• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

CNN Doxxes a gif maker

NoahFence said:
OK, now tell me, what's worse?

Maybe having your name released
or
Having your name released?
Click to expand...

what part of ""Please note the Commission may post written comments publicly, including names and contact information, in accordance with the provisions of FACA" do you need explained to you??

Really remarkable...
 
The Big Dog said:
Therefore, when I point out that the Federal Government disclosed that the information disclosed to it pursuant to statute...
Click to expand...

Whereas freedom of the press isn't covered by federal statute, per se, but rather by the Bill of Rights.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
Curious, because I just expertly showed that your use of the word doxxed in connection with the election fraud issue was grossly inaccurate on every level.

Every level.
Click to expand...

What is the election fraud issue?

I am surprised you agree that the commission is a fraudulent way
to collect voter data.

It is also a fraudulent way to find evidence that there 3 million "illegal" votes.

Why should any American citizen with an opinion be doxed by a Presidential
Commission?

Why did the fake commission on fake voters feel it necessary to give out
real names, emails, addresses and phone numbers of real citizens?

There was a choice to be made, they chose to dox (in the real definition of
the word) people.
 
Oh, I see that the Big Dog isn't really interested in learning what "doxxed" means. Maybe he could have told us and we could have let the thread die.
 
uke2se said:
Oh, I see that the Big Dog isn't really interested in learning what "doxxed" means. Maybe he could have told us and we could have let the thread die.
Click to expand...

He has cited legitimate sources that assert it includes using releasing information as a threat.
 
uke2se said:
Oh, I see that the Big Dog isn't really interested in learning what "doxxed" means. Maybe he could have told us and we could have let the thread die.
Click to expand...

We all know that doxxing is not voluntarily giving information to the federal government where the federal register states that the government may post comments including personal information.

I mean that is so utterly basic that I assume you are just kidding aRound, because as soon as I posted that public notice, I would have assumed that people would have let it die, because I *********** killed it with extreme prejudice.

:thumbsup::D
 
You "killed it" after I posted a link stating that the notice went up after some citizens had submitted their comment and info.
 
The Big Dog said:
wow, they went back in time to 1972 and set up FACA that requires disclosure of all comments to Special Committees? Amazing!
Click to expand...

You know that when you ignore the point that was made in the post prior to the one you just quoted, we can see that?

The disclaimer went up AFTER some already emailed their personal info.

Edited by Agatha: 
Edited for rule 0
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NoahFence said:
You know that when you ignore the point that was made in the post prior to the one you just quoted, we can see that?

The disclaimer went up AFTER some already emailed their personal info.

Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to remove moderated content
Click to expand...

Exactly! As someone who is anti government, I'm all over this. Changing the document on the sly after doing something undesirable is exactly the kind of garbage that governments try.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
d4m10n said:
When exactly did Kobach's commission post this notice?
Click to expand...


And was this email listed anywhere else, and with the same disclaimer? It's an email address not a web form. You don't need to click the address from that page to use it.

I did mention that disclaimer in another thread about 15 minutes ago though. I believe the disclaimer was added later but I'm not sure. It seems like the disclaimer should have been a bit more prominently displayed as well.

Publishing the name, phone number and address of someone is a very big deal and should have been treated that way.

Is this the first time emails like this have been made public in such a manner I wonder? Is this standard procedure - to publish comments from people at all, much less with their contact info?
 
BobTheCoward said:
Exactly! As someone who is anti government, I'm all over this. Changing the document on the sly after doing something undesirable is exactly the kind of garbage that governments try.
Click to expand...

I don't believe there has existed a government like this one. They're really, really manipulative people. Bad, selfish people.
But they're really, really BAD at it.

Stupid Watergate.
 
I'm not really concerned with the legality of this.

I believe BobTheCoward is correct in that such correspondence to the gov is public. I see disclaimers for other subjects and events that say comments as well as contact information may be published. I'm not positive either way, but it seems to be the general rule.

I'm more bothered that they did seemingly as intimidation. However, if there are other similar instances of comments being shared in the same fashion then I will curb my outrage.

Right now, I think it's bad form and a bit spooky as well, to say the least.
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
You know that when you ignore the point that was made in the post prior to the one you just quoted, we can see that?

The disclaimer went up AFTER some already emailed their personal info.
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited for rule 0
.
Click to expand...
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited for response to rule breach. Please report and ignore breaches, rather than respond to them


Section 10b of FACA requires timely disclosure of all materials made available to Special Committee.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and it sure as hell is not doxxing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mgidm86 said:
I'm not really concerned with the legality of this.

I believe BobTheCoward is correct in that such correspondence to the gov is public. I see disclaimers for other subjects and events that say comments as well as contact information may be published. I'm not positive either way, but it seems to be the general rule.

I'm more bothered that they did seemingly as intimidation. However, if there are other similar instances of comments being shared in the same fashion then I will curb my outrage.

Right now, I think it's bad form and a bit spooky as well, to say the least.
Click to expand...

they released emails in favor of the committee and adverse to the committee. It is another red herring like all the red herrings.

The subject is CNN's conduct, not whining by people ignorant of the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom