3 ms·

I haven't been able to think of a middle ground but there seems like there should be between "I can get rid of embarrassing things as a public official or celeb

I haven't been able to think of a middle ground but there seems like there should be between "I can get rid of embarrassing things as a public official or celebrity on the internet" and "I rather not have websites like mylife.com, doxing me by posting my home address, contact information and personal history without any recourse." Curious if HN has any ideas how to approach that issue?

swebs 8y ago
>doxing me by posting my home address, contact information and personal history without any recourse Why should that information be protected in the first place? It's not much different than a phone book. Your full name, address, phone number, etc are all linked to your identity. Once someone has one, it becomes nearly impossible to stop them from getting the others. The problem with doxxing is that it usually comes with a threat of violence from ideological opponents. I think what many people should be fighting for is the right to anonymity. For your identity to never be revealed in the first place. Free speech can't truly be expressed if having the "wrong" opinion leads to some wingnut smashing your head with a bike lock.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- conception 8y ago
  I feel like your second point answers your first. The difference between information sharing in the past and today is obviously the problem of scale. Looking up your neighborhood used to be useful and small chance of people bike locking you. Now, the scale has increased a thousand fold. What was .01% of a crazy hunting you down maybe is 1%? 10%? Maybe a right to anonymity with the efficiency losses you get there is worth it? Tough issue.
- derefr 8y ago
  You're assuming that people know your (true) identity, rather than only knowing a false identity you've created for your public persona.
travisoneill1 8y ago
These doxing sites don't actually allow anything new, they just aggregate and automate public records searches. It just didn't cause problems because the inconvenience was too high of a barrier for most people without a compelling interest (like a potential employer) to cross. The law is not good at handling this type of situation. It would be hard to have a law saying that this data has to be public and open, but not re-publishable and it has to be inconvenient to access. I don't really know a good solution to that. And why should a celebrities and public officials have different standards? Either it's fair to judge someone by a certain past action or it isn't.
- conception 8y ago
  People who move into the public eye generally are held to a different standard of anonymity, which is why I separated them. And yes, the issue isn't that it's new, it (like many internet social issues) is scale. A few bad actors locally to now thousands world-wide.

swebs 8y ago

>doxing me by posting my home address, contact information and personal history without any recourse Why should that information be protected in the first place? It's not much different than a phone book. Your full name, address, phone number, etc are all linked to your identity. Once someone has one, it becomes nearly impossible to stop them from getting the others. The problem with doxxing is that it usually comes with a threat of violence from ideological opponents. I think what many people should be fighting for is the right to anonymity. For your identity to never be revealed in the first place. Free speech can't truly be expressed if having the "wrong" opinion leads to some wingnut smashing your head with a bike lock.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
conception 8y ago
I feel like your second point answers your first. The difference between information sharing in the past and today is obviously the problem of scale. Looking up your neighborhood used to be useful and small chance of people bike locking you. Now, the scale has increased a thousand fold. What was .01% of a crazy hunting you down maybe is 1%? 10%? Maybe a right to anonymity with the efficiency losses you get there is worth it? Tough issue.
derefr 8y ago
You're assuming that people know your (true) identity, rather than only knowing a false identity you've created for your public persona.

travisoneill1 8y ago

These doxing sites don't actually allow anything new, they just aggregate and automate public records searches. It just didn't cause problems because the inconvenience was too high of a barrier for most people without a compelling interest (like a potential employer) to cross. The law is not good at handling this type of situation. It would be hard to have a law saying that this data has to be public and open, but not re-publishable and it has to be inconvenient to access. I don't really know a good solution to that. And why should a celebrities and public officials have different standards? Either it's fair to judge someone by a certain past action or it isn't.

conception 8y ago
People who move into the public eye generally are held to a different standard of anonymity, which is why I separated them. And yes, the issue isn't that it's new, it (like many internet social issues) is scale. A few bad actors locally to now thousands world-wide.