Call it stalking or harrasment if you prefer. Regardless its rude (sometimes illegal) behaviour.
That's no justification for using visitors to your site to do a DDOS.
In the slang of reddit: ESH
That's no justification for using visitors to your site to do a DDOS.
In the slang of reddit: ESH
No, harassment also includes persistent attempts to cause someone grief, whether or not they involve direct interactions with that person.
From Wikipedia:
> Harassment covers a wide range of behaviors of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behavior that demeans, humiliates, and intimidates a person.
Because the two are distinct, one can't simply replace "doxing" with "harassment".
>I for one will be buying Denis/Masha/whoever a well deserved cup of coffee.
Using one term when what is meant is actually the other serves nothing but to sow confusion.
that current etymology is what we’re all talking about obv
And i don't just mean under colloquial definition, i mean under the legal definition of harrasment. In fact its fairly common for unwanted "positive" attention to be harrasment - e.g. unwanted sexual advances mostly fit that description.
I get that a call to action is a common feature of doxing and it wasn't present here, but its not a particularly common feature of harrasment outside of the context of doxing and nothing in the definition of harrasment requires it.
That's just another way of saying "words don't have meanings". Yes, it evolves, but to preserve the original meanings, that evolution should be slowed down as much as possible to avoid “black is white” effects.
In that context I don't think the question ("actually, who is providing all this information to me and what interests drive them") is one that's misplaced. Maybe we shouldn't look into a gift horse's mouth but don't forget this could be a Trojan horse as well.
The article brought to light some ties to Russia but probably not ties to its government and its troll farms. Rather an independent and pretty rebellious citizen. That's good to hear. And that's valuable information. I trust the site more after reading the article, not less.
The article could have redacted the names they found but they were found with public sources and these sources validate the encountered information (otherwise the results could have been dismissed)