> The more I dug into the real SLJ, the more wrong it seemed. It felt uncomfortably close to doxing.
I'm having a hard time seeing how it could possibly be anything but "doxing."
I'm having a hard time seeing how it could possibly be anything but "doxing."
I think there's a clear difference between correlating a pseudonym to a real-life identity, and malicious "doxing" that could cause harm.
People use pseudonyms for a reason. Deanonymizing them can cause them harm, ranging from getting fired to getting arrested to causing severe social strife. Not your decision to make.
Luckily I committed no crimes, or I would have had a hat trick.
> Not your decision to make.
There's actually a lot of debate and discussion about this issue; I am always surprised at the number and tenor of those who wholeheartedly support making this kind of decision.
Your secrets don't have to be criminal to be secrets.
"The strict 'hacker' definition of 'dropping dox,' as it was initially phrased, involves the publication of documentation (or 'docs'/'dox'). As Schneier points out, these can be addresses, phone numbers, financial information, medical records, emails, and so forth. The part where the definition of 'doxing' gets murky is that the word's prominent appearances in the media haven't involved dropping dox at all. Rather, it's come (sometimes!) to signify the unmasking of anonymous internet users without their consent. ....
"The idea that a 'full name' can constitute a dox represents an understanding that in some contexts, the publication of a legal name serves as an incitement to drop a full dox. Through Google and other databases, a full name can lead to other details...."
While I absolutely think no good would have come out of de-anonymizing SLJ, it wouldn't really be doxing (unless they had somehow attracted people that had an interest in attacking their home, embarrassing them in front of their employer, etc.).
In both cases the desired outcome is achieved: the 'war' is expanded, taking on either new dimensions (personal knowledge of the doxxing victim) or new avenues to attack them with.
That section of the book argues for distinguishing them because, in some cases, de-anonymizing someone (but no more) is legitimate self-defense by a community, but doxing always intends harassment (which is not legitimate self-defense). If there are rules for actual war, there are absolutely rules for "war" in scare quotes; not inciting crime is one of them. I don't think I can make the full argument here concisely, but it is well set-out in the book. (While she has a blog post saying much the same thing, I actually thought that was a much poorer defense of de-anonymization, since it's missing context.)
Obviously in this specific case there is not even "war," just curiosity, so that defense of de-anonymization doesn't apply. But we've gotten on a tangent about the term itself.
Regarding 'unmasking': many doxxers use this argument: when they do publish people's information, they're unmasking bad actors, when their opponents do it, they're doxxing. For example Sarah Jeong, the author of the book you mention, wrote for The Verge, which tacitly endorses doxxing by ignoring it when performed by political groups it supports.
In some contexts, a full name is a full dox, to anyone who has Google access and 10 minutes to spare. There's not really a functional difference. The presence or absence of malicious intent may determine how we judge the doxer, but the potential effect on the doxee is the same either way.
Everyone thinks that until it happens to them. Trust me on this.
So I'd rephrase that: If you haven't done anything that resourceful adversaries consider wrong, you don't have anything to hide.
I can be such a pedant ;)
First answer me: Why do you think they chose to use a pseudonym? I can think of many answers to explain why. Most include risk of harm to the individual in various forms.
For example - there is a reason I use a pseudonym. I always have and always will.
There's a clear difference, yes, but it's only really relevant to how we judge the doxer. It's comparable to outing a closeted queer person: whether it's done maliciously or out of pure, naive innocence, the fallout for the subject is the same.
The harder question is when doxing is justifiable. Maybe it can arguably be self-defense. But even then, consequences are typically disproportionate. And there's no process for trial, opportunity for rebuttal, judgment by neutral third parties, etc.