CNN Doxxes a gif maker

[Belz...]

"It is important to note that a hacker may obtain an individual's dox without making the information public. A hacker may harvest a victim's information in order to break into their internet accounts, or to take over their social media accounts.[17]

The victim may also be shown their details as proof that they have been doxed in order to intimidate them. Doxing is therefore a standard tactic of online harassment, and has been used by people associated with 4chan, the Gamergate controversy and anti-vaccine activists"

qed.

Stop rolling your eyes and READ: Wiki doesn't claim that this constitutes doxxing. How many times must you be told this before it clicks in your brain?

 

[The Big Dog]

Stop rolling your eyes and READ: Wiki doesn't claim that this constitutes doxxing. How many times must you be told this before it clicks in your brain?

You mean in the section of the "doxing" article where it says common techniques? Common techniques of "not doxxing," I reckon.

"The victim may also be shown their details as proof that they have been doxed in order to intimidate them." Also, not doxxing I guess.

Just mentioning stuff in an article that is about doxxing that is not doxxing.

And of course the Wired article that says the same damn thing? Not up to snuff people.

 

[Belz...]

You mean in the section of the "doxing" article where it says common techniques?

Yes, that part. Just like a paper on murder may discuss death threats as well. You can't possibly have so much trouble understanding the distinction.

And of course the Wired article that says the same damn thing? Not up to snuff people.

We've already dismissed Wired as an authoritative source.

 

[The Big Dog]

We've already dismissed Wired as an authoritative source.

No, you dismissed it based on nothing.

(say, anyone else notice that he cut out this sentence? "The victim may also be shown their details as proof that they have been doxed in order to intimidate them." Also, not doxxing I guess." I did. Interesting, huh?)

Doxxing is obtaining "dox" with malicious intent, including but not limited to exposing someone or to extort them, as CNN did. Publication not required, indeed inconsistent with it in many situations.
Seeing no substantive good faith objections, I consider this matter well and fully decided.

 

[Belz...]

No, you dismissed it based on nothing.

Hitchen's razor. You gave no reason to accept the source.

Seeing no substantive good faith objections, I consider this matter well and fully decided.

Well, yeah, dismissing all objections will usually do that for you.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, you dismissed it based on nothing.

(say, anyone else notice that he cut out this sentence? "The victim may also be shown their details as proof that they have been doxed in order to intimidate them." Also, not doxxing I guess." I did. Interesting, huh?)
Doxxing is obtaining "dox" with malicious intent, including but not limited to exposing someone or to extort them, as CNN did. Publication not required, indeed inconsistent with it in many situations.

Seeing no substantive good faith objections, I consider this matter well and fully decided.

Hitchen's razor. You gave no reason to accept the source.

Well, yeah, dismissing all objections will usually do that for you.

 

[phiwum]

I thought of one! "We shall taunt you a second time" is itself a taunt.

In the same vein: If you don't stop, I will threaten you!

 

[Belz...]

'k

 

[Imhotep]

'k

Seriously, you have to address this part:

"The victim may also be shown their details as proof that they have been doxed in order to intimidate them."

They have been doxed. But the details were not released (not "published").

You can argue it's wrong, but that's a different argument at this point.

 

[Belz...]

Seriously, you have to address this part:

I really don't. TBD doesn't make any effort to address the problems with his sources, does he?

"The victim may also be shown their details as proof that they have been doxed in order to intimidate them."

The wiki article is contradictory. At least twice in the article it says that doxxing entails the dissemination of the information. Only at this point do they say otherwise. I guess that's what you get for quoting a publicly-modifiable source.

Hell, even in the etymology section they offer two contradictory origins for the term.

 

[Imhotep]

Yes, it's amusing to think you could edit your source during a debate about the source material. I was just reading a thread recently where that took place.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, it's amusing to think you could edit your source during a debate about the source material. I was just reading a thread recently where that took place.

Well it doesn't seem to be the case here, but the point is that the source itself is contradictory, so cherry-picking one part of it that supports one's argument while ignoring the rest is not very convincing.

 

[The Big Dog]

Stop rolling your eyes and READ: Wiki doesn't claim that this constitutes doxxing. How many times must you be told this before it clicks in your brain?

I really don't. TBD doesn't make any effort to address the problems with his sources, does he?

well THAT didn't take long, did it folks? First I wasn't reading it right, then after I expertly showed that I was not only reading it correctly, but that our interlocutor was reading it wrong, quick as a lash, now wiki has "problems," which curiously were not raised before when I wasn't reading it right.

I have added the correct definition to my sig.

 

[Belz...]

well THAT didn't take long, did it folks?

Do you really think you have raving fans reading this thread and agreeing with you? Who are these "folks" you keep addressing, as if you represented the majority view?

First I wasn't reading it right

You weren't. The bit you kept quoting didn't say what you claimed it said. That hasn't changed.

then after I expertly showed that I was not only reading it correctly

Wait, wait... expertly? Damn, that is some big ego, there. You flailed about, unable to address your critics' objections.

now wiki has "problems," which curiously were not raised before when I wasn't reading it right.

Does wiki claim, twice, that doxxing requires the dissemination of the information, or not? Why yes, yes it does.

I have added the correct definition to my sig.

Is there no end to your dishonesty? You have once more declared the definition to be whatever you claim it to be. Here's some other "correct" definitions:

search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent.

the Internet-based practice of researching and broadcasting private or identifiable information (especially personally identifiable information) about an individual or organization

Doxxing, also spelled "doxing," refers to the practice of using the Internet to source out and collect someone's personal and private information and then publicly releasing that information online

to publicly identify or publish private information about (someone) especially as a form of punishment or revenge

 

[Imhotep]

Sources that say you must publish:

Google

search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent.

Merriam Webster

to publicly identify or publish private information about (someone) especially as a form of punishment or revenge

sarahjeong.net: Stop Diluting the Definition of “Dox”

The definition of doxing is the publication of a physical residential address, or information protected by law (social security numbers, medical records, and so forth).

Oxford Dictionary

Search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent.

Technopedia

Doxing is the process of retrieving, hacking and publishing other people’s information such as names, addresses, phone numbers and credit card details.

Sources that say you don't have to publish:

Urban Dictionary

Doxing is a technique of tracing someone or gather information about an individual using sources on the internet.

The Economist

The term "dox" (also spelt "doxx", and short for "[dropping] documents") first came into vogue as a verb around a decade ago, referring to malicious hackers' habit of collecting personal and private information, including home addresses and national identity numbers. The data are often released publicly against a person’s wishes.


I grow tired.

Edit: Looks like Argu and me did some duplicate searching. I took the top 7 results and didn't drop any...

 

[Belz...]

Yeah I dropped the Urban Dictionary one because, let's face it, why wouldn't _I_ engage in a bit of cherry-picking? I love cherries!

(Or, more seriously, because I was just trying to show TBD that he doesn't have the monopoly on definitions.)

 

[The Big Dog]

Hey, lets do an experiment!

link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing

when you get there hit control-f

type in "require" and see "Does wiki claim, twice, that doxxing requires the dissemination of the information, or not?"

When you come up with the correct answer (hint, it is "no"), make sure you take note of the person spewing out false accusations of "dishonesty."

 

[Belz...]

Hey, lets do an experiment!

link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing

when you get there hit control-f

type in "require" and see "Does wiki claim, twice, that doxxing requires the dissemination of the information, or not?"

When you come up with the correct answer (hint, it is "no"), make sure you take note of the person spewing out false accusations of "dishonesty."

I don't think lying will help you here:

Doxing (from dox, abbreviation of documents),[1] or doxxing,[2][3] is the Internet-based practice of researching and broadcasting private or identifiable information (especially personally identifiable information) about an individual or organization

Essentially, doxing is openly revealing and publicizing records of an individual, which were previously private or difficult to obtain.

Oops. You should read your sources before posting them here.

 

[Imhotep]

I think there's a fair amount of gamesmanship in a lot of the debates around here. I also think people should admit error, even when they're in the right overall. But I don't see that very often at all on the internet. Especially in my previous stomping ground, JFK conspiracy discussions...

 

[The Big Dog]

Good news! We had a taker, a poster who went to the wiki link, and came up with two examples.

Unfortunately, the two examples did not include the word "requires" and in fact there is absolutely no place in the article where it says that doxxing "requires" public dissemination.

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

Oh well, for pointing out that the assertion that wiki claims, twice, that doxxing requires the dissemination of the information is false will get you called dishonest and accused of lying.

Oh well, fortunately the facts have a decided TBD edge.