4 ms·

I think you're reading a lot more into my comment than I wrote. It's not "vigilante justice" to ban known scammers and circulate blacklists of them. It's how ou

I think you're reading a lot more into my comment than I wrote. It's not "vigilante justice" to ban known scammers and circulate blacklists of them. It's how our community functions.

jsjohnst 9y ago
> dox the perpetrator to kingdom come, in hopes that law enforcement and social reputation can make an example of of them. Is a hell of a lot closer to "vigilante justice" than the version you just said. Had you made the sane posting first (or not pretended you did the second time) I wouldn't have said anything and just upvoted in agreement.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  Which part of the statement implied "vilgilate justice." The part with the law enforcement or the "social reputation" part that is exactly the words game theory uses when discussing bad actor in a problem. Just so I can modify my words to avoid future misunderstanding.
  - jsjohnst 9y ago
    > dox the perpetrator to kingdom come I can't believe it wasn't obvious, but that's the part which implies vigilante justice. From Wikipedia[0]: A vigilante is a civilian or organization acting in a law enforcement capacity (or in the pursuit of self-perceived justice) without legal authority. Doxing has a very specific meaning and it directly implies taking matters into your own hands, aka vigilante. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante
    - KirinDave 9y ago
      Doxxing means sharing people's relevant personal details that you gained without the targets consent. In the case of malicious scammers, doxxing them so they can be cut off from other code repositories seems less like "vigilante justice" and more like "a public responsibility."
nullstyle 9y ago
I can't reply directly, but in another subtree you asked: > Which part of the statement implied "vilgilate justice." To put my own 2 cents in: Doxxing someone is generally considered an attack, at least in some internet circles. It's pretty vigilante if you ask me, especially when we've seen some pretty striking examples of doxxing gone wrong in the past.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  If you connect to my resources and use my systems to hurt other people, you don't really have an ethical leg to stand on if I share what details about you I have with law enforcement and other service providers. It's absolutely an attack, but it's an "attack" of a kind that is acting to end misuse and widespread tampering. It's difficult to imagine a coherent ethical system that gives the author of malicious software an expectation of privacy as they attack other people, violating similar rights.
  - nullstyle 9y ago
    Doxxing in my experience implies publishing their info publicly. That's certainly what I thought you were saying. I'm fine sharing with law enforcement, but sharing with other service providers seems to be a slippery slope. I imagine a dev losing access to their github account because they used a shitty password on their npm account and got compromised. That would suck. I'd much rather we invent a better UI for dealing with software dependencies, but alas.
  - unkown-unknowns 9y ago
    Like sibling says, doxxing implies that you'll post their personal info online. The problem does not lie in attacking bad people, the problem is that there is a high risk that you THINK you've identified who the bad actor is but actually the person you decide to "retaliate" against had nothing to do with what was done to you. That's why we leave law enforcement to the law enforcement officials and justice to the justice system. Even they make a lot of mistakes but at least there is a process that gives a chance for the truth to be found. But sharing info about a suspect with law enforcement is what you should do yes.

I think you're reading a lot more into my comment than I wrote. It's not "vigilante justice" to ban known scammers and circulate blacklists of them. It's how our community functions.

jsjohnst 9y ago

> dox the perpetrator to kingdom come, in hopes that law enforcement and social reputation can make an example of of them. Is a hell of a lot closer to "vigilante justice" than the version you just said. Had you made the sane posting first (or not pretended you did the second time) I wouldn't have said anything and just upvoted in agreement.

KirinDave 9y ago
Which part of the statement implied "vilgilate justice." The part with the law enforcement or the "social reputation" part that is exactly the words game theory uses when discussing bad actor in a problem. Just so I can modify my words to avoid future misunderstanding.
- jsjohnst 9y ago
  > dox the perpetrator to kingdom come I can't believe it wasn't obvious, but that's the part which implies vigilante justice. From Wikipedia[0]: A vigilante is a civilian or organization acting in a law enforcement capacity (or in the pursuit of self-perceived justice) without legal authority. Doxing has a very specific meaning and it directly implies taking matters into your own hands, aka vigilante. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    Doxxing means sharing people's relevant personal details that you gained without the targets consent. In the case of malicious scammers, doxxing them so they can be cut off from other code repositories seems less like "vigilante justice" and more like "a public responsibility."

nullstyle 9y ago

I can't reply directly, but in another subtree you asked: > Which part of the statement implied "vilgilate justice." To put my own 2 cents in: Doxxing someone is generally considered an attack, at least in some internet circles. It's pretty vigilante if you ask me, especially when we've seen some pretty striking examples of doxxing gone wrong in the past.

KirinDave 9y ago
If you connect to my resources and use my systems to hurt other people, you don't really have an ethical leg to stand on if I share what details about you I have with law enforcement and other service providers. It's absolutely an attack, but it's an "attack" of a kind that is acting to end misuse and widespread tampering. It's difficult to imagine a coherent ethical system that gives the author of malicious software an expectation of privacy as they attack other people, violating similar rights.
- nullstyle 9y ago
  Doxxing in my experience implies publishing their info publicly. That's certainly what I thought you were saying. I'm fine sharing with law enforcement, but sharing with other service providers seems to be a slippery slope. I imagine a dev losing access to their github account because they used a shitty password on their npm account and got compromised. That would suck. I'd much rather we invent a better UI for dealing with software dependencies, but alas.
- unkown-unknowns 9y ago
  Like sibling says, doxxing implies that you'll post their personal info online. The problem does not lie in attacking bad people, the problem is that there is a high risk that you THINK you've identified who the bad actor is but actually the person you decide to "retaliate" against had nothing to do with what was done to you. That's why we leave law enforcement to the law enforcement officials and justice to the justice system. Even they make a lot of mistakes but at least there is a process that gives a chance for the truth to be found. But sharing info about a suspect with law enforcement is what you should do yes.