3 ms·

The site in question (locatefamily.com) is known for scraping public information. I'm very doubtful anyone did anything wrong here, tough it is questionable dat

by consp 8y ago

The site in question (locatefamily.com) is known for scraping public information. I'm very doubtful anyone did anything wrong here, tough it is questionable data to say the least. Morally questionable maybe, though I'm going full circle and going to say scamming is as well. edit: The name was posted in public whois info. That basically means you handed out your data to the public anyway. Everyone on this forum would be able to acquire the location from the information he found.

prepend 8y ago
It’s amazing how many people don’t know how to use whois. Most doxxing I’ve witnessed comes from public info. The linking together of this info and promoting it is what creates more danger. Since I assume most swatters are 12 year olds, that means they are less likely to know that Whois exists, therefore more likely to have the info because this author posted it.
- consp 8y ago
  I completely agree with you on that. So it remains more questionable than good, though I do not think the '12 year old swatters' will click beyond the main article (from last year's rtl.nl website which did not contain info if i remember correctly) and go to the more detailed page described in OP.
topoftheforts 8y ago
That's not a justification at all. Just to give you an example: UK company addresses are open to the public, and easily accessible through the government website. Many UK internet personalities have set up a company, and for many of them it's their house address (cause either they don't know about the register or they don't care enough). Would it be ok for me to make a blog post with their home address on it, just because it's publicly available? I don't think so, even if they did something scammy.
- consp 8y ago
  Original text removed as I already stated below it was wrong but people keep complaining. Apparently it is illegal since the start of this year (in the Netherlands, as it is where the article is from) since may 2018 as the new AVG went into effect and it is considered personal data which requires approval for publishing.
  - dspillett 8y ago
    > I'm going to post a comment that will get down voted immediately ... because it is wrong. > but yes. Unless you are exiting violence or defamation is your goal. What other goals would you have though? To cause embarrassment or inconvenience would count as harassment or bullying which are not legal in most jurisdictions. What good reasons can you think of for publishing an individuals address without their permission? It being able to be found elsewhere adequate justification: if it is that easy to find then what is your reason for republishing? With regard to your edit (that happened while I was typing), legal concerns aside are there any morally justifiable reasons that spring to mind?

by consp 8y ago

prepend 8y ago

It’s amazing how many people don’t know how to use whois. Most doxxing I’ve witnessed comes from public info. The linking together of this info and promoting it is what creates more danger. Since I assume most swatters are 12 year olds, that means they are less likely to know that Whois exists, therefore more likely to have the info because this author posted it.

consp 8y ago
I completely agree with you on that. So it remains more questionable than good, though I do not think the '12 year old swatters' will click beyond the main article (from last year's rtl.nl website which did not contain info if i remember correctly) and go to the more detailed page described in OP.

topoftheforts 8y ago

That's not a justification at all. Just to give you an example: UK company addresses are open to the public, and easily accessible through the government website. Many UK internet personalities have set up a company, and for many of them it's their house address (cause either they don't know about the register or they don't care enough). Would it be ok for me to make a blog post with their home address on it, just because it's publicly available? I don't think so, even if they did something scammy.

consp 8y ago
Original text removed as I already stated below it was wrong but people keep complaining. Apparently it is illegal since the start of this year (in the Netherlands, as it is where the article is from) since may 2018 as the new AVG went into effect and it is considered personal data which requires approval for publishing.
- dspillett 8y ago
  > I'm going to post a comment that will get down voted immediately ... because it is wrong. > but yes. Unless you are exiting violence or defamation is your goal. What other goals would you have though? To cause embarrassment or inconvenience would count as harassment or bullying which are not legal in most jurisdictions. What good reasons can you think of for publishing an individuals address without their permission? It being able to be found elsewhere adequate justification: if it is that easy to find then what is your reason for republishing? With regard to your edit (that happened while I was typing), legal concerns aside are there any morally justifiable reasons that spring to mind?