Utopia Talk / Politics / Internet "doxxes" Nazis from the rally

hood Member	Wed Aug 16 19:34:35 http://ars...eo-nazis-with-doxing-phishing/ Article doesn't C/P well, so you'll have to go read it. Quick summation: People have uploaded pictures and videos from the VA rally/bloodbath and now the internet is attempting to identify the nazis. Someone lost their job at a hot dog stand, someone was wrongly accused. Another was disowned by family. In addition, racist websites have had trouble keeping their hosting services. --------------- murder will undoubtedly approve of this.
The Third Reich Member	Wed Aug 16 19:39:56 Traitors to the race!
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Wed Aug 16 20:27:39 Internet turns on white supremacists and neo-Nazis with doxing, phishing Many fear being outed from photos, but now the real cyber game against "alt-right" begins. Sean Gallagher - 8/16/2017, 6:32 PM In the wake of the violence and repugnance of the "Unite the Right" march in Charlottesville, Virginia last week—and the vehicular murder of a woman by a neo-Nazi connected to the event—the quest to identify and out those who marched with white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups last Friday and Saturday is in full swing. In short order, people started sharing photos of the event on the Internet to "crowdsource" identifying members of the groups, with fairly rapid results. One marcher from Berkeley, California lost his job at a hot dog restaurant as a result of being identified, as complaints poured in from customers. Another from Fargo, North Dakota was disowned by his family. One person posted to the now-offline Daily Stormer that he would not attend future rallies, because "The thought of getting outed as 'white supremacists' to our employers and possibly losing our jobs is a horrifying prospect, " as Steve Blum reported in Broadly. Many of the identifications have been coordinated through a Twitter account called Yes You're Racist. There have been misfires. As the New York Times reported, Kyle Quinn—an assistant professor at the University of Arkansas' School of Engineering—was mis-identified as a marcher, resulting in a torrent of threatening social media messages. But that's just the start of a growing online campaign mounted by members of an Anonymous collaboration called OpDomesticTerrorism and others. With sites like the Daily Stormer being driven offline and having their social media accounts suspended, Andrew "weev" Auernheimer warned followers of his Gab account that they might become targets of phishing attacks using lookalike social media accounts. "The Daily Stormer status account on Twitter got suspended," he wrote. "There are some impersonating accounts made now. Don't click on any links they give." Daily Stormer moved to a Tor hidden service this week after GoDaddy pulled the site's domain name. Today, the site was brought back up with a Russian domain, but within just two and a half hours it was down again when Cloudflare cancelled the site's service. Andrew Anglin, the man behind Daily Stormer, posted an image of Cloudflare's cancellation of his account on his Gab feed. So as of this afternoon, Anglin and Aurnheimer were scrambing to restore the site on Tor while they looked at another way to host the site that would protect it from attacks. The Tor site may come under attack as well. Currently, the placeholder page for the "dark web" version of the site is a hand-encoded HTML page that doesn't betray much about the system it is hosted on. But a hacker claiming to be involved in the Anonymous operation told Ars that they were attempting to launch a denial of service attack over Tor on the Daily Stormer's .onion hidden service. Additionally, the Stormer's web discussion board, which was hosted on a service based in Belize, was taken offline after being exposed by attackers. IRC discussions among Stormer supporters also were targeted: The group contacting Ars has previously claimed responsibility for setting off warning sirens in Dallas, which could not be verified, and has made other dubious claims in the past. But these details appear genuine. Sean Gallagher Sean is Ars Technica's IT Editor. A former Navy officer, systems administrator, and network systems integrator with 20 years of IT journalism experience, he lives and works in Baltimore, Maryland. Email sean.gallagher@arstechnica.com // Twitter @thepacketrat http://ars...eo-nazis-with-doxing-phishing/
Forwyn Member	Wed Aug 16 20:39:26 Not a fan of doxxing, but not gonna shed a tear for white supremacists, and certainly a better route than fighting them in the streets.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Aug 16 20:49:19 wear a hood or disguise next time like a normal miscreant
obaminated Member	Wed Aug 16 21:24:48 They shouldn't lose their livelihood because of their beliefs. But I also wouldn't want to work with someone who held neo Nazi beliefs. So, tough luck. Id say the same should be done with antifa folks but they don't have jobs.
hood Member	Wed Aug 16 21:45:15 "They shouldn't lose their livelihood because of their beliefs." Basically this. They are scum, but making them complete outcasts who are unable to work and routinely embarrassed when in public is certainly not going to help at all.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Aug 16 21:50:31 Disrpting protesrs is their job. Remember when Al Sharpton visited The White House so many times after Ferguson? Since then there has been almost a constant stream of protests and counter protests. Think there is any connection?
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Aug 16 21:51:34 *-Disrupting
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Aug 17 03:22:15 [Forwyn]: "Not a fan of doxxing, but not gonna shed a tear for white supremacists" +1 Difficult to feel bad for white supremacists (and similarly that Berkeley black bloc person) that were exposed, but I am not at all a fan of the Internet lynch mob mentality that thinks it should destroy someone's life because of a perceived immoral act or because of immoral behavior. It's a dangerous form of Panopticism, with the mob congratulating itself for scaring people into submission. That participant comment summed up its effect: "he would not attend future rallies, because 'The thought of getting outed as 'white supremacists' to our employers and possibly losing our jobs is a horrifying prospect.'" A good Panoptic servant would read that comment and say, "Great! We did it! A white supremacist off the streets!", but shaming someone into compliance with a Sauron gaze is not exactly a healthy way to solve society's issues. It's trial and execution by public perception.
Aeros Member	Thu Aug 17 03:40:35 Need to call it what it is. A struggle session. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session Can argue all day whether or not its deserved for the "specific case". At the end of the day the entire concept is a direct threat to a free society.
Daemon Member	Thu Aug 17 04:51:13 http://ars...he-daily-stormer-are-assholes/ CloudFlare CEO says his Daily Stormer takedown was “arbitrary” and “dangerous” “I woke up this morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet.” 8/17/2017 Until recently, CloudFlare prided itself on its unwavering commitment to free speech. Even when he was criticized for providing service to alleged terrorist groups in 2013, CEO Matthew Prince stood firm, insisting that "a website is speech. It is not a bomb." So a lot of people were surprised on Wednesday when the company abruptly changed its tune and canceled the account of the neo-Nazi site Daily Stormer. The action seemed to fly in the face of everything CloudFlare claimed to believe as recently as May. And in an internal company email obtained by Gizmodo, Prince acknowledged that the decision was exactly as arbitrary as it seemed. "My rationale for making this decision was simple: the people behind the Daily Stormer are assholes and I'd had enough," Prince wrote. "Let me be clear: this was an arbitrary decision." Prince wrote that he "woke up this morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet. It was a decision I could make because I'm the CEO of a major Internet infrastructure company." In the same email, Prince argued that it is "dangerous" for that kind of power to be concentrated in any one person's hands. "It's important that what we did today not set a precedent," Prince added. "The right answer is for us to be consistently content neutral." In a company blog post that appeared later on Wednesday, Prince argued that the Internet needed a better system for determining which content should be taken down—one that gives publishers a right to due process and doesn't put power over those decisions in the hands of a few CEOs like Prince. But, of course, the decision is likely to set a precedent even if Prince hopes it's a one-time occurrence. CloudFlare has helped to establish an industry-wide norm that some content is too offensive to be hosted by any mainstream technology company. In the future, the public will suspect that if an infrastructure provides service to a site, it's because they don't actually find it objectionable. This may not be a genie CloudFlare can stuff back into the bottle.
hood Member	Thu Aug 17 07:40:49 @CC I'd be perfectly fine with these people receiving had consequences because those around then easily deduced what was happening on their own. But the internet playing god here? Not a fan of that action at all. Not because Nazis don't deserve to be shunned, but because we know that this isn't the end. We know this activity goes beyond punishing Nazis. It goes all the way to punishing people who have inappropriate Halloween costumes. And it's absolute bullshit. I feel compelled to defend the Nazi in this situation (only the doxxing, not the punishment received) because of the horrid misuse of power that internet doxxing represents and the real harm it's already caused to innocent people.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Aug 17 10:39:05 The left hates free speech and the right loves nazis. Can we get a middle of the road or sane party instead?
TJ Member	Thu Aug 17 11:10:10 “I woke up this morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet.” That genie will never be put back into the bottle. His action places free speech in real danger. What will be the next evil speech that a monopolized field can decide is undesirable? He should be facing serious consequences for his action. What he did, because of emotions, if that is true, should be damned as quickly as he damned those he struck out against. This was a testing of resistance. A positioning of leverage and an insight of how your speech behavior could easily direct your futures. Not something an older man such as myself needs to be concerned. My remaining future has been secured. The Google controversy is another example of shutting down free speech and I don't believe either was accidentally perpetrated. Your freedom of speech must be protected, even the worst possible in short order, because of the power these tech companies already possess. Those who have most of their lives ahead are confronted with serious and difficult challenges. Good Luck on which way you turn the world.
Paramount Member	Thu Aug 17 11:18:08 cherub cow, " I am not at all a fan of the Internet lynch mob mentality that thinks it should destroy someone's life because of a perceived immoral act or because of immoral behavior. It's a dangerous form of Panopticism, with the mob congratulating itself for scaring people into submission. " Yeah, I agree. hood, "Not because Nazis don't deserve to be shunned, but because we know that this isn't the end. We know this activity goes beyond punishing Nazis." Yeah, like shutting down ISIS and al-Qaida websites? Actually, I believe that has already happened, so now the white supremacist websites are getting the same treatment also. So if we want to protect white supremacists we also have to protect Islamic supremacists.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Thu Aug 17 11:22:20 The Nazi's have a permit to march in San Francisco or Portland, not sure which, I believe. If this continues I think we will find these permits are ordered to be given to the Nazi's by the liberal elite.
hood Member	Thu Aug 17 11:53:07 Are you suggesting that the Nazis shouldn't be issued permits?
Hot Rod Revved Up	Thu Aug 17 12:11:17 If it were up to me, I would not issue them any. And it would be perfectly legal ***NOT*** to issue them permits based upon the violent nature of their beliefs, I think. I would at least make them take me to the Supreme Court. The USSC would have to rule against me before I would issue permits. I don't believe they would rule against me.
hood Member	Thu Aug 17 12:33:43 It would be legal to deny then permits if you expected harm or damage to be caused, like in VA. But just outright deny them a permit because they're Nazis? That's absolutely unconstitutional.
obaminated Member	Thu Aug 17 12:35:06 Hey look, HR isn't a fan of free speech.
Aeros Member	Thu Aug 17 12:46:30 The mistake Charlottesville made was allowing the two groups to be so close together. If Spencer and his merry men had spent the day shouting and then gone home, we would not even be having this conversation, and most people would still not even know who he is.
TJ Member	Thu Aug 17 12:57:04 I'm considering the content of character as core virtues and the extent to which a person embodies wisdom, humility, courage, justice, temperance, and the value of human dignity. My preliminary finding is that the founding principle should never be abused because of another's ideology. Dislike all you choose, but never step on valuable freedom, because their are wiser means of combating individual emotion.
TJ Member	Thu Aug 17 12:58:13 *there
Hot Rod Revved Up	Thu Aug 17 13:06:04 hood - But just outright deny them a permit because they're Nazis? Not just because they are Nazi's. What I said was, "based upon the violent nature of their beliefs,..." I think there may be a precedent, not sure. And, I could be wrong, but the courts would have to decide for sure if it were up to me. That is how our legal system works. If two sides are in opposition we let the courts decide. I'm not the only one who thinks this. There have been several talking heads this weekend that has said basically the same thing./ But, we could all be wrong, let the courts decide.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Thu Aug 17 13:09:06 obaminated, you are starting to talk like a foreigner, Please read my post again in American English.
TJ Member	Thu Aug 17 13:16:36 The court will rule against you HR. The Constitution has already decided and why a federal judge overturned a denial of protest in Virginia. I agree with Hood. If protesters arrive with combat tools, headgear, clubs, and the like they can legally be denied the privilege of protest.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Thu Aug 17 13:35:43 I was not aware of that decision. Thanks. Then I would issue the permit. Then, in the case of a small town like this, I would have a company or two or three of National Guard show up an hour ahead of time and there would be no chance of the two groups getting close to each other. That is what must start happening. There is absolutely no reason for the authorities to allow violence.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Thu Aug 17 13:41:01 Or excuse.
TJ Member	Thu Aug 17 14:36:13 Don't be a fools fool HR. The result was allowed to take place and preconceived expertly by authorities who were denied their original request by a federal court. The foolish, hateful, and ignorant protesters were predictable and used to vindicate their original reasoning for denial. It is the world you'll be leaving in a relative short period comparing to the years you've experienced. Shake, rattle, and roll. MY supposition has been built on a foundation of crumbs, but my interpretation falls within the range of plausibility.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Thu Aug 17 17:21:09 Not sure what you are saying there old buddy, but I think I said basically the same thing somewhere today when I asked if Al Sharpton's visits to The White House last year might be somewhere in the mix? Same thing, only different.
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Aug 17 17:54:02 [hood]: "But the internet playing god here? ... We know this activity goes beyond punishing Nazis. It goes all the way to punishing people who have inappropriate Halloween costumes." Yeah I hate to say "slippery slope", but it really is. It's all "fine" when it's easy targets like Nazis and black bloc opportunists, but — and I apologize for being such a fan of mentioning "Panopticism" :p — Panopticism "works" by making even people with slight immoral tendencies afraid to act as individuals in public spheres because they know that the mob gaze will mobilize spontaneously in order to ruin them. And it can even be simple things like discarding a cigarette. I think that's bad behavior, but should there be un-blurred videos of people doing it on YouTube? Or people on Imgur do this all the time: taking pictures of people on public transportation in order to shame them for sleeping awkwardly or for wearing funny clothes. "Fahrenheit 451" goes into the extreme results of that.. people so afraid to interact or be observed/disciplined that they just stay home and consume media. .. [Paramount]: "So if we want to protect white supremacists we also have to protect Islamic supremacists." So long as those white/Islamic supremacist web pages aren't used to actively plot attacks, then have at it! :) Even the Daily Stormer bans/banned people for crossing that line. They have a "no violence rule" — "Permanent Ban 1. Promoting specific acts of violence. 2. Promoting or describing how to commit any illegal act (under American law), including vandalism, fraud, illegal weapons modification, the purchase of illegal drugs, etc ... 5. Calling for violent revolution against the government." ( http://web...ines+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us )
Hot Rod Revved Up	Thu Aug 17 18:09:17 I guess it is fairly easy for some people to get swept up by the mob.
kargen Member	Thu Aug 17 18:17:38 This kind of thing is going to lead to all kinds of problems but a company has a right to refuse service if they wish. They need to be fair about it though and deal out the same kind of treatment to groups like BAMN. BAMN is every bit as violent as the worst of the white supremacist groups and much more violent than the one that rallied at the monument. BAMN's message is we practice tolerance unless you don't agree with us and in that case we can blow shit up and hit people with steel pipes.
jergul large member	Thu Aug 17 18:36:06 The problem rests in thinking private companies are obligated to provide platforms for speech. Public access to airwaves, bandwidth, or physical distribution is a public responsibility. Regulate or create public services. I have no issue with demonstrators being outed. To demonstrate is by its very nature to make public your position on a certain issue. There is no reasonable expectation of anonymity.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 18 05:27:15 Regardless of what we feel about doxxing and nazis. This has been done to SJWs and Antifa in the past. I predict that soon enough as polarization increases and the tribe has your back being doxxed will be the norm. Careful and sane people will remain distanced and the motivated religious activist will be on the "frontlines". So more of what we already have, identity religion. I sometimes think we overestimate democracy's ability to deal with these threat because they lacks the normal religious supernatural woo woo. They are woven in the language of human rights and sprung from subjective experiences, things that are often unfalsifiable or, at least on the surface, undesirable to falsify.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 18 05:55:59 They could start by profiling instead of searching babies and 80-year-old ladies while Muslim terrorists trot through the lines loaded with explosives.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 18 06:08:30 The work of intelligence services is more complex than a dilemma over profiling or not profiling. Profiling based on physical appearance is wasteful and relatively easily by-passed by those motivated to do so. On top of that there are the social and political costs of alianating and turning hostile large groups of innocent people. What fraction of nominally ME looking people passing through an airport are terrorist? The searches have an added random element so as to make it harder to be helped by someone on the inside.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 18 06:18:32 You do know that in Israel they do not have a TSA at their airports. AFAIK. They have specially trained soldiers that carry Uzis. They are trained to look for certain mannerisms in the passengers. If they are suspicious of someone the question them. Profiling as it should be. This is what I understand anyway. Perhaps Asgard will weigh in and let us know for sure.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 18 07:24:55 You do not want to model your society after a country that has had a continuous high to mid level military conflict for 60 years. That is not the direction you want to go in, but are forced into.
jergul large member	Fri Aug 18 07:56:24 HR What does the US constitution say about using federal troops on US soil?
Forwyn Member	Fri Aug 18 08:25:45 Posse Comitatus is legislative law, not a Constitutional clause.
jergul large member	Fri Aug 18 08:28:20 Forwyn Ty. That last post of mine was nagging me slightly.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 18 08:33:58 Nimatzo, we have been in that situation for almost 16 years now. jergul, I know all about posse comitatus and The Constitution. If you want to point where I said we should use Federal Troops to carry out the task you are free to do so. Or you might use some common sense and realize we have a number of options such as using Federal Marshalls or FBI or create a special unit under Homeland Security. BTW, U.S. Troops were used by Ike in the 50's to force integration in Little Rock, Ark. He sent some 101st Airborne troops plus he federalized the National Guard.
jergul large member	Fri Aug 18 09:04:53 HR You said it when you suggested the US do it IDF style. The TSA performed 800 million screenings in 2017. What is wrong with simply providing TSA employees with better sensitivity training if you feel that is lacking?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 18 09:32:11 "Nimatzo, we have been in that situation for almost 16 years now." lol :) No you have not. You have not even experienced a simple intifada level insurgency.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 18 11:55:05 What about 9/11? Almost 3000 people killed should count for one. Plus we have had a few attacks and foiled a great many more. Don't you recall that Bush declared war on terrorism? What else do you want?
jergul large member	Fri Aug 18 13:13:31 HR The consitutional scholar Only Congress can declare war.
werewolf dictator Member	Fri Aug 18 15:05:31 "People Flee Homes After Being Falsely Identified As White Nationalists" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kceAP4gFnDM
chuck Member	Fri Aug 18 15:40:49 Are you authorized to share that link, comrade?
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Aug 19 06:16:09 jergul, it was not a formal declaration of war. George was merely pointing out that a type of war exists between us and the terrorists. FYI, a formal war cannot be declred against a group of terrorists and a country. A formal war can only exist between nations.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Aug 19 06:32:30 *-declared
jergul large member	Sat Aug 19 06:39:57 HR Of course it is impossible to declare war on concepts.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Aug 19 10:23:37 I wasn't sure that you knew that. Usually hard to tell with you.
Seb Member	Sat Aug 19 11:06:52 Obaminated: Why shouldn't they lose their livelihoods for their beliefs. You'd sack an Islamist. Why not a Nazi?
hood Member	Sat Aug 19 11:12:31 Does the islamist engage in violence, or do they just speak of the wonders of islam? If all they do is talk, they are more than welcome to keep their job, just as the Nazi is.
Seb Member	Sat Aug 19 11:14:06 So here's the thing - if you go out on a march, it's because you are wanting to publicly demonstrate your beliefs. You want to advertise them, and forcefully put the case that your beliefs should be put into action adventure public policy. You can't then complain when you are then public opinion judges on your beliefs and that has personal consequences. The whole point of these marches is to drive behaviour changes in others, so how can protestors possibly demand exemption from others exercising their freedom to choose not to do business with them?
Seb Member	Sat Aug 19 11:19:11 Hood: "Wonders of Islam" isn't political Islamism. If a Muslim guy goes on a march advocating the replacement of the state with a theocracy and the stripping of civil rights for non Muslims and women, yeah, in think it's within the rights of the employer to terminate their contact in the basis that continued employment threatens the reputation of the business and the ability of the employer to have a cooperative work place. How could said employer possibly ask a female employee to work with or for him? How could they ask a non Muslim to work with or for him?
Seb Member	Sat Aug 19 11:32:13 Cherub cow: So the argument you are presenting against panoptic societies is an enhanced version of the EU right to be forgotten, which is also criticised as freedom of speech. If one person photographs or videos another person on public march should they not be permitted under free speech to broadcast that? The very purpose of that march is to loudly advocate a set of values; and the whole point of attending such demos - and what gives them force - is to lend personal support and endorsement to such a cause. And if another person then identifies that individual, should they not - under free speech - be free to broadcast that fact? And finally, if an employer discovers that his or her employee holds views - and these views are widely known - that are likely to mean customers and co-workers would be unable to work with that individual - should they not be free to dismiss them? The only way to protect an "objectionable" marcher here is to severely limit free speech rights of observers, reporters or employers rights. I don't think this is reasonable. A right to protest is one thing, but to ask that such protest be totally free of consequence is a step too far. It requires absurd limitations on everyone else's freedoms.
Seb Member	Sat Aug 19 11:45:10 When everone has at least two megapixel cameras and the ability to broadcast to the world, there cannot be a reasonable expectation to privacy outside of private spaces. As has happened with publishing, the law needed to enforce it is now disproportionate and onerous curtailment of the freedom of others.
Seb Member	Sat Aug 19 11:47:27 The way to limit doxxing is to beef up libel/defamation. Incorrectly naming and shaming someone that leads to them suffering dammage should carry serious consequences if the accusation is untrue. The internet has empowered us all. We must accept that we are accountable as individuals.
hood Member	Sat Aug 19 11:54:13 Seb, it has nothing to do with the right to be forgotten. It is a criticism of the actions and mentality behind doxxing. Nobody here is suggesting legal protection against doxxing the Nazi demonstrators, we are suggesting that individuals should just not do it because it's morally reprehensible. And demonstrations are not incitements of violence. Being a retard is fine. Telling people you're a retard is also fine. If it starts getting violent or advocates for violence, then punishment or restricted freedom is warranted.
Seb Member	Sat Aug 19 21:33:54 Hood: Marching in support of white supremacy is morally reprehensible. Why is identifying those that publicly march morally reprehensible? The entire point of public protest is to demonstrate support. That's why it has more weight than an anonymous petition. I do not agree at all that identifying participants in a public protest is reprehensible. Nor is it doxing. There's no possible expectation of privacy, that's the entire point of public protest.
jergul large member	Sat Aug 19 21:39:47 Hood I would agree in all cases where there is an expectation of privacy. But if someone puts themselves out there in support of some view, then that is a matter for public record. The courage to stand by public convictions assumes you actually have to stand for those convictions.
hood Member	Sat Aug 19 23:14:55 Simply being in public does not void all expectations of privacy. See this article as an example: http://ars...itor-anyone-via-location-data/ Specifically, this part: "Justice Sotomayor alluded to what is often referred to in legal academic circles as the "mosaic theory," the notion that the sum total of data gathered is often more revelatory than the discrete data collection." Now, this article is about cell location records. However, one could quite easily say that a mob of thousands online attempting to identify people from public photos would constitute an aspect of the mosaic theory. That is, the sum total of what all those thousands can discover is more revelatory than pictures of someone in public. It is more revelatory than what one person could do on their own. It is more revelatory than what any group of people linked by direct knowledge of a demonstrator could do on their own. Make no mistake, I'm not saying that someone who happens to recognize a marcher is the issue. It's when a mob bands together to out these people, vigilante style, that is unacceptable. Just like the cell location data. Any single given point is innocuous; but together, the mosaic they create is an altogether different beast. and... "Marching in support of white supremacy is morally reprehensible." Sure thing. It's also legal. I wouldn't suggest anyone do it though. "Why is identifying those that publicly march morally reprehensible?" I've covered that above. This act is, as well, legal. And like the previous act, I wouldn't suggest anyone do it. "The courage to stand by public convictions assumes you actually have to stand for those convictions." It is one thing to stand against your known associates. It's an entirely different thing to have to stand up to thousands or millions of people harassing you and attempting to cause damage to your personal life. Simply being a repugnant racist doesn't make you a free target for harassment.
jergul large member	Sat Aug 19 23:24:16 Hood Demonstrating is by its very nature a public act for the public record. The point you are making is valid for simply being in a public space (where an expectation of anonymity is warranted. A slight redefinition from privacy for obvious reasons). I do not think triggering a mosaic effect is warranted from demonstrating, but informing your associates of you public position in support of an issue is valid. In sum: I think we agree.
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Aug 20 03:18:56 [hood]: "'"mosaic theory"' ... That is, the sum total of what all those thousands can discover is more revelatory than pictures of someone in public. It is more revelatory than what one person could do on their own. It is more revelatory than what any group of people linked by direct knowledge of a demonstrator could do on their own." That's a nice way to think of it. Reminds me of a particular, old Operations Security video (one of those "OpSec is everyone's responsibility" videos): a person going through garbage, assembling old papers, and making a mosaic out of the discarded information of a bunch of different people in order to have an exact picture of troop movements and plans. In that case it was many different people assembled into a total view, but for the analogy doxing takes many different bits of one person's life weaponized against them — even the seemingly innocuous moments. And people can pretend that "oh it's fine if I've done nothing wrong" (the classic bad response to seeing this kind of weapon used), but once Sauron chooses a victim there is no shortage of dirt to find.
jergul large member	Sun Aug 20 04:35:48 Is it not more "You will get dirty if you march in Sauron's Army"?
Seb Member	Sun Aug 20 07:25:48 Hood: Doxxing is legal too. So I'm arguing three things: 1. As of now, I don't think attending a protest march would constitute a reasonable expectation of privacy as it is an intentionally public act. 2. The balance of expectation of privacy must shift in law due to changes in technology simply because to, e.g. protect privacy of marchers, would require harshly intrusive laws that limit everyone else's freedoms in ways that are frankly unenforceable. 3. About the only regulation you can do to this is to use civil claims by those damaged (or harassment laws) - but you've generally been negative on those approaches.
Seb Member	Sun Aug 20 07:38:20 Mosaic effect is well known. I had a part in drafting the policy on how we would ensure we protect citizens privacy in the UK re Annonymised data used for research. Tl;Dr anonymisation is actually very hard. Some academics thought it impossible to guarantee (largely because tech would move on and because the Annonymiser cannot know what info the attacker has to use to re-identify individuals - one study showed how use of users liked on streaming video sites cross published to Facebook profiles could be 80% accurate as a key to re-identify Annonymised records from some state dataset - health or social care I think). Important point here though - the link hood cites is about putting controls and due process on the state. It's not about limiting powers of individuals. And the thing about technology is that - since 2012 - I think the gloomiest predictions are true. It's one thing to limit the state, but these capabilities are now in the grasp of so much of the population, there's very little you can do to limit others from having the capability to find stuff out about you.
Seb Member	Sun Aug 20 07:39:25 Hood: errata, noticed you agreed that doxxing is legal. Please ignore that line in my post of you feel it is misconstruing your position.
jergul large member	Sun Aug 20 10:00:06 Seb The expectation of anonymity. You may want to adopt the term. It is more precise than "privacy". There is a lot you can do to limit what people find out about you. Mostly by limiting your use of social media.
Seb Member	Sun Aug 20 10:55:05 jergul: I'll think about it. In this context of looking at the law and norms as they stand now, "expectation of privacy" has more jurisprudence around it. And in this context I mean more than anonymity - for example if it became known that Person A has a large collection of NAZI memorabilia in their basement - I would say that even though the knowledge is now in the public domain, I would be less likely to consider it reasonable for his employer to fire him: that act has a reasonable expectation of privacy. If on the other hand he is out marching around town loudly professing his views and demanding policy changes, that's a different kettle of fish. [N.B. its not quite the same as you can collect nazi memorabilia without actually being a nazi, but I think it illustrates my point]. So, I'm slightly hesitant of your term. I do see the power in differentiating between the two, but I need to think through what it implies more. This is a complex area and getting it right is essential to integrating social media into legal and social frameworks. Yes, of course being careful of what data you chose to publish is a means to protect your privacy and anonymity - I was attempting to be very precise with that sentence. Let me try again: There is very little that society can do now that could reasonably and proportionately limit the ability of people to identify others - the capability afforded by search by image, facial recognition, social media and scalable networks of people with an interest in identifying people is so pervasive and supports so much other lawful activity that it simply isn's reasonable or possible to regulate it by attempting to limit those capabilities. Instead, we must regulate behaviour: users need to do more to protect themselves (by limiting what they publish), and focus instead on the behaviours. E.g. if Person A in attempting to Doxx Person B - a marcher in a protest rally - gets it wrong and publically broadcasts the details of Person C, and Person C suffers damages as a result, I believe Person A ought to have recourse to civil (or perhaps criminal in some cases) action against Person A as well as whoever it is who directly inflicted damages on them. I have said as much before in similar situations like harassment and doxing - I think it is the only way we can reasonably deal with the new environment, and establish reasonable norms of behaviour. This may be putting more liability onto Person A than many might want for flip and breezy use of social media - but social media is too ingrained in society now to not be treated as a mainstream public space. Now all the monkeys have got the reach and capability of broadcasters - they are going to have to learn some of the responsibilities and liabilities of newspaper editors. And when that happens, the platform companies will suddenly find an incentive to do things to help protect their users from themselves.
hood Member	Sun Aug 20 12:11:57 First and foremost: "Hood: errata, noticed you agreed that doxxing is legal. Please ignore that line in my post of you feel it is misconstruing your position." HOLY SHIT SEB READ WHAT SOMEONE SAID!?!?!?!? I am surprised and pleased. "Tl;Dr anonymisation is actually very hard. Some academics thought it impossible to guarantee (largely because tech would move on and because the Annonymiser cannot know what info the attacker has to use to re-identify individuals - one study showed how use of users liked on streaming video sites cross published to Facebook profiles could be 80% accurate as a key to re-identify Annonymised records from some state dataset - health or social care I think)." Yes, I am familiar with this. It is why the article I linked was supportive of search warrants for this type of metadata; it's almost impossible to truly protect against the information you find from it and the data itself can be remarkably accurate. If we apply it to this situation, one would "require a warrant" to invoke the internet mob to identify people. Now, certainly the internet mob is a bunch of individual citizens and not a government law enforcement agency so having the public get a warrant is laughable. However, it should provide commentary as to whether we should support the internet mob in their efforts to uncover people. After all, if we're requiring law enforcement to get a warrant, we recognize that this information can be remarkably sensitive in aggregate. "2. The balance of expectation of privacy must shift in law due to changes in technology simply because to, e.g. protect privacy of marchers, would require harshly intrusive laws that limit everyone else's freedoms in ways that are frankly unenforceable." And I think you'll notice that I've never suggested changing laws. As you noted, I've admitted that what the internet mob does is legal. My argument is that we as individuals should refrain from participating, not that we as a society should attempt to outlaw the activity. "Important point here though - the link hood cites is about putting controls and due process on the state. It's not about limiting powers of individuals. And the thing about technology is that - since 2012 - I think the gloomiest predictions are true. It's one thing to limit the state, but these capabilities are now in the grasp of so much of the population, there's very little you can do to limit others from having the capability to find stuff out about you." This is all correct. As I stated above, I am not arguing for new, restrictive laws. I am simply using laws we apply to law enforcement as a blueprint for how I would recommend private citizens act. "E.g. if Person A in attempting to Doxx Person B - a marcher in a protest rally - gets it wrong and publically broadcasts the details of Person C, and Person C suffers damages as a result, I believe Person A ought to have recourse to civil (or perhaps criminal in some cases) action against Person A as well as whoever it is who directly inflicted damages on them." I am going to assume that the second to last "Person A" is supposed to mean "Person C" here, as that is what makes sense. We have those protections. All that is needed is to properly apply them. Unfortunately, how can one properly apply libel or defamation laws to a mob of hundreds or thousands that participated in misidentifying someone? Who is liable? Who isn't? What degree of participation is identifiable and significant enough to elicit liability in this misidentification? This is why I simply recommend that people don't participate at all. It is why I consider doxxing to be morally reprehensible. Sure, attending a nazi march is also morally reprehensible, but in the US we specifically protect that speech. So with both actions being legal, I can only make recommendations that people not engage in such morally reprehensible behavior.
Seb Member	Sun Aug 20 18:35:42 Hood: Your link though is a very different situation. The argument being made there is that if the police didn't require a warrant for phone data, they basically had a system that could provide near 24/7 real time tracking of everyone; and that the state shouldn't have that power. That's not the case here, and the limits on what the state may do are naturally different from the limits of individuals. I don't think it's a question of supportive or not supportive - I think it's simply a question of what you would need to do to ban it - you'd basically end up with some govt agency vetting every blog post about someone else to determine if there is a public interest angle (otherwise how would investigative journalism into private sector malfeasance work?). I think individuals should refrain from Nazi protests too. And I'm not even sure I agree that - in principle - people should refrain from doxxing members of such groups. The whole point of free speech is a battle of ideas, and public condemnation is a reasonable response to public protest. Or to put it another way - if you are free to protest and boycott, others are surely free to protest against you. That's how you system has to work. My objection to doxxing here is simply that they'll get it wrong an innocent people will be dammaged. " I am simply using laws we apply to law enforcement as a blueprint for how I would recommend private citizens act. " I don't think that's the same thing though. The doxxing of individuals remains doxxing of individuals rather than the defacto persistent real time surveillance the automatic analysis of telephone location data would be. And the state has such sweeping powers and authority to act on info that they need to be managed by judiciary to ensure they are not misused. Again, this is not the case with individuals, even organised ones. Yes, Person C should have recourse - I started with the perspective of the perpetrator then reworded the sentence to be from the perspective of the wronged party to avoid a convoluted grammatical structure and forgot to change person A to C. Doh. "how can one properly apply libel or defamation laws to a mob of hundreds or thousands that participated in misidentifying someone?" The publisher I would say. There will be situations where you can't actually identify the point of synthesis (say tens of posts on a forum each contributing a nugget but nobody actually saying "that's Joe Blogs of 10 Accacia avenue, New York, works in such and such a branch of McDonald". OTOH in this case several people are publishing lists, so there is a clear target. I agree it would be lovely if both Nazi and doxxers went away, but ultimately we need a clear policy approach as a society because they won't go away. And while you have Nazi marches (or anything so deliberately intimidating and noxious) I'm not sure I can even agree that doxxing isn't precisely the correct way for counter protest because that's the whole argument for allowing people to put forward such views, in a free society it is for the media, individuals and the market to respond without government interference, and one such response will be boycott. That's how repugnant ideas get pushed out of the body politic, not by the state. The objection isn't to bad ideas being challenged, rejected and their purveyors being shunned, the objection is that it shouldn't be for the state to decide what's good and bad for things that stop short of a crime.
murder Member	Sun Aug 20 23:30:18 "murder will undoubtedly approve of this." I'm all for it as long as they make sure they get it right. I still remember the aftermath of the Boston bombing.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: