CNN Doxxes a gif maker

[The Big Dog]

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.

Fascinating. Two articles discussing and defining "doxxing." the Wired article is actually titled "What is Doxxing." Both explain that doxxing does not require public dissemination of the "dox."

You can also have someone's dox without actually revealing it to the world. If you're looking to break into someone's Internet accounts, or take them over via social engineering techniques, doxing is often a key element in that equation, and in that case it rarely involves making the information public.

"doxxing is often a key element in that equation, and in that case it rarely involves making the information public."

Folks that quote does not say what you think it says.

LOLZ!

 

[Belz...]

Fascinating. Two articles discussing and defining "doxxing." the Wired article is actually titled "What is Doxxing." Both explain that doxxing does not require public dissemination of the "dox."

I've already questioned Wired as an authoritative source, and your response to that was essentially insisting that you know such a source when you see one.

As for the wiki article, when are you going to retract that?

Folks that quote does not say what you think it says.

LOLZ!

Finding someone who agrees with you is not very convincing, since you can find an idiot somewhere in the world who will agree with any belief.

 

[NoahFence]

So do we know this poor guy's name yet?

 

[The Big Dog]

I've already questioned Wired as an authoritative source, and your response to that was essentially insisting that you know such a source when you see one.

As for the wiki article, when are you going to retract that?

Oh well you questioned it? Significant!

But I was told that the quoted bit does not say what I think it says. Well Wired is as crystal clear as possible on it, so now lets take a look at the wiki artle?

"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."

Say that is pretty clear too! Maybe doxxing does not require public release of information, huh folks? Particularly where it is being used for extortion.

Say, lets take a deeper dive? Say look at that discussion of Doxware? What is doxware? "In particular, a distributed cryptovirus attack is presented that forces the victim to become a player in a nonzero sum game under the threat of sensitive information disclosure."

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1232396/?reload=true

But I was told that doxxing REQUIRES public disclosure.

Funny how crystal clear all those quotes are, huh folks?

 

[Imhotep]

Threatening with murder is not called murder, do you agree TBD?

Can you think of a case where threatening someone with (a thing) is referred to as that thing?

 

[The Big Dog]

Threatening with murder is not called murder, do you agree TBD?

I do agree, and collecting "dox" on people and threatening to release them is called "doxxing."

eta: the "thing" is question is the "dox" the "documents" that contain personal or private information.

 

[Imhotep]

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

 

[Imhotep]

I do agree, and collecting "dox" on people and threatening to release them is called "doxxing."

But what about when the dox are released? Still just doxxing?

Edit to add: Greetings, btw, I'm new here

 

[NoahFence]

Oh well you questioned it? Significant!

But I was told that the quoted bit does not say what I think it says. Well Wired is as crystal clear as possible on it, so now lets take a look at the wiki artle?

"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."

Say that is pretty clear too! Maybe doxxing does not require public release of information, huh folks? Particularly where it is being used for extortion.

Say, lets take a deeper dive? Say look at that discussion of Doxware? What is doxware? "In particular, a distributed cryptovirus attack is presented that forces the victim to become a player in a nonzero sum game under the threat of sensitive information disclosure."

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1232396/?reload=true

But I was told that doxxing REQUIRES public disclosure.

Funny how crystal clear all those quotes are, huh folks?

Sounds like you agree that there are two requirements for doxxing. Collecting and then disseminating the information.

All of your sources state this explicitly.

Excellent!

 

[Belz...]

Oh well you questioned it? Significant!

The hell is that supposed to even mean? Can I throw this at you if you ever ask me for evidence or justification for a claim I make?

But I was told that the quoted bit does not say what I think it says.

The bit from wiki, yes.

Well Wired is as crystal clear as possible on it

Again: why should we care what Wired says?

"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."

Say that is pretty clear too!

Yes, it's pretty clear that a hacker can get the info without making it public. And? You seem to make the leap that it still constitutes doxxing, but the wiki article says nothing of the sort. In fact, this is the third time that I explain this to you but you never address the objection.

Say, lets take a deeper dive? Say look at that discussion of Doxware? What is doxware? "In particular, a distributed cryptovirus attack is presented that forces the victim to become a player in a nonzero sum game under the threat of sensitive information disclosure."

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1232396/?reload=true

But I was told that doxxing REQUIRES public disclosure.

Funny how crystal clear all those quotes are, huh folks?

As I said earlier, your ability to make logical inferences is abysmal. The quote you provided above in no way indicates that the term "doxxing" means what you say it does. If you think the mere name "doxware" somehow proves it, then you must think that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democratic country.

 

[The Big Dog]

But what about when the dox are released? Still just doxxing?

Edit to add: Greetings, btw, I'm new here

Hi welcome.

Yes, just doxxing. As I have explained doxxing is obtaining "dox" with malicious intent, whether it be to expose someone or to extort them, as CNN did.

 

[The Big Dog]

Sounds like you agree that there are two requirements for doxxing. Collecting and then disseminating the information.

All of your sources state this explicitly.

Excellent!

Wrong. C'mon folks how are you going to extort someone to pay up for not releasing your dox if you release the dox anyway?

 

[The Big Dog]

The hell is that supposed to even mean? Can I throw this at you if you ever ask me for evidence or justification for a claim I make?

SNIP

Seems pretty clear, but knock yourself out.

 

[Belz...]

Seems pretty clear, but knock yourself out.

Huh, what happened to this guy:

I am most decidedly not a fan of people who routinely break up even the most brief posts and make snarky little comments.

?

Instead of snark, how about you address the fact that the wiki quote you provided does NOT claim that merely obtaining the information constitutes doxxing?

 

[Imhotep]

Wrong. C'mon folks how are you going to extort someone to pay up for not releasing your dox if you release the dox anyway?

Right, so then your extortion failed, so then you doxxed them as you threatened to. Seems pretty straightforward.

How would we distinguish between the threat of doxxing, which is extortion; and doxxing someone on a social forum to get people roused up against them? It would be useful to have different words for those things, correct? As we do.

 

[The Big Dog]

Instead of snark, how about you address the fact that the wiki quote you provided does NOT claim that merely obtaining the information constitutes doxxing?

well that is not what I or the article says. This is very, very simple:

Doxxing does not require public disclosure. That is not the same as claiming "merely obtaining the information constitutes doxxing."

 

[The Big Dog]

Right, so then your extortion failed, so then you doxxed them as you threatened to. Seems pretty straightforward.

How would we distinguish between the threat of doxxing, which is extortion; and doxxing someone on a social forum to get people roused up against them? It would be useful to have different words for those things, correct? As we do.

You are begging the question, you are using your own erroneous definition of doxxing which I have explained is wrong.

As I have explained doxxing is obtaining "dox" with malicious intent, whether it be to expose someone or to extort them, as CNN did.

Publication not required, indeed inconsistent with it in many situations.

QED

 

[Belz...]

Doxxing does not require public disclosure.

Again, this is NOT what the wiki quote says. Read it again, in context.

 

[The Big Dog]

Again, this is NOT what the wiki quote says. Read it again, in context.

"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.

 

[Imhotep]

"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.

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

Does seem to back up the assertion that publication is not required.