Hacker News Reader

Comment by itsgrimetime | Hacker News Reader

I'm going to interpret this as charitably as possible: Are you attempting to bring attention to the fact that doxxing is rarely prosecuted, even though it's illegal and there's boatloads of evidence that it is in fact a form of violence? This is the only way I can imagine this question being raised that doesn't assume you're trolling.

View on HN

>Are you attempting to bring attention to the fact that doxxing is rarely prosecuted, even though it's illegal and there's boatloads of evidence that it is in fact a form of violence?

We should really stop with the scope creep attempts around "violence".

Why? Technically speaking, it would be nice if there was another single word with the appropriate gravity and specificity that described the indirect destruction of people's lives and/or wellbeing, but practically speaking, there isn't, mostly because this particular kind of attack didn't exist in such a form in the past. Language evolves as society gets new stuff added to it.

True, but seems doxing fits better conceptually into "harassment" than "violence".

> mostly because this particular kind of attack didn't exist in such a form in the past

This makes no sense. The "attack" of letting people know who a particular person is has always existed, but applied as an attack only in the very rare case where an exile came to your town and was later exposed. The norm was that everyone already knew exactly who everyone was -- in other words, that everyone was always and automatically subject to exactly the "attack" you claim didn't exist.

The attack of shaming has always existed and has generally been much more serious than it is now.

No. I am confused by the conviction Twitter and message board people have that pseudonymous people are entitled to the protection of their true identities from strangers, who learn those identities from open sources.

Fair enough. But doxxers should be subject to the same level of prosecution as people who scope out marks for robbery for example. I'm not familiar with laws in that case, but if there is some level of "conspiracy to commit crime" you can get for telling thieves about that mark, then doxxers should be also getting that.

I don't expect strangers to protect information about just how much cash I have in my wallet that they found out by standing behind me in checkout line. But I surely want them nailed if they purposefully broadcast that and a mugger overhears and robs me.

The linked-to hacked.wtf page has a screenshot of a tweet from Krebs that is purportedly an example of how he doxxed someone. But the relevant part is blacked out so I can’t tell what level of detail was exposed, e.g. whether it’s real name, dob, address, etc.

Putting aside the debate over what level of doxxing is acceptable, I think we can at least assert that there no level of SWATting is acceptable in any context.

> I'm going to interpret this as charitably as possible: Are you attempting to bring attention to the fact that doxxing is rarely prosecuted, even though it's illegal and there's boatloads of evidence that it is in fact a form of violence? This is the only way I can imagine this question being raised that doesn't assume you're trolling.

This is a genuine question, but is doxxing really illegal? I recently read that posting someone's social security number is not illegal, so I'm finding it hard to reconcile the two notions.

Of course publishing someone's name and public LinkedIn profile isn't illegal. It doesn't even violate Twitter Law™️.

> even though it's illegal

Please cite that. Last I checked, SCOTUS was very clear that there is only one type of forbidden speech: fighting words. See [1], [2], [3], and [4]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps

Reply on news.ycombinator.com