CNN Doxxes a gif maker

[Ziggurat]

Like SWATing? Seriously, what the hell was that about?

I wasn't holding you responsible for SWATing. And if you don't know why I said it, you haven't been paying attention, and there's really no point in continuing this conversation.

 

[d4m10n]

HAS on the ethics of doxing.

Content note: Bit sweary.

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

But by all means, we will take your word for it? That is some NEXT LEVEL irony there folks.

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?

wiki entry: "It is important to note that a hacker may obtain an individual's dox without making the information public."

Cool cherry picking tho

Who gives a **** about Wired magazine?

Oh dear....

 

[NoahFence]

wiki entry: "It is important to note that a hacker may obtain an individual's dox without making the information public."

Yes, that's 1/2 the equation.

If you want to take this new obsession seriously, then you need to acknowledge that in order to dox someone you also need to release the information. Right now all you have to bitch about is the threat of doxxing, and the knowledge that CNN has the proven ability to do it.

They need to release his information as well as gather his information. They've only done 1/2.

Capice?

 

[Ziggurat]

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

This is an odd comment, since I never said that CNN doxxed anyone.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, that's 1/2 the equation.

If you want to take this new obsession seriously, then you need to acknowledge that in order to dox someone you also need to release the information. Right now all you have to bitch about is the threat of doxxing, and the knowledge that CNN has the proven ability to do it.

They need to release his information as well as gather his information. They've only done 1/2.

Capice?

lol wut?

Is this for real? lets take a look:

"It is important to note that a hacker may obtain an individual's dox without making the information public."

You say "Yes, that is 1/2 the equation." And THEN go on and say it has to be released? But the quote you just agreed with says the opposite!

"You can also have someone's dox without actually revealing it to the world."

Oh mercy....

 

[Belz...]

wiki entry: "It is important to note that a hacker may obtain an individual's dox without making the information public."

Cool cherry picking tho

It's hilarious that you speak of cherry picking while doing that exact thing yourself.

Oh dear....

That's not an answer.

 

[The Big Dog]

It's hilarious that you speak of cherry picking while doing that exact thing yourself.

That's not an answer.

Citing the specific section of the article upon which I am directly relying is not cherry picking. Although, I am heartened that you have conceded that you where cherry picking.

Your arbitrary rant against Wired is unworthy of answer.

 

[Belz...]

Citing the specific section of the article upon which I am directly relying is not cherry picking.

It is when you're ignoring what's inconvenient. The Wiki article doesn't say that merely obtaining said information constitutes doxxing.

Although, I am heartened that you have conceded that you where cherry picking.

Really? Where have I done this? Do you really believe that failure to issue a denial is tantamount to an admission?

Your arbitrary rant against Wired is unworthy of answer.

You cited them as some sort of authority on the definition of a word. What's your basis for this?

 

[d4m10n]

HAS on the ethics of doxing.

Content note: Bit sweary.

And here is the relevant archive link.

What a piece of work, this guy.

 

[NoahFence]

lol wut?

Is this for real? lets take a look:

"It is important to note that a hacker may obtain an individual's dox without making the information public."

You say "Yes, that is 1/2 the equation." And THEN go on and say it has to be released? But the quote you just agreed with says the opposite!

"You can also have someone's dox without actually revealing it to the world."

Oh mercy....

I can only type with single spaces. You'll have to read slowly for it to sink in I guess.

In order to steal a car, I'd have to break into it, and then drive off with it.

If I break into a car and don't drive off, I'm guilty of breaking into it but not guilty of stealing it.

CNN is guilty of finding this guy's personal information. They are not guilty of releasing it- BOTH OF WHICH need to happen for a guy to get properly "doxxed".

That's just the facts of the situation. Do with them as you will.

 

[The Big Dog]

Really? Where have I done this? Do you really believe that failure to issue a denial is tantamount to an admission?

Bit more than the failure to issue a denial, innit? you accused me (erroneously) of cherry picking for allegedly doing the same exact thing you did. As such, not only did you not deny it, you are hoisted by your petard.

QED

Yes I think Wired is authoritative on internet lingo, I get that you don't like (presumably on the basis that i cited it) but that is the definition I am using.

 

[The Big Dog]

I can only type with single spaces. You'll have to read slowly for it to sink in I guess.

In order to steal a car, I'd have to break into it, and then drive off with it.

If I break into a car and don't drive off, I'm guilty of breaking into it but not guilty of stealing it.

CNN is guilty of finding this guy's personal information. They are not guilty of releasing it- BOTH OF WHICH need to happen for a guy to get properly "doxxed".

That's just the facts of the situation. Do with them as you will.

Stealing a car does not require either breaking into it, nor driving away with it.

The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping, or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft

I will cheerfully concede that you are as well informed about theft as you are of doxxing!

 

[NoahFence]

Wiki.

Jesus *********** christ.

Do you not have the ability to use common *********** sense?

If I break into a car and then leave I've not deprived the owner their rightful posession. I've broken into it. You people and your *********** nit picking is infuriating. And you do it on purpose. USE YOUR BRAIN

If I don't drive off in your car, I didn't steal it.
If I didn't release your personal information, I didn't FULLY dox you.

In both cases I had the ability to do so and chose not to for my own reasons.

Grow the **** up.

 

[Belz...]

Bit more than the failure to issue a denial, innit? you accused me (erroneously) of cherry picking for allegedly doing the same exact thing you did. As such, not only did you not deny it, you are hoisted by your petard.

QED

That makes absolutely no logical sense. I said that you were engaged in the same sort of behaviour you accused me of doing.

Here's what I actually wrote:

It's hilarious that you speak of cherry picking while doing that exact thing yourself.

Emphasis added.

There is nothing in there that requires me to engage in this behaviour, nor that admits to said behaviour.

If that's how you draw logical inferences, it's no wonder you're so often wrong on so many issues.

Yes I think Wired is authoritative on internet lingo

I know you think so. I'm asking you to justify your thoughts with more than just your opinion.

 

[The Big Dog]

Wiki.

Jesus *********** christ.

Do you not have the ability to use common *********** sense?

If I break into a car and then leave I've not deprived the owner their rightful posession. I've broken into it. You people and your *********** nit picking is infuriating. And you do it on purpose. USE YOUR BRAIN

If I don't drive off in your car, I didn't steal it.
If I didn't release your personal information, I didn't FULLY dox you.

In both cases I had the ability to do so and chose not to for my own reasons.

Grow the **** up.

I just explained that one does not to either break into a car and drive it away to be guilty of theft of an automobile. Who else here can think of an example? Lets use an example of "keeping" an object as being theft?

Similarly, I have also just explained again that doxxing does not require the release of private information, one can be guilty of "doxxing" by using the information to take over social media accounts, or here with CNN, using the information to extort promises.

 

[The Big Dog]

I know you think so. I'm asking you to justify your thoughts with more than just your opinion.

Ask all you want, as you can imagine I am not at all impressed with your gainsaying.

I've cited three sources and explained in detail what I meant. Your opinion that Wired or the wiki article or the indictment is not sufficient is really no one's concern but your own.

 

[Belz...]

Ask all you want, as you can imagine I am not at all impressed with your gainsaying.

So we can assume that you have no reason to consider them authoritative aside from the fact that they agree with you, then.

I see you've also given up on your "cherry picking" nonsense now that it's been made clear how much of a fool you've been making of yourself.

 

[The Big Dog]

So we can assume that you have no reason to consider them authoritative aside from the fact that they agree with you, then.

I see you've also given up on your "cherry picking" nonsense now that it's been made clear how much of a fool you've been making of yourself.

Well I have cited three sources, each of which supports my position, of course.

As for the cherry picking? I am most decidedly not a fan of people who routinely break up even the most brief posts and make snarky little comments. I usually pick the first or last and ignore the rest, because that style causes so much mischief and yes cherry picking. Yes that is my little peccadillo, but one that makes all sorts of sense. That being said, you CLEARLY cherry picked the article because you cited a portion while ignoring the statement in the article that contradicts your assertion.

Classic cherry picking, of the most disreputable sort...

 

[Belz...]

That being said, you CLEARLY cherry picked the article because you cited a portion while ignoring the statement in the article that contradicts your assertion.

There is no portion that contradicts my assertion. As noted by myself and others the bit you quoted doesn't say what you think it says. It doesn't say that just getting the information constitutes doxxing. That's something _you_ added in your mind.