3 ms·

Let's keep in mind that doxxing is not a universal concept nor are its mechanisms universally perceived as negative/frowned upon outside of specific online area

Let's keep in mind that doxxing is not a universal concept nor are its mechanisms universally perceived as negative/frowned upon outside of specific online areas. I don't know of any law against it except for specific populations like law enforcement and even those usually have exceptions for journalism.

worthless-trash 7mo ago
I believe it widely understood to be what most people call "a douche move".
- prmoustache 7mo ago
  Widely only in limited — mostly english speaking — online communities. Otherwise most people hate it if it is likely to harm someone considered as an innocent individual but less if that figure is already kind of public — people love to know where and all the details on how famous people live — or to people they view more negatively. For instance nobody complains when the real owner, origin and location of say, a shady company, is made known to the general public. So the real truth is "it depends". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - worthless-trash 7mo ago
    I feel like the answer is way more cut and dry, but people dont like that.
apelapan 7mo ago
Yeah, as a Scandinavian it is often hard to understand how people can feel that their existence is a secret. We've had public and fairly rich (family relations, profession) census data for hundreds of years. Tax records, school grades, property ownership. All of it public information available to and for everyone. The right to privacy here never meant "noone may know that I exist".
incompatible 7mo ago
Australia has a law against "menacing or harassing" doxxing. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr7249_aspassed%2F0003%22 https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.... (nice permalink URL guys.)
- prmoustache 7mo ago
  Good find. I don't think that NYT article would fall into the scope of the law. This is really adressed towards kiwifarms level of doxxing.

worthless-trash 7mo ago

I believe it widely understood to be what most people call "a douche move".

prmoustache 7mo ago
Widely only in limited — mostly english speaking — online communities. Otherwise most people hate it if it is likely to harm someone considered as an innocent individual but less if that figure is already kind of public — people love to know where and all the details on how famous people live — or to people they view more negatively. For instance nobody complains when the real owner, origin and location of say, a shady company, is made known to the general public. So the real truth is "it depends". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- worthless-trash 7mo ago
  I feel like the answer is way more cut and dry, but people dont like that.

apelapan 7mo ago

Yeah, as a Scandinavian it is often hard to understand how people can feel that their existence is a secret. We've had public and fairly rich (family relations, profession) census data for hundreds of years. Tax records, school grades, property ownership. All of it public information available to and for everyone. The right to privacy here never meant "noone may know that I exist".

incompatible 7mo ago

Australia has a law against "menacing or harassing" doxxing. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr7249_aspassed%2F0003%22 https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.... (nice permalink URL guys.)

prmoustache 7mo ago
Good find. I don't think that NYT article would fall into the scope of the law. This is really adressed towards kiwifarms level of doxxing.