But he used his administrative privileges on Disqus to discover her identity. If you criticized Sundar Pichai from an anonymous Gmail account should it be OK for him to look up your IP logs and dox you? I’d hope not.
However that wasn't what I was taking issue with in the parent comment.
I think it's reasonable to expect however that:
- Journalists should be able to discuss each others views
- People who work at tech platforms should not dox their users (without a warrant)
- There is an acceptable point where an employer can fire their employees for what views they express in their private life.
So in all, is what Joshua did wrong here? I'd say so, but only because he doxxed a user. Is what the University did wrong here? It sucks where the information came from, but probably not. But even if you were to argue that there was, I find what Joshua did here to be largely immaterial towards that point, it's only how her employer chooses to react that is relevant.
But I can say that an unethical decision on the part of one party spurred on an ethical response from another.
If a robber breaks into a house a pedophile and discovers illicit material, are the police unethical for following up on that lead?
Abusing one's admin position to dox someone is not really distinguishable from any principled position against publishing hacked information.
It's weird to me that this ethical consideration seems to be something that can be ignored whenever convenient.
That probably shouldn't rise to a CFAA violation, but there was a supposed ethical standard around publishing hacked information, so it's a bit weird to see that ethical consensus come and go so easily.
Take the internet away and it's even more obviously protected. If you ran a newspaper and occasionally published letters from readers, and if a racist letter showed up with a vaguely obfuscated address that was easily traceable, it would be well within your rights to write an article about the person in a position of power who sent your newspaper racist rantings.
The journalist likely violated Disqus's terms of service but in no way does that give the professor grounds to sue him.
There's a reason certain forms of evidence are inadmissible in court.
(The professor's also at fault for not anonymizing herself better, of course.)
I've been surfing everything from Usenet to webboards and other internet comment facilities for 25 years, how come I've never seen it? Typically the routine goes: cosmetic blocking (hiding, disemvoweling), account block, email block, ip block, then whack-a-mole for the truly persistently annoying.
Have you, and can you link to it if so?
I won't speak to the legality of it because I'm not qualified, but it's morally reprehensible.
He could have
1. Taken offense to this comment/taken interest in what else this user comments (which you can do without any admin tools)
2. Seen the islamophobic/xenophobic comment
3. De-anonymized the user
In this version the de-anonymization is related to the more repugnant comments, not the initial critique.
A professor naturally speaks with the authority of their corresponding institution, whether they or the institution likes it that way. A professor is also often in a position of leadership as they supervise the fate of students.
Does she though? She had every reason to believe her choice of email address would remain private.
By a similar token, I am currently working for <REDACTED> (on lunch break) and using a computer belonging to said entity. If you managed to work out what <REDACTED> is, would I retroactively be considered to be speaking for it?
Credibility and reputation aren't precisely in anyone's hands.