CNN Doxxes a gif maker

[BobTheCoward]

The whole point of doxxing is to release the victims name and personal info.

That did not happen. Ergo, you're wrong, TBD.

Hilariously, consistently wrong.

He posted good, legitimate sources that argued otherwise.

 

[The Big Dog]

The whole point of doxxing is to release the victims name and personal info.

That did not happen. Ergo, you're wrong, TBD.

Hilariously, consistently wrong.

I and Wired Magazine flatly disagree

the whole point of doxxing is to obtain personal information and to use it for nefarious purposes. Typically that involves public exposure, but not always, particularly where not exposing it is more valuable, including extortion.

here is a link supporting my position.

https://www.wired.com/2014/03/doxing/

A polite response, laying out a well reasoned argument, supported by an authoritative and objective third party source.

 

[d4m10n]

What exactly are CNN's nefarious purposes here?

 

[Shalamar]

What exactly are CNN's nefarious purposes here?

Evil leftism. Or something. Apparently being evil by not disclosing HAS name, while they are doxxed themselves, which is good because 'fake news'.

 

[Elagabalus]

What exactly are CNN's nefarious purposes here?

To squelch the little guy with its industrial million-ton-press of Corporate Think™!

 

[The Big Dog]

To squelch the little guy with its industrial million-ton-press of Corporate Think™!

you exaggerate, but in essence that is exactly what happened.

Hey we are CNN and we know who you are, and if you post something that is perfectly legal but we think is unacceptable, we reserve the right to expose you.

Despicable.

 

[NoahFence]

Meanwhile the president doxxing over a hundred letter writers, just fine.

Save the fake tears for another Hillary email revelation or the next benghazi hearing. There should be another on the way soon, right?

 

[The Big Dog]

Meanwhile the president doxxing over a hundred letter writers, just fine.

Save the fake tears for another Hillary email revelation or the next benghazi hearing. There should be another on the way soon, right?

wow, that has got to be a new record for changing the subject!

NF: you are "Hilariously, consistently wrong."
TBD: "A polite response, laying out a well reasoned argument, supported by an authoritative and objective third party source."
NF: B-bu-but Trump! Benghazi!

 

[Foolmewunz]

you exaggerate, but in essence that is exactly what happened.

Hey we are CNN and we know who you are, and if you post something that is perfectly legal but we think is unacceptable, we reserve the right to expose you.

Despicable.

Despicable? To quote a semi-recent movie, "Your moral compass is so skewed I'm not sure you can find your way to the parking lot." Not outing, but merely threatening to, a swill spewing bigot is despicable?

Despicable, where I come from, is bigots spreading their poison from behind a mask of anonymity. What CNN done wrong, here, was to NOT complete the play. They should have published his name and location.

The issue here is not "meme creator needs to be outed". It is "President's source of childish video turns out to be anti-semite scumbag coward who has not the courage of his convictions."

His apology rates with those that you hear at sentencing hearings. "Sniff! I'm so sorry. Sob!" What they mean is "Gee, I wish I hadn't been caught at this. Now I don't want to put on my big boy pants and pay the piper, so gosh, you could like let me off with a warning, right?"

 

[mgidm86]

Meanwhile the president doxxing over a hundred letter writers, just fine.

Save the fake tears for another Hillary email revelation or the next benghazi hearing. There should be another on the way soon, right?

Is this in reference to the election fraud emails that were solicited and published by the government? If so, it is common for the White House to publish such emails, complete with all contact information. This was pointed out to me in another thread. There are plenty of PDF files online to search through.

 

[NoahFence]

So do we figure out this poor blokes name before we find out who Eric Hoteham is?

 

[The Big Dog]

Despicable? To quote a semi-recent movie, "Your moral compass is so skewed I'm not sure you can find your way to the parking lot." Not outing, but merely threatening to, a swill spewing bigot is despicable?

Despicable, where I come from, is bigots spreading their poison from behind a mask of anonymity. What CNN done wrong, here, was to NOT complete the play. They should have published his name and location.

The issue here is not "meme creator needs to be outed". It is "President's source of childish video turns out to be anti-semite scumbag coward who has not the courage of his convictions."

His apology rates with those that you hear at sentencing hearings. "Sniff! I'm so sorry. Sob!" What they mean is "Gee, I wish I hadn't been caught at this. Now I don't want to put on my big boy pants and pay the piper, so gosh, you could like let me off with a warning, right?"

cnn, judge jury and executioner

 

[Foolmewunz]

So do we figure out this poor blokes name before we find out who Eric Hoteham is?

Ix-nay! HAS is Hoteham. Perhaps this is why a certain large canine is so concerned. (Just sayin', ya know.)

 

[d4m10n]

cnn, judge jury and executioner

Now that you mention it, having your real name published is an awful lot like the electric chair.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[The Big Dog]

Ix-nay! HAS is Hoteham. Perhaps this is why a certain large canine is so concerned. (Just sayin', ya know.)

i guess you are playing dodge too?

 

[Foolmewunz]

i guess you are playing dodge too?

Not in the least. You didn't bother to respond, but I summed up the thoughts of a couple of us.

1. It ain't doxxing, regardless of what you, some columnist on a netzine and the ever-apologetic Ziggurat think.

2. I couldn't give a rat's ass if they did dox him. In fact, I am pissed at CNN for not doing so.

You're trying to "convict" CNN of a crime that is only a crime in the minds of web warriors and other assorted cowards at Reddit and 4Chan. I think their crime is in being irresponsible and selling out to his crocodile tears apology.

 

[uke2se]

Not in the least. You didn't bother to respond, but I summed up the thoughts of a couple of us.

1. It ain't doxxing, regardless of what you, some columnist on a netzine and the ever-apologetic Ziggurat think.

2. I couldn't give a rat's ass if they did dox him. In fact, I am pissed at CNN for not doing so.

You're trying to "convict" CNN of a crime that is only a crime in the minds of web warriors and other assorted cowards at Reddit and 4Chan. I think their crime is in being irresponsible and selling out to his crocodile tears apology.

Pretty much this. Not to mention the fact that his identity was newsworthy. He's the source of a presidential tweet. The public deserves to know who he is.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Evil leftism. Or something. Apparently being evil by not disclosing HAS name, while they are doxxed themselves, which is good because 'fake news'.

It's almost as if some people here would cry foul if someone snatched the hood off of a klan member during a cross burning event.

 

[Belz...]

you are, I just gave you two cites... which you curiously deleted...

curiously.

The "cites" you keep talking about do not support your claim. The wiki link you provided, for instance, specificaly says that doxxing involves the broadcasting of the hacked or obtained information.

As for the second cite, why would you need it if I've already said you are possibly right about extortion? It wouldn't be because you're knee-jerk assuming that I'm disagreeing with every breath you take, would it?

 

[Belz...]

I and Wired Magazine flatly disagree

the whole point of doxxing is to obtain personal information and to use it for nefarious purposes. Typically that involves public exposure, but not always, particularly where not exposing it is more valuable, including extortion.

here is a link supporting my position.

https://www.wired.com/2014/03/doxing/

A polite response, laying out a well reasoned argument, supported by an authoritative and objective third party source.

Who gives a **** about Wired magazine?