Aren't you nervous about doxxing someone like that so thoroughly?
Anybody can do whatever they want. And they get whatever they get.
My parent question was more about the reporter's OPSEC. That is, the risks that he's taken.
I have little use for assessing the moral opinions of others.
As I wrote recently, stuff that isn't testable isn't worth worrying about.
A given moral rule doesn't change because it's held by you versus someone else. Just like it makes no sense to refuse to answer the question of whether a fruit is an apple because it is in my hand instead of yours.
In other words, by having a moral rule yourself, you implicitly have a moral metarule: a rule about how to choose your moral rules.
Your refusal to answer the question doesn't make sense.
But I also don't judge the moral rules that others hold. That's one of my operating principles. You can't judge without knowing that you're right. And there's no canonical source for that. I do have opinions about how well some moral rules work vs others. But that's not about judging, only assessing workability.
Wrong country of course, but the idea as an ethical code is out there, that the public has some right for information on some, and only some, people.
But seriously, murder being bad is pretty much a human moral universal. You'll find that basic idea wherever and whenever you look (+/- various caveats).
http://www.haaretz.com/grounds-for-disbelief-1.10757
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus. Sorry, that authority is impeached.
Your constitution is not the epitome of justice or democratic ideals, and is in fact deeply flawed on a fundamental level.
I can accept that it has flaws, but on the fundamental level? It seems pretty solid at that level. The creators thought through the problems and difficulties of government more deeply than most.
Most modern constitutions also need all the procedures, of course, but they put certain "inalienable rights" square in the middle of it all. The procedures are merely there to support those rights.
Different times, different mindset.
Hilariously ironic how things turned out instead.
If such a "journalist" wanted to write (about potentially classified™ information) about people working for defense contractors who create products only a minority of people care to voice dissent but has the blessing of the status quo, it wouldn't be ok because it would put lives at danger™. There is also an exception to this for when a billionaire helps you write about such info, but only less than 1% of it will ever see the light of day, and one must consult with the thought leaders™ of the status quo in order to have a voice where all the token freedom loving organizations also supported by such billionaire will blogspam such carefully vetted position on one's behalf.
Wasn't this Gawkers main argument in their defense against the hulk.
They were sued because they refused to take down the video and their defense was absolutely terrible in every regard including joking in legally binding statements without going through and marking them as jokes/sarcasm: so they are taken at face value in the court of law.
Making jokes about child porn ("newsworthy if the actor is over the age of four") isn't how you win over jurors.
Journalism is not doxing.
NB: I'm not claiming these rules are good or bad. But it's not like only freaks that are members of The Other have concerns about doxxing.
There exist numerous reasons to not love the idea of one's personal information, particularly regarding one's work or home, put out there broadly, particularly when it is attached to information one does not control and/or in a circumstance which would tend to show it to people who do not respect standard middle class norms of detachment. Redditors did not invent concern over this issue. Many of the people with strong concerns about it are demographically dissimilar to the modal Redditor.
Edit to add: It occasionally happens that journalists will transgress upon society's norms in this area and persons sympathetic to the aggrevied parties will transgress back. I have not heard a journalist say, in response to that "OK, fair commentary, wot wot." This often comes up in the context "We have published gun owners' addresses because the public has a right to know who owns guns." "We have published your address because the public has a right to know who writes newspapers."
I feel like I've read that story ~5 times over the years. First Googleable citation: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/nyregion/after-pinpointing...
Because that is what the comment to which I replied upthread claimed.
The fact that this guy on one hand built an incredibly high quality application that had and has a major positive impact on the world is a story that needs to be told.
The fact that he's a damaged, amoral man who is allegedly a career criminal and drug dealer is a story that demands to be told. He represents the Id of mankind -- and personifies the paradox that perfect security and privacy benefits society at large, and that society also includes the bad guys.
Publishing information on a particular private individual because the public's benefit is sufficiently great is a hard line to even vaguely pin down - a home address, all private contact methods, and enough personal data to forge their identity on a passport application is probably never warranted to publish, but you're going to acquire that information while researching private citizens for any reason, and then pare it down to the minimum required to establish whatever story you're reporting on.
One might distinguish "doxxing" as "publishing all the information you can retrieve", without any filter or goal other than making the information as public as possible.
This all occurs to me as a show trial. They're making an example of him, as authoritarian systems tend to do. And one aspect of that is being dragged through the mud. Being slandered. It's dog pack behavior, and I find it disgusting.
Do you think their might be repercussions for this? If not, why? If so, how has this affected you?
Also, one X, not two: https://stallman.org/doxing.html
I don't know why people spell it with two. Maybe they think it looks cooler? But really it's hacker slang for "I accessed and published sensitive information about an individual" and is in most cases horrible.
The development of the Exxon exx is shown here:
http://www.logodesignlove.com/exxon-logo-raymond-loewy
It's clearly a double-x rather than any more exotic character, the styling is just that - styling.
The Wikipedia article has it as /ˈɛksɒn/ and that's the pronunciation used in their commercials:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s80Hbac2b8
So that's way off-topic. But what he says about "dox" vs. "doxx" is as much a preference as "focused" and "focussed", or "busing" and "bussing" - there's no "correct" way, not even if it is the original way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon#History
There's no particular reason to believe they wanted to change the pronunciation as well.
woosh
This is some really advanced trolling, on the level of the emperor's new clothes.
Wikipedia says:
> The company initially planned to change its name to "Exon", in keeping with the four-letter format of Enco and Esso. However, during the planning process, it was noted that James Exon was the governor of Nebraska. Renaming the company after a sitting governor seemed ill-advised, and the second "x" was added to the new name and logo.
No mention of them wanting to name the company with a greek chi but not having that on their typewriters.
To be fair, the wikipedia claim isn't cited. Neither is rms's of course.
...although looking at it more carefully, the doxing article is not dated April 1, and it has the same claim in it. Maybe he forgot what he was doing and successfully trolled himself. I don't know. But yes, the Exxon thing is obviously, demonstrably false.