I think that depends on how you define "doxing." Yes, you're identifying a person's real information. On the other hand, malicious "doxing" usually means publishing phone number, address, kid's name, personal email address, Facebook, etc.
I think there's a clear difference between correlating a pseudonym to a real-life identity, and malicious "doxing" that could cause harm.
I think there's a clear difference between correlating a pseudonym to a real-life identity, and malicious "doxing" that could cause harm.
People use pseudonyms for a reason. Deanonymizing them can cause them harm, ranging from getting fired to getting arrested to causing severe social strife. Not your decision to make.
Deanonymizing them can cause them harm, ranging from getting fired to getting arrested to causing severe social strife.
Luckily I committed no crimes, or I would have had a hat trick.
Not your decision to make.
There's actually a lot of debate and discussion about this issue; I am always surprised at the number and tenor of those who wholeheartedly support making this kind of decision.
Yup. Quoting Sarah Jeong's The Internet of Garbage:
"The strict 'hacker' definition of 'dropping dox,' as it was initially phrased, involves the publication of documentation (or 'docs'/'dox'). As Schneier points out, these can be addresses, phone numbers, financial information, medical records, emails, and so forth. The part where the definition of 'doxing' gets murky is that the word's prominent appearances in the media haven't involved dropping dox at all. Rather, it's come (sometimes!) to signify the unmasking of anonymous internet users without their consent. ....
"The idea that a 'full name' can constitute a dox represents an understanding that in some contexts, the publication of a legal name serves as an incitement to drop a full dox. Through Google and other databases, a full name can lead to other details...."
While I absolutely think no good would have come out of de-anonymizing SLJ, it wouldn't really be doxing (unless they had somehow attracted people that had an interest in attacking their home, embarrassing them in front of their employer, etc.).
What an odd thing to say. Documentation can certainly include real identity. Those things are a set/subset relationship, not two different things.
In both cases the desired outcome is achieved: the 'war' is expanded, taking on either new dimensions (personal knowledge of the doxxing victim) or new avenues to attack them with.
Well, the context here is that "doxing" is not about identity in the first place: it's about encouraging harassment/crime, by facilitating identity theft, leaking embarrassing photos, giving contact info of family members, giving the information needed to conduct SWATting, etc. Identity happens to be involved in all of these things, but it's not the goal.
That section of the book argues for distinguishing them because, in some cases, de-anonymizing someone (but no more) is legitimate self-defense by a community, but doxing always intends harassment (which is not legitimate self-defense). If there are rules for actual war, there are absolutely rules for "war" in scare quotes; not inciting crime is one of them. I don't think I can make the full argument here concisely, but it is well set-out in the book. (While she has a blog post saying much the same thing, I actually thought that was a much poorer defense of de-anonymization, since it's missing context.)
Obviously in this specific case there is not even "war," just curiosity, so that defense of de-anonymization doesn't apply. But we've gotten on a tangent about the term itself.
'Context' does not change facts or logic: identity is part of documents, the war gets bigger. You've written a lot, it's mostly true, but nothing actually addresses the comment you're responding to.
Regarding 'unmasking': many doxxers use this argument: when they do publish people's information, they're unmasking bad actors, when their opponents do it, they're doxxing. For example Sarah Jeong, the author of the book you mention, wrote for The Verge, which tacitly endorses doxxing by ignoring it when performed by political groups it supports.
"The idea that a 'full name' can constitute a dox represents an understanding that in some contexts, the publication of a legal name serves as an incitement to drop a full dox."
In some contexts, a full name is a full dox, to anyone who has Google access and 10 minutes to spare. There's not really a functional difference. The presence or absence of malicious intent may determine how we judge the doxer, but the potential effect on the doxee is the same either way.
Are you shitting me? Revealing the identity of someone who has purposefully concealed their identity is the literal fucking definition of doxing. You have neither the right nor the ability to determine what harm may result.
>I think there's a clear difference between correlating a pseudonym to a real-life identity, and malicious "doxing" that could cause harm.
First answer me: Why do you think they chose to use a pseudonym? I can think of many answers to explain why. Most include risk of harm to the individual in various forms.
For example - there is a reason I use a pseudonym. I always have and always will.
I think there's a clear difference between correlating a pseudonym to a real-life identity, and malicious "doxing" that could cause harm.
There's a clear difference, yes, but it's only really relevant to how we judge the doxer. It's comparable to outing a closeted queer person: whether it's done maliciously or out of pure, naive innocence, the fallout for the subject is the same.
Comments
I think that depends on how you define "doxing." Yes, you're identifying a person's real information. On the other hand, malicious "doxing" usually means publishing phone number, address, kid's name, personal email address, Facebook, etc.
I think there's a clear difference between correlating a pseudonym to a real-life identity, and malicious "doxing" that could cause harm.
People use pseudonyms for a reason. Deanonymizing them can cause them harm, ranging from getting fired to getting arrested to causing severe social strife. Not your decision to make.
Luckily I committed no crimes, or I would have had a hat trick.
There's actually a lot of debate and discussion about this issue; I am always surprised at the number and tenor of those who wholeheartedly support making this kind of decision.
Your secrets don't have to be criminal to be secrets.
You can be an asshole even without breaking the law.
Yup. Quoting Sarah Jeong's The Internet of Garbage:
"The strict 'hacker' definition of 'dropping dox,' as it was initially phrased, involves the publication of documentation (or 'docs'/'dox'). As Schneier points out, these can be addresses, phone numbers, financial information, medical records, emails, and so forth. The part where the definition of 'doxing' gets murky is that the word's prominent appearances in the media haven't involved dropping dox at all. Rather, it's come (sometimes!) to signify the unmasking of anonymous internet users without their consent. ....
"The idea that a 'full name' can constitute a dox represents an understanding that in some contexts, the publication of a legal name serves as an incitement to drop a full dox. Through Google and other databases, a full name can lead to other details...."
While I absolutely think no good would have come out of de-anonymizing SLJ, it wouldn't really be doxing (unless they had somehow attracted people that had an interest in attacking their home, embarrassing them in front of their employer, etc.).
What an odd thing to say. Documentation can certainly include real identity. Those things are a set/subset relationship, not two different things.
In both cases the desired outcome is achieved: the 'war' is expanded, taking on either new dimensions (personal knowledge of the doxxing victim) or new avenues to attack them with.
Well, the context here is that "doxing" is not about identity in the first place: it's about encouraging harassment/crime, by facilitating identity theft, leaking embarrassing photos, giving contact info of family members, giving the information needed to conduct SWATting, etc. Identity happens to be involved in all of these things, but it's not the goal.
That section of the book argues for distinguishing them because, in some cases, de-anonymizing someone (but no more) is legitimate self-defense by a community, but doxing always intends harassment (which is not legitimate self-defense). If there are rules for actual war, there are absolutely rules for "war" in scare quotes; not inciting crime is one of them. I don't think I can make the full argument here concisely, but it is well set-out in the book. (While she has a blog post saying much the same thing, I actually thought that was a much poorer defense of de-anonymization, since it's missing context.)
Obviously in this specific case there is not even "war," just curiosity, so that defense of de-anonymization doesn't apply. But we've gotten on a tangent about the term itself.
'Context' does not change facts or logic: identity is part of documents, the war gets bigger. You've written a lot, it's mostly true, but nothing actually addresses the comment you're responding to.
Regarding 'unmasking': many doxxers use this argument: when they do publish people's information, they're unmasking bad actors, when their opponents do it, they're doxxing. For example Sarah Jeong, the author of the book you mention, wrote for The Verge, which tacitly endorses doxxing by ignoring it when performed by political groups it supports.
In some contexts, a full name is a full dox, to anyone who has Google access and 10 minutes to spare. There's not really a functional difference. The presence or absence of malicious intent may determine how we judge the doxer, but the potential effect on the doxee is the same either way.
Are you shitting me? Revealing the identity of someone who has purposefully concealed their identity is the literal fucking definition of doxing. You have neither the right nor the ability to determine what harm may result.
>I think there's a clear difference between correlating a pseudonym to a real-life identity, and malicious "doxing" that could cause harm.
First answer me: Why do you think they chose to use a pseudonym? I can think of many answers to explain why. Most include risk of harm to the individual in various forms.
For example - there is a reason I use a pseudonym. I always have and always will.
There's a clear difference, yes, but it's only really relevant to how we judge the doxer. It's comparable to outing a closeted queer person: whether it's done maliciously or out of pure, naive innocence, the fallout for the subject is the same.
Just remember, if you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to hide.
What's "wrong" depends on who's defining it.
So I'd rephrase that: If you haven't done anything that resourceful adversaries consider wrong, you don't have anything to hide.
I think parent comment was being ironic.
My irony detector malfunctioned. Sorry :(
I can be such a pedant ;)
So, just some doxing then?
Everyone thinks that until it happens to them. Trust me on this.
Well gee, thanks for clearing that up. Someone forward this to _why so he can realise there was no harm done and comes back.