4 ms·

No, here in Australia, director's information must be place of residence; although there is a process for suppression or replacement based on personal safety ne

No, here in Australia, director's information must be place of residence; although there is a process for suppression or replacement based on personal safety needs, for most that'd be closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. What's more, the information is still in the database, it's just masked in standard extracts; the data is one weak password away from exfiltration. I believe it is most certainly victim blaming. The existence of terrible people may well induce one to recommend countermeasures, but the phrasing "stupid enough to put their personal details out there" is first-class (and thoroughly obnoxious) assignment of responsibility for bad behaviour to the victim of that behaviour. It's the same logical construction as blaming rape victims for their clothing. As for "attract enough attention", the bar for that has been lowered in recent times to "one tweet". These are not happy times to be a private citizen communicating online in anything but the most closed fora.

mirimir 10y ago
OK, but as director of whatever, perhaps one shouldn't be tweeting controversially. And if one is tweeting controversially, perhaps as part of one's job, then one ought to practice good OpSec. This isn't a new issue: http://www.learnliberty.org/blog/anonymity-and-doxing-in-the-1787-ratification-debates/ http://www.learnliberty.org/blog/anonymity-and-doxing-in-the...
- milesrout 10y ago
  Yeah I don't really understand why people want to be anonymous on the internet - and if you don't want people to have your personal information against you, then you do want to be anonymous - but hate the idea that anyone else is anonymous.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    Huh? You don't understand why people want anonymity? Or at least, pseudonymity?
    - milesrout 10y ago
      No, I don't understand why people want anonymity while also demanding that people can't anonymously send them messages on a public platform the entire point of which is the sending of messages. People want to be anonymous, but don't want just anyone to be able to send them messages. Okay, so who can send you messages? Who can post things you can see? What is your solution to this?
      - duckMuppet 10y ago
        I guess I misinterpreted your comment as well.
    - duckMuppet 10y ago
      No he is pointing out irony. He is saying that a lot of people feel like they should be anonymous, but that others, fit whatever reason shouldn't be allowed to. Celebrities, pundits etc. It's akin to celebs complaining about gun control, stating they hate guns and would never have one themselves, as they are guarded by several armed body guards.
- inopinatus 10y ago
  You've conflated "controversial" with "attracting harassment", which I perceive as pretty much in line with your earlier defence of victim blaming. This is something I reject outright as simply another angle chilling the speech of the victims of online harassment, instead of attenuating the bullies. I'm responsible for my own OpSec, but we both know that public registries have their own vulnerabilities. Again, I think I detect a misattribution of responsibility. Nevertheless that was a single example, not the entirety of the means by which personal information can be gleaned by the unscrupulous. My counter-position is that it is essential for we who have influence over systems design and policy to avoid unintended negative social consequences in the services we build.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    If you want walled gardens, by all means build walled gardens. But don't imagine that you can prevent people from using other services. And talking about you.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - milesrout 10y ago
    Again, you can sit around here complaining about 'victim blaming' all you want, but you aren't actually providing any real solutions. Thus you're just wasting everyone's time by doing so, including your own. It doesn't fucking matter whether it's victim blaming. Victim blaming is irrelevant. Being sent rude messages on the internet is a minor wrong, and so nobody is actually in any serious way a victim, and they do deserve to be blamed if they reveal their address or phone number or something on the internet, that's blatantly foolish and everyone has said that it is foolish and not to do it for decades. The reality is that the internet is not a one-way medium. Long gone are the days where you can just send and never receive. Well, that isn't even true, because you can send and never receive. What you can't do is take the 'send and never receive' attitude of old and try to apply it while also receiving. You can't pick and choose what messages you get. You can't, and you shouldn't try to. It's a loser's game. You will never succeed, thank the lord. Because there are those of us out there who don't want to have everything filtered and controlled by some algorithm that decides what is rude or not, and that's the reality of how Twitter or Facebook would be censored: the same algorithms that are used as justification for racial profiling and which produced the lovely Taylor Swift twitter bot that Microsoft had (which started spouting feminist propaganda as soon as they removed its learning abilities, I should add) would be used to censor Twitter and Facebook. If people's information is gleaned from whois records or whatever, then yes obviously that's terrible. If you go out of your way to protect your own privacy - or just don't foolishly reveal it to the world - and then it gets out anyway, obviously that's a bad thing and it's not your fault. What we're talking about are the people that use sites like Twitter, and then get upset when someone sends them a rude message on Twitter. We're not even talking about physical hate mail here people. We're talking about literally people getting messages on Twitter, getting offended, and writing patronising articles about it. If you choose to use that cesspool of a site, then you ARE asking for it.

mirimir 10y ago

OK, but as director of whatever, perhaps one shouldn't be tweeting controversially. And if one is tweeting controversially, perhaps as part of one's job, then one ought to practice good OpSec. This isn't a new issue: http://www.learnliberty.org/blog/anonymity-and-doxing-in-the-1787-ratification-debates/ http://www.learnliberty.org/blog/anonymity-and-doxing-in-the...

milesrout 10y ago
Yeah I don't really understand why people want to be anonymous on the internet - and if you don't want people to have your personal information against you, then you do want to be anonymous - but hate the idea that anyone else is anonymous.
- mirimir 10y ago
  Huh? You don't understand why people want anonymity? Or at least, pseudonymity?
  - milesrout 10y ago
    No, I don't understand why people want anonymity while also demanding that people can't anonymously send them messages on a public platform the entire point of which is the sending of messages. People want to be anonymous, but don't want just anyone to be able to send them messages. Okay, so who can send you messages? Who can post things you can see? What is your solution to this?
    - duckMuppet 10y ago
      I guess I misinterpreted your comment as well.
  - duckMuppet 10y ago
    No he is pointing out irony. He is saying that a lot of people feel like they should be anonymous, but that others, fit whatever reason shouldn't be allowed to. Celebrities, pundits etc. It's akin to celebs complaining about gun control, stating they hate guns and would never have one themselves, as they are guarded by several armed body guards.
inopinatus 10y ago
You've conflated "controversial" with "attracting harassment", which I perceive as pretty much in line with your earlier defence of victim blaming. This is something I reject outright as simply another angle chilling the speech of the victims of online harassment, instead of attenuating the bullies. I'm responsible for my own OpSec, but we both know that public registries have their own vulnerabilities. Again, I think I detect a misattribution of responsibility. Nevertheless that was a single example, not the entirety of the means by which personal information can be gleaned by the unscrupulous. My counter-position is that it is essential for we who have influence over systems design and policy to avoid unintended negative social consequences in the services we build.
- mirimir 10y ago
  If you want walled gardens, by all means build walled gardens. But don't imagine that you can prevent people from using other services. And talking about you.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- milesrout 10y ago
  Again, you can sit around here complaining about 'victim blaming' all you want, but you aren't actually providing any real solutions. Thus you're just wasting everyone's time by doing so, including your own. It doesn't fucking matter whether it's victim blaming. Victim blaming is irrelevant. Being sent rude messages on the internet is a minor wrong, and so nobody is actually in any serious way a victim, and they do deserve to be blamed if they reveal their address or phone number or something on the internet, that's blatantly foolish and everyone has said that it is foolish and not to do it for decades. The reality is that the internet is not a one-way medium. Long gone are the days where you can just send and never receive. Well, that isn't even true, because you can send and never receive. What you can't do is take the 'send and never receive' attitude of old and try to apply it while also receiving. You can't pick and choose what messages you get. You can't, and you shouldn't try to. It's a loser's game. You will never succeed, thank the lord. Because there are those of us out there who don't want to have everything filtered and controlled by some algorithm that decides what is rude or not, and that's the reality of how Twitter or Facebook would be censored: the same algorithms that are used as justification for racial profiling and which produced the lovely Taylor Swift twitter bot that Microsoft had (which started spouting feminist propaganda as soon as they removed its learning abilities, I should add) would be used to censor Twitter and Facebook. If people's information is gleaned from whois records or whatever, then yes obviously that's terrible. If you go out of your way to protect your own privacy - or just don't foolishly reveal it to the world - and then it gets out anyway, obviously that's a bad thing and it's not your fault. What we're talking about are the people that use sites like Twitter, and then get upset when someone sends them a rude message on Twitter. We're not even talking about physical hate mail here people. We're talking about literally people getting messages on Twitter, getting offended, and writing patronising articles about it. If you choose to use that cesspool of a site, then you ARE asking for it.