
You don’t really know Mr Hilter beyond waving hello when you pass each other in the street but he’s been living there as long ans anyone can remember seems pleasant enough - no different from anyone else.
Are you going to do anything now you know he’s actually an actual Nazi? Are you going to punch him in the face repeatedly the next time you see him? Are you going to move? Are you going to get your mates around and firebomb his house? Or are you going to make a mental note that the guy is an actual Nazi and therefore not a great person but otherwise not do anything because you have nothing to do with him and he’s never bothered you?
Which I’ve condemned. In fact, I kinda condemn general public shaming as a rule, illegal or not. I’ve expressed my conflict over this single instance upthread.
Is anyone on these boards advocating illegal doxxing? Because what I see is a whole hell of a lot of people who don’t realize ‘‘doxxing’’ generally refers to illegal publication of private information. This is more about ignorance about the meaning of the word than about advocating for illegal activity. And as I said, the actual definition of doxxing may or may not include illegal activity. It depends entirely on how you define ‘‘personally identifying information.’’
[QUOTE=octopus]
People said doxing.
[/QUOTE]
See above.
I promise you, if anyone in this thread explicitly advocates the illegal publication of private information, I’ll be the first to report them.
Okay, if they meant that they were advocating finding private information like address, names of children, bank info, etc., for these folks, then that’s wrong. But if they were just showing the pictures, saying “anyone know this nazi?”, and the like, and a pizza place manager said “holy shit, that’s Jim – he’s fired!”, then that’s not wrong.
And reasonable people have multiple definitions for the same word. Compare dictionary.com to whatever your definition is, for example.
Just because certain people are being intellectually dishonest toward you in other threads doesn’t mean you need to be indiscriminately intellectually dishonest toward everyone in this thread.
So, the Pit shouldn’t be a place of indiscriminate name calling and lies? Because that’s what it is. It’s unfortunate but true. The administration of this site obviously thinks it’s a good idea for posters to lie about and insult each other.
What good is it trying to rise above the fray when a pack of rabid, lying, losers makes it nearly impossible?
What I want to know is if people who are advocating violence and breaking the law with regards to doxing are actually standing by their words.
So you are intentionally being disingenuous out of spite? Lame.
Yes, people will lie and talk shit about you in the Pit. You can stoop to the same level or try to maintain some modicum of decency and respect for people who do the same for you. Back to the whole ‘‘sharing bread’’ thing I was rambling about over in the SJW thread. Your environment doesn’t have to dictate the person you are.