CNN Doxxes a gif maker

[phiwum]

Sure, but if Trump picked a troll at random, then it's still a random troll, and the fact that that specific troll was unlikely to be picked randomly doesn't matter after the fact. If you roll a 1,000,000 sided die, whatever it lands on will be very unlikely, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a random roll.

Yes, good point and totally on-topic and everything. Not at all a dull, pedantic digression based on perfectly common, informal uses of the word "random".

And besides, maybe that's how Trump chose this particular meme. Honestly, great point, Zig! So chock full of insight that you can barely smell the sad desperation to change the topic.

 

[phiwum]

No.



I don't know. You're the one who brought it up.



Why are you repeating my question back to me?



To what are you referring?

The poor guy seems to have honestly forgotten which side he was arguing on.

Honestly, short-term memory loss may go a long way in explaining why some people defend Trump.

 

[NoahFence]

The poor guy seems to have honestly forgotten which side he was arguing on.

Honestly, short-term memory loss may go a long way in explaining why some people defend Trump.

Well, that and head injury, permanent state of drunkenness, lack of education and critical thinking skills, hate, etc..etc....

 

[Belz...]

I think the conservative trolls on the internet don't like this because they would like to stay anonymous as well.

I think in general, anonymity is good. No need to let insane people know where you live so they can come and beat you up for a disagreement.

 

[jadebox]

Sounds to me like HAS & KFILE talked things out and came to an agreement. Who are we to second guess them at this point?

I think that all CNN was saying is that if HAS's identity becomes newsworthy for whatever reason, they reserve the right to report it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, good point and totally on-topic and everything. Not at all a dull, pedantic digression based on perfectly common, informal uses of the word "random".

And besides, maybe that's how Trump chose this particular meme. Honestly, great point, Zig! So chock full of insight that you can barely smell the sad desperation to change the topic.

If people wouldn't make baseless claims that elementary knowledge would disprove, I wouldn't have to point out that elementary knowledge. But go on and whine about the unfairness of simple facts and logic, if it makes you feel any better.

 

[johnny karate]

Which was of course done in the very post to which you were replying.... With a link...

Hmmm......

It was the previous post in which that wasn't done that was being discussed.

 

[The Big Dog]

It was the previous post in which that wasn't done that was being discussed.

'k

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

2) CNN has a legal right to publish his actual name.

I wonder if they do and, even if they do, is it completely unfettered right? No possibility that they could be sued for doing damage to someone by doing so? And is it a good thing, even if legal?

BTW who else has this legal right that you claim CNN has? Does everyone have the right to dox anyone they like?

 

[uke2se]

I wonder if they do and, even if they do, is it completely unfettered right? No possibility that they could be sued for doing damage to someone by doing so? And is it a good thing, even if legal?

BTW who else has this legal right that you claim CNN has? Does everyone have the right to dox anyone they like?

Yes, you do. You are providing non-secret information. The crime that can come up in a doxxing case would be where the information came from. In this case, it came from journalism combined with the fact that the guy called up CNN and said who he was.

When it comes to media disclosing the name of a person, there is an ethics question of how news-worthy such a publication would be - as in, is it in the public interest to disclose the name of this person? Ethical media companies would have a fairly high standard, while un-ethical ones might have little or no such standard. It's not a question of legality tho.

 

[johnny karate]

I wonder if they do and, even if they do, is it completely unfettered right? No possibility that they could be sued for doing damage to someone by doing so? And is it a good thing, even if legal?

BTW who else has this legal right that you claim CNN has? Does everyone have the right to dox anyone they like?

A component to doxing that seems to have been conveniently overlooked by those throwing the term around is that it is usually done with malicious intent, i.e. for purposes of harassment.

You know, like this.

A media outlet publishing the publicly available identity of someone involved in a news story not only doesn't entail malicious intent, it's actually a common practice.

And then of course there's the fact that CNN didn't actually publish this guy's name...

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I wonder if they do and, even if they do, is it completely unfettered right? No possibility that they could be sued for doing damage to someone by doing so? And is it a good thing, even if legal?

BTW who else has this legal right that you claim CNN has? Does everyone have the right to dox anyone they like?

After posting his apology, "HanA**holeSolo" called CNN's KFile and confirmed his identity.

But you have some "concerns" that CNN publishing his name would be against the law for some reason ?

Or maybe you are "Just Asking Questions" ....

Have you actually read the article ? Do you even know what happened ?

 

[johnny karate]

Yes, you do. You are providing non-secret information. The crime that can come up in a doxxing case would be where the information came from. In this case, it came from journalism combined with the fact that the guy called up CNN and said who he was.

Here's a tip for people who can't quite grasp this concept: If you want to retain your anonymity, don't put your identity online where people can find it.

 

[d4m10n]

I wonder if they do and, even if they do, is it completely unfettered right? No possibility that they could be sued for doing damage to someone by doing so?

It is indeed possible to get sued for public disclosure of private facts. Take, for example, the new civil suit against the Trump campaign and Roger Stone:

187. Defendants and their co-conspirators knew, were plainly indifferent to the fact, or consciously disregarded the foreseeable risk that the hacked DNC emails contained private facts, in which the public has no legitimate concern, about Plaintiffs and other individuals similarly situated...

188. In furtherance of the conspiracy, one or more conspirators published on the Internet hacked DNC emails containing private facts about Plaintiffs and others, including information regarding sexual orientation, personal health matters, social security numbers, credit cards, personal relationships, banking relationships, home addresses, and telephone numbers.

Of course, this is much more sensitive and personal information than one's real name. It is doubtful whether a news organization could be successfully sued for releasing that information, in and of itself, barring exceptional personal circumstances such as outing undercover agents or spies.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Shalamar]

I wonder if they do and, even if they do, is it completely unfettered right? No possibility that they could be sued for doing damage to someone by doing so? And is it a good thing, even if legal?

BTW who else has this legal right that you claim CNN has? Does everyone have the right to dox anyone they like?

A lot of personal information is publicly available. Putting that information out for everyone to easily see may be legal, but not necessarily ethical. This is pretty much what many people are saying about CNN. They handled the incident, ahh, rather poorly, to put it mildly, and probably shouldn't have done what they did. But they did not doxx HAS. But they sure threatened.

CNN exercised it's free speech, and are paying the consequences for it. Much in the same way that HAS could.

 

[d4m10n]

Oddly enough, only CNN and their employees are paying any consequences.

HAS gets off pretty much scot-free, despite all the hand-wringing upthread.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Here's a tip for people who can't quite grasp this concept: If you want to retain your anonymity, don't put your identity online where people can find it.

And don't leave your keys in the car if don't want you car stolen.

 

[NoahFence]

Oddly enough, only CNN and their employees are paying any consequences.

HAS gets off pretty much scot-free, despite all the hand-wringing upthread.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

How can that be??

He got doxxed!

 

[uke2se]

And don't leave your keys in the car if don't want you car stolen.

Stealing a car is a crime.

 

[johnny karate]

And don't leave your keys in the car if don't want you car stolen.

More like, don't tell people they can take your car if you don't want people to take your car.