Doxing and free speech

Absolutely.



Not at all. 'Freedom of speech' is not equivalent to 'freedom of anonymity.' And in ViolentAcrez case, maybe he shouldn't have been such a dumbass and ran around telling a bunch of people who he 'trusted' what his real name was, if he wanted to remain anonymous.

Cycloptichorn

I think "doxing" is an invasion of privacy, but the fourth amendment constrains government, not individuals. As to the larger issue of the behavior which has lead to the outing of these individuals, if there is a vigilante atmosphere online, that's a result of no policing on the part of the people who run the domains. If, for example, Reddit is not going to police its content, then this may be the only way to deal with the consequences. Then there's the problem of Facebook being repeatedly used to harrass and bully kids--this was not the first suicide in Canada by someone who had been bullied on Facebook. Facebook doesn't police content. I understand that that would be a big job, but there is no mechanism to respond to complaints, either.

If some creep were showing semi-nude pictures of an underage girl on the street corner, and authority got wind of it, the police could pick him up. There's no police online, which is why there are vigilantes. I'd rather not see vigilantes, but there is an incredible freedom online, aided by the anonymity, and unrestrained freedom becomes license, and people suffer.

So, i don't like vigilantes, but i understand why they're there, and think that's better than no one taking any steps in such matters.

Exactly right.

Joe(as you so often are, C.)Nation

No. I can't see it that way. These persons weren't forced to make these statements or do these internet activities. They have to be aware that their statements do have consequences.


These are two separate beasts. It all comes down to the source's motivation. Whistleblowers don't do what they do for personal satisfaction but risk their own necks for the greater good.


Yes.


Corporate/governmental whistleblowers and their identity should be protected.


Yes.


They're free to protect their identity with a stronger encryption or using a longer and more inaccessible digital paper trail.


F*** No!


No. Obscenity laws are notoriously vague and too dangerously subjected to a wide variation of interpretation.

Daily members here troll quite often, especially with those weird spam threads that always in "thanks" or "Sincerely." And don't deny it, especially since it can be shown that some of the comments have no basis on the topic or even in reality. Should they exposed? I don't think so. So it's a matter of a level of deviance that finally decides if a troll should be exposed or not.
Doxing people is distasteful, but fair game. If you don't want your identities linked, secure your ****. Violentcrez dude sounds like more than a troll. Encouraging stalkerish behavior and posting underage pics goes way beyond internet trolling.

I agree Cyclo.

Violentacrez is a dumbass. So is the guy who stalked Amanda Todd, who apparently hadn't been bragging about his actions.

Apparently they are both suffering the consequences from their very bad decisions to post the things they did.

I think doxing is an invasion of privacy too and I can really see the potential of it turning bad.

I haven't looked at the creepshots site but I heard that most of the photos were ones lifted off girl's facebook pages and reposted for "discussion". It would probably be really easy to out those girls identities.

I think the only way to internet can be policed is for people to police themselves. I'm always talking to Mo about online privacy and policing himself but I think that he, like a lot of kids, doesn't understand the value of privacy.

Technology, both hardware and software, oustrip society's ability to deal with them by orders of magnitude in comparison to what was the case in the past. Automobiles, widespread electrification, radio and television did not alter the terms of the social contract nearly so much as electronic technology has done. That's why i've been using the term vigilante. This, for the foreseeable future, can only be policed by "netizens." I think you're absolutely correct in what you're teaching Mo. You'll do fine until he grows up and learns how to find what you've been writing about him all his life.

I'm not completely up to speed on it but what about Bradley Manning and Adrian Lamo?

I've seen arguments that they were both working for "the greater good".

Yeah, I agree that spam isn't worth the effort of tracking down the person posted it. They're just annoying the reading public, not hurting them.

If this guy was really just reposting photos that he found on facebook I get confused. People put that stuff out there to be seen. He saw it and reposted it for discussion. It gets pretty wobbly there for me.

I've thought about that -- him reading the things I've written.

I'm okay with that. I think I've been pretty fair.

I am happy to report that he is unGoogleable at this point in his life -- under his birth name, adopted name, and made up for himself name.

i feel better about it if a crime has been committed, but exposure just because one finds the person repellent bothers me

That's a really, REALLY good point, djjd.

Stalking and harassing someone is a crime in real life, is it also a crime to do it online? Could the stalker be sued for emotional distress? What if the person ends up killing themselves because of it? Could you be guilty of murder? manslaughter? anything?

But in the case of Violentacrez, he hadn't broken any laws. He was a troll. No doubt he was a vile troll but does he deserve to be doxed for it?

yesterday, i answered a twitter competition question with this tweet

@YahooCanada "If I Were Prime Minister of Canada..." i'd commit mass murder/suicide in the House of Commons for the good of the nation

if the government wanted to track me down and asses if this comment is a threat i'd be fine, but if a pro government citizen took it upon themselves i'd be pissed

There was an interesting interview show on the CBC just now, and they tackled exactly this topic. One of the "experts" said she is really uncomfortable with, and disgusted by the vigilantes, as she called them (just as i do, except i don't have the same response). She said that this should be left to the police. Yeah, right . . . they do a lot of good when kids are being bullied and exploited online. (Insert rolly-eyed emoticon here.)

heard the intro, but missed the show, thought one of the points they mentioned in the intro, wondering if the folks tracking down and outing the bullies are really just another form of bully themselves

who watches the watchmen

Good question. There was an "expert" on, and a good deal of discussion of hacktivists.

as an aside, my mother does goodwill for a retired teachers group, Anna Maria Tremonti's mother was a member of the group, she died this week, hence the reason Anna has been away from the show

dj(now you have the inside scoop)jd62

I think FB and other online sites should provide some monitoring. The creeps who went after Amanda Todd (and countless others, no doubt) should be banned from every site. They shouldn't be allowed to harass someone like that. It's just evil. And if FB doesn't do it, you can be sure there will be some government intervention at some point which there wouldn't be if these sites were safe from this type of behaviour. That's one of the things I don't like - government intervention for the greater good - so I hope these sites straighten out and implement something. A few bad apples always ruins it for the majority.