6 ms·

I think that depends on how you define "doxing." Yes, you're identifying a person's real information. On the other hand, malicious "doxing" usually means publis

I think that depends on how you define "doxing." Yes, you're identifying a person's real information. On the other hand, malicious "doxing" usually means publishing phone number, address, kid's name, personal email address, Facebook, etc. I think there's a clear difference between correlating a pseudonym to a real-life identity, and malicious "doxing" that could cause harm.

JoshTriplett 11y ago
> I think there's a clear difference between correlating a pseudonym to a real-life identity, and malicious "doxing" that could cause harm. People use pseudonyms for a reason. Deanonymizing them can cause them harm, ranging from getting fired to getting arrested to causing severe social strife. Not your decision to make.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- mbrutsch 11y ago
  > Deanonymizing them can cause them harm, ranging from getting fired to getting arrested to causing severe social strife. Luckily I committed no crimes, or I would have had a hat trick. > Not your decision to make. There's actually a lot of debate and discussion about this issue; I am always surprised at the number and tenor of those who wholeheartedly support making this kind of decision.
  - RIMR 11y ago
    >Luckily I committed no crimes, or I would have had a hat trick. Your secrets don't have to be criminal to be secrets.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - iwwr 11y ago
    You can be an asshole even without breaking the law.
    - mbrutsch 11y ago
      Thanks for illustrating that point so eloquently. Your example informs us all.
      - mbrutsch 11y ago
        You people downvote like redditors. It's sad.
        TrevorJ 11y ago
        From the guidelines (to help explain why you are seeing the behavior you are seeing). "If your account is less than a year old, please don't submit comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a common semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills. Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downvote you or declare that you'll probably get downvoted. "
        mbrutsch 11y ago
        Let's see, 1772/365... nope, not less than a year old. Nice insult to new accounts, though, very Passive-aGgressive.
        TrevorJ 11y ago
        Oh brother.
        dang 11y ago
        You've been posting uncivil comments to HN lately (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10301570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10301570, in addition to this thread). Please re-read the site guidelines and follow them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
forrestthewoods 11y ago
Are you shitting me? Revealing the identity of someone who has purposefully concealed their identity is the literal fucking definition of doxing. You have neither the right nor the ability to determine what harm may result.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
geofft 11y ago
Yup. Quoting Sarah Jeong's The Internet of Garbage: "The strict 'hacker' definition of 'dropping dox,' as it was initially phrased, involves the publication of documentation (or 'docs'/'dox'). As Schneier points out, these can be addresses, phone numbers, financial information, medical records, emails, and so forth. The part where the definition of 'doxing' gets murky is that the word's prominent appearances in the media haven't involved dropping dox at all. Rather, it's come (sometimes!) to signify the unmasking of anonymous internet users without their consent. .... "The idea that a 'full name' can constitute a dox represents an understanding that in some contexts, the publication of a legal name serves as an incitement to drop a full dox. Through Google and other databases, a full name can lead to other details...." While I absolutely think no good would have come out of de-anonymizing SLJ, it wouldn't really be doxing (unless they had somehow attracted people that had an interest in attacking their home, embarrassing them in front of their employer, etc.).
- nailer 11y ago
  What an odd thing to say. Documentation can certainly include real identity. Those things are a set/subset relationship, not two different things. In both cases the desired outcome is achieved: the 'war' is expanded, taking on either new dimensions (personal knowledge of the doxxing victim) or new avenues to attack them with.
  - geofft 11y ago
    Well, the context here is that "doxing" is not about identity in the first place: it's about encouraging harassment/crime, by facilitating identity theft, leaking embarrassing photos, giving contact info of family members, giving the information needed to conduct SWATting, etc. Identity happens to be involved in all of these things, but it's not the goal. That section of the book argues for distinguishing them because, in some cases, de-anonymizing someone (but no more) is legitimate self-defense by a community, but doxing always intends harassment (which is not legitimate self-defense). If there are rules for actual war, there are absolutely rules for "war" in scare quotes; not inciting crime is one of them. I don't think I can make the full argument here concisely, but it is well set-out in the book. (While she has a blog post saying much the same thing, I actually thought that was a much poorer defense of de-anonymization, since it's missing context.) Obviously in this specific case there is not even "war," just curiosity, so that defense of de-anonymization doesn't apply. But we've gotten on a tangent about the term itself.
mbrutsch 11y ago
> I think there's a clear difference between correlating a pseudonym to a real-life identity, and malicious "doxing" that could cause harm. Everyone thinks that until it happens to them. Trust me on this.
tedunangst 11y ago
Just remember, if you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to hide.
- mirimir 11y ago
  What's "wrong" depends on who's defining it. So I'd rephrase that: If you haven't done anything that resourceful adversaries consider wrong, you don't have anything to hide.
  - gkop 11y ago
    I think parent comment was being ironic.
    - mirimir 11y ago
      My irony detector malfunctioned. Sorry :( I can be such a pedant ;)
Nadya 11y ago
>I think there's a clear difference between correlating a pseudonym to a real-life identity, and malicious "doxing" that could cause harm. First answer me: Why do you think they chose to use a pseudonym? I can think of many answers to explain why. Most include risk of harm to the individual in various forms. For example - there is a reason I use a pseudonym. I always have and always will.
mangeletti 11y ago
So, just some doxing then?
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
> I think there's a clear difference between correlating a pseudonym to a real-life identity, and malicious "doxing" that could cause harm. There's a clear difference, yes, but it's only really relevant to how we judge the doxer. It's comparable to outing a closeted queer person: whether it's done maliciously or out of pure, naive innocence, the fallout for the subject is the same.
anon4 11y ago
Well gee, thanks for clearing that up. Someone forward this to _why so he can realise there was no harm done and comes back.

JoshTriplett 11y ago

> I think there's a clear difference between correlating a pseudonym to a real-life identity, and malicious "doxing" that could cause harm. People use pseudonyms for a reason. Deanonymizing them can cause them harm, ranging from getting fired to getting arrested to causing severe social strife. Not your decision to make.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mbrutsch 11y ago
> Deanonymizing them can cause them harm, ranging from getting fired to getting arrested to causing severe social strife. Luckily I committed no crimes, or I would have had a hat trick. > Not your decision to make. There's actually a lot of debate and discussion about this issue; I am always surprised at the number and tenor of those who wholeheartedly support making this kind of decision.
- RIMR 11y ago
  >Luckily I committed no crimes, or I would have had a hat trick. Your secrets don't have to be criminal to be secrets.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- iwwr 11y ago
  You can be an asshole even without breaking the law.
  - mbrutsch 11y ago
    Thanks for illustrating that point so eloquently. Your example informs us all.
    - mbrutsch 11y ago
      You people downvote like redditors. It's sad.
      - TrevorJ 11y ago
        From the guidelines (to help explain why you are seeing the behavior you are seeing). "If your account is less than a year old, please don't submit comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a common semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills. Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downvote you or declare that you'll probably get downvoted. "
        mbrutsch 11y ago
        Let's see, 1772/365... nope, not less than a year old. Nice insult to new accounts, though, very Passive-aGgressive.
        TrevorJ 11y ago
        Oh brother.
        dang 11y ago
        You've been posting uncivil comments to HN lately (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10301570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10301570, in addition to this thread). Please re-read the site guidelines and follow them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

forrestthewoods 11y ago

Are you shitting me? Revealing the identity of someone who has purposefully concealed their identity is the literal fucking definition of doxing. You have neither the right nor the ability to determine what harm may result.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

geofft 11y ago

Yup. Quoting Sarah Jeong's The Internet of Garbage: "The strict 'hacker' definition of 'dropping dox,' as it was initially phrased, involves the publication of documentation (or 'docs'/'dox'). As Schneier points out, these can be addresses, phone numbers, financial information, medical records, emails, and so forth. The part where the definition of 'doxing' gets murky is that the word's prominent appearances in the media haven't involved dropping dox at all. Rather, it's come (sometimes!) to signify the unmasking of anonymous internet users without their consent. .... "The idea that a 'full name' can constitute a dox represents an understanding that in some contexts, the publication of a legal name serves as an incitement to drop a full dox. Through Google and other databases, a full name can lead to other details...." While I absolutely think no good would have come out of de-anonymizing SLJ, it wouldn't really be doxing (unless they had somehow attracted people that had an interest in attacking their home, embarrassing them in front of their employer, etc.).

nailer 11y ago
What an odd thing to say. Documentation can certainly include real identity. Those things are a set/subset relationship, not two different things. In both cases the desired outcome is achieved: the 'war' is expanded, taking on either new dimensions (personal knowledge of the doxxing victim) or new avenues to attack them with.
- geofft 11y ago
  Well, the context here is that "doxing" is not about identity in the first place: it's about encouraging harassment/crime, by facilitating identity theft, leaking embarrassing photos, giving contact info of family members, giving the information needed to conduct SWATting, etc. Identity happens to be involved in all of these things, but it's not the goal. That section of the book argues for distinguishing them because, in some cases, de-anonymizing someone (but no more) is legitimate self-defense by a community, but doxing always intends harassment (which is not legitimate self-defense). If there are rules for actual war, there are absolutely rules for "war" in scare quotes; not inciting crime is one of them. I don't think I can make the full argument here concisely, but it is well set-out in the book. (While she has a blog post saying much the same thing, I actually thought that was a much poorer defense of de-anonymization, since it's missing context.) Obviously in this specific case there is not even "war," just curiosity, so that defense of de-anonymization doesn't apply. But we've gotten on a tangent about the term itself.

mbrutsch 11y ago

> I think there's a clear difference between correlating a pseudonym to a real-life identity, and malicious "doxing" that could cause harm. Everyone thinks that until it happens to them. Trust me on this.

tedunangst 11y ago

Just remember, if you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to hide.

mirimir 11y ago
What's "wrong" depends on who's defining it. So I'd rephrase that: If you haven't done anything that resourceful adversaries consider wrong, you don't have anything to hide.
- gkop 11y ago
  I think parent comment was being ironic.
  - mirimir 11y ago
    My irony detector malfunctioned. Sorry :( I can be such a pedant ;)

Nadya 11y ago

>I think there's a clear difference between correlating a pseudonym to a real-life identity, and malicious "doxing" that could cause harm. First answer me: Why do you think they chose to use a pseudonym? I can think of many answers to explain why. Most include risk of harm to the individual in various forms. For example - there is a reason I use a pseudonym. I always have and always will.

mangeletti 11y ago

So, just some doxing then?

PhasmaFelis 11y ago

> I think there's a clear difference between correlating a pseudonym to a real-life identity, and malicious "doxing" that could cause harm. There's a clear difference, yes, but it's only really relevant to how we judge the doxer. It's comparable to outing a closeted queer person: whether it's done maliciously or out of pure, naive innocence, the fallout for the subject is the same.

anon4 11y ago

Well gee, thanks for clearing that up. Someone forward this to _why so he can realise there was no harm done and comes back.