I don’t, as such, have a problem with him being dox’d cause what you do on the net you kinda have to expect to own some day.
What I do have a problem with is the outrage against him. He hasn’t done anything wrong as far as I can see.
You have a problem with people disagreeing with you on what constitutes “wrong”? Most people would think posting “upskirt” photos and having sex with his step daughter are pretty loathsome things. You think there’s nothing wrong with that?
New glasses may be needed to see past the end of your nose.
I think you should read more about what this guy was up to. It’s really hard to argue he did nothing wrong if for no other reason than he was facilitating a lot of scummy things.
That said, I also am somewhat hesitant to back this idea that there should be no expectation of privacy on the internet. Given that the web can function as comprehensive, seemingly omniscient and permanent account of everything someone does, I think we need to be very careful about erasing the lines between the net and the real world; or rather, not allowing for reasonable privacy interests on the internet as we do in the real world. Obviously, the internet shouldn’t be a haven for people with no fear of reprisal for their actions, but that shouldn’t make us any less wary of electronic surveillance than we are normal surveillance. Plenty of people would face negative real world repercussions if their real world actions and thoughts were as documented as thoroughly and efficiently as their online actions are.
All the people saying that anything you do on the internet should be subject to public scrutiny would likely never argue for such a policy wrt to one’s everyday. Every email, IM, keystroke, Google search, or online purchase is tracked in great detail. Would you be okay if someone followed you around all day, documenting everything you did with the same dogged determination? Few of us would want our bosses to be able to track our physical movements, or know our political opinions, or our relationship histories.
Unfortunately, all of those things can be tracked online with ease. More importantly, the vividity of those accounts does not diminish with time as our collective memories do. Your bad mistakes of 20 years ago are often current and ever-present on the internet. That’s one reason I support some sort of right to oblivion.
As great as it feels pillorying this scumbag, I can easily see the same things happening to people for voting the wrong way, being a bad father or boyfriend, watching porn, etc. etc. If everything you do online is subject to public fodder, do you really put it past a guy like David Siegel to fire employees for liking Obama on Facebook? Do you really want to live in that world?
Yes, obviously people need to be aware that the web does not offer complete anonymity, and that what privacy it does offer should not embolden them to be cruel or criminal, but merely being unlikeable or contrarian should not threaten your ability to make a living.
I dunno. I say this as a member of the senior management at my employer, with my name on the website and everything: If my hobby was writing crank letters to the editor of the local newspaper accusing Obama of being an islamo-homocommunist under my real name, I’d probably get fired. Same deal if wrote letters accusing Romney of keeping a stable of underage sister-wives in a secret compound underneath Atlantis. Or lobbying for NAMBLA.
There are plenty of ways to maintain one’s privacy on the Internet, but they all involve lowering the height of your soapbox. Brutsch cultivated a rather extreme level of notoriety, and he pretty much got what he asked for. You can’t holler “LOOK AT MEEEEE!!!” over and over for years without eventually attracting a rather jaundiced look that you might not appreciate the consequences of.
As I understand it, he was doing more than say “look at me”. He is quoted as saying “I just like riling people up in my spare time”
Clearly he doesn’t think that upsetting people as a hobby is unacceptable. How is upsetting him up not acceptable? He who lives by it, dies by it.
He’s being lambasted in the court of public opinion.
Big whoop? What’s he crying for? 'cause someone doesn’t like him, poor baby? He can’t handle people disagreeing with HIM instead of his handle? Well ain’t life a bitch.
Now, what he got FIRED for, EXACTLY, would/will be an interesting court case, I am sure.
he wanted internet fame; welp, he’s got it!
You behave in a manner that is quite deliberately calculated to cause maximum offensiveness to the maximum number of people and are shocked … shocked…when people come after you.
Oh the humanity!
So was everything Adrian Chen did in outing him.
Just because something is legal does not make it moral, ethical or non-asshattish.
Why is it always the very people shouting loudest for freedom of speech that squeal loudest when the boot is on the other foot and that freedom of speech is used to uncover them?
I’m also pretty sure it was legal for his employer to fire him.
It’s just an avalanche of legality!
You’re talking like that’s not already true. Employers in the US can fire you for the way you cut your hair or just looking at them funny; of course they can fire you for things like supporting the “wrong” candidate, and I’m sure that it’s happened. Political beliefs are not among the protected classes. That’s a downside of at-will employment, but it’s the system we’ve got. (Note - last I checked, I think maybe a dozen states had some kind of “just cause” requirement, but a motivated employer could probably create a sufficient excuse.)
Agreed. You can’t legislate for everything. I imagine most people wouldn’t want to work for, or do business with, an employer who would fire them for the way they voted, so hopefully that kind of behaviour would be fairly self-limiting. Of course, this assumes the rather ideal situation that people can pick and choose who they work for, but the general point stands.
I’d imagine most employment contracts have something about not bringing the company into disrepute, and I think it’s pretty hard to deny that this guy’s actions, once they became public, were likely to also bring his employer into disrepute.
I guess I am the only one that had no clue what “Reddit” was until this thread got me to look it up.
Last I checked, being creepy is not illegal nor grounds for termination (if he was competent at his job). Being outed is one thing – you invite it when you troll others – but losing your job? Dude didn’t deserve that.
I vaguely knew what it was but have never knowingly been there. The newspaper article that alerted me to this case described it as being pretty much “the front page of the internet”.
So when you own a business which serves the public and operates from a highly visible, easily accessible storefront and one of your employees makes national news for creeping around and preying on the innocence of underage girls, bragging about incest, and otherwise promoting acts which incite outrage, don’t fire that guy. Me, I’d fire the shit out of him and laugh when he said “B-b-but what about my responsibilities, my family, won’t someone think of my children?” He behaved in an antisocial manner without regard for others or the success of his employer. Why is he owed more consideration than he showed others?
This.
It was vigilantism and I don’t approve of vigilantism, even when it is against people I don’t like.
You can terminate an employee for just about anything except being a member of a protected class. Where on earth did you get the idea that an employer cannot fire an employee for being creepy?
Let’s up the ante a little and say that one of the photos this guy posted was of his boss’s daughter, taken at a company picnic. So, you think the boss should not be able to fire him for that?
So you would approve if his identity was published as a result of the investigation of his potential crimes?