4 ms·

Doxxing in individual, with proof of intent to harass, should be a federal crime.

retox 3y ago
>with proof of intent to harass It would/should be very difficult to prove. A scenario; there is already a conversation online about how someone is an asshole and I link a publicly available page that has their address and phone numbers, no other message content. Is that prosecutable? Laws that try to read peoples minds (intent) are always abused and rarely just.
- otterley 3y ago
  The intent element of a crime is rarely proved through direct evidence. Of course nobody can read minds. So circumstantial evidence is typically used instead - i.e., what else was going on when the criminal act was performed.
bsder 3y ago
Doxxing that results in harassment should be a federal crime--intent not required. Harassment, by itself, also needs to start being taken far more seriously. These should be similar to wiretap laws or photo credits. And they should have a massive fines behind them. This is especially true if it costs someone their job when what they were doing is legal--both employer and harasser should get big fines. The Internet makes things too asymmetric--the weak need protection and the guilty get away with it because it isn't worth prosecuting.
- porkbeer 3y ago
  The issue is most doxxing is just 'revealing' already public information. I will stick with freedom of speech and not acting in a way that doxxing would matter. I also denounce, publicly, the current actions of israel. See how easy that is?
  - bsder 3y ago
    And when a thousand people who disagree with your position start harassing your employer to fire you, what then?
rufus_foreman 3y ago
If "doxxing" means stating, correctly, that a certain student was a member of an organization at the time that organization signed a particular public statement, then no, doxxing an individual should not be any sort of crime, doxxing an individual under that definition is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Should ProPublica be able to doxx wealthy individuals by publishing their tax returns? Of course they should, that's called freedom of the press. And I hate ProPublica. The person that gave them the returns is going to prison, as they should, but publishing that information is called freedom of the press. Even if ProPublica's intent is to harass wealthy individuals, which I believe it certainly is.
- reaperman 3y ago
  What do you hate about ProPublica? I thought they did a great job with the available data for their series on chemical releases causing cancer in certain industrial areas[0]. The data available to them is not enough: it's mostly voluntary written release reports combined with weather models to predict gas diffusion patterns, rather than real physical measurements in neighborhoods -- we don't have any gas monitoring so they did as much as anyone could instead. 0: https://projects.propublica.org/toxmap/ https://projects.propublica.org/toxmap/
jbverschoor 3y ago
It is in the Netherlands, but only after they doxxed someone in the government.

>with proof of intent to harass It would/should be very difficult to prove. A scenario; there is already a conversation online about how someone is an asshole and I link a publicly available page that has their address and phone numbers, no other message content. Is that prosecutable? Laws that try to read peoples minds (intent) are always abused and rarely just.

otterley 3y ago
The intent element of a crime is rarely proved through direct evidence. Of course nobody can read minds. So circumstantial evidence is typically used instead - i.e., what else was going on when the criminal act was performed.

bsder 3y ago

Doxxing that results in harassment should be a federal crime--intent not required. Harassment, by itself, also needs to start being taken far more seriously. These should be similar to wiretap laws or photo credits. And they should have a massive fines behind them. This is especially true if it costs someone their job when what they were doing is legal--both employer and harasser should get big fines. The Internet makes things too asymmetric--the weak need protection and the guilty get away with it because it isn't worth prosecuting.

porkbeer 3y ago
The issue is most doxxing is just 'revealing' already public information. I will stick with freedom of speech and not acting in a way that doxxing would matter. I also denounce, publicly, the current actions of israel. See how easy that is?
- bsder 3y ago
  And when a thousand people who disagree with your position start harassing your employer to fire you, what then?

rufus_foreman 3y ago

If "doxxing" means stating, correctly, that a certain student was a member of an organization at the time that organization signed a particular public statement, then no, doxxing an individual should not be any sort of crime, doxxing an individual under that definition is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Should ProPublica be able to doxx wealthy individuals by publishing their tax returns? Of course they should, that's called freedom of the press. And I hate ProPublica. The person that gave them the returns is going to prison, as they should, but publishing that information is called freedom of the press. Even if ProPublica's intent is to harass wealthy individuals, which I believe it certainly is.

reaperman 3y ago
What do you hate about ProPublica? I thought they did a great job with the available data for their series on chemical releases causing cancer in certain industrial areas[0]. The data available to them is not enough: it's mostly voluntary written release reports combined with weather models to predict gas diffusion patterns, rather than real physical measurements in neighborhoods -- we don't have any gas monitoring so they did as much as anyone could instead. 0: https://projects.propublica.org/toxmap/ https://projects.propublica.org/toxmap/

jbverschoor 3y ago

It is in the Netherlands, but only after they doxxed someone in the government.