Rendered at 07:23:58 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
hexapus 2 days ago [-]
The current regime decided lawlessness was beneficial to them. Cuts both ways. I suppose people should consider carefully whether signing bonuses and the chance to abuse marginalised people with impunity is worth it. I'm fine with people making it riskier to throw in with corrupt authoritarians for personal benefit.
reallydoingthis 2 days ago [-]
[flagged]
kgujdtjof 2 days ago [-]
This whole concept of “doxxing” has spun way out of control.
Every house in the country used to get a giant paperback book every year with the name, address, and telephone number of everyone that lived in the community. This information has never been considered secret.
Doxxing specifically refers to unmasking a pseudonym. That’s it. If there’s no pseudonym, it’s not doxxing.
MadrasTh0rn 2 days ago [-]
The resources needed to harass and target people from an address book has been reduced significantly since phone books.
Society has really not adapted well to this.
DANmode 2 days ago [-]
Disagree.
The ways people have opened themselves to harassment and targeting have been increased significantly since phone books.
People were not hard to target and harass in those days.
macintux 2 days ago [-]
Really.
When I used phone books:
- My banking accounts weren’t globally accessible
- The data companies collected about me was effectively non-existent, and wasn’t globally accessible
- My phone had no information about me, didn’t know my minute-by-minute whereabouts, and if somehow you organized a DDOS against it, I could just take it off the hook and walk away
- My employer didn’t have social media, and couldn’t be bombarded with accusations against me
- Swatting was less likely, because there weren’t 8 billion people with easy access to my data
I could probably go on for a while. None of the above is me “opening myself up” except by virtue of owning a smartphone, which is difficult to avoid.
DANmode 1 days ago [-]
> My employer didn’t have social media, and couldn’t be bombarded with accusations against me
Yes, you could. They took a phone call or showing up instead, but you absolutely could be - both real and false.
DANmode 1 days ago [-]
> - Swatting was less likely, because there weren’t 8 billion people with easy access to my data
Ah yes, my mom randomly gets swatted all the time!
(What are you talking about?, lol: this is again an intentionally-prominent-person’s problem, not a general societal shift.)
DANmode 1 days ago [-]
> except by virtue of owning a smartphone, which is difficult to avoid
But carrying one with you at all times, and giving it all of your attention, giving attention to notifications and tags on multiple wide-open-to-public platforms - that’s not a spectrum of choices?!
C’mon.
We can just take it off the hook and walk away.
We succumb to pressures.
eithed 2 days ago [-]
Don't think that I would be able to find information in the phone book whether given person is right leaning, or left; whether they said something racist or not, etc
gmerc 2 days ago [-]
You could not do anything with that information nor did you know anything or could you reasonably find out anything about 99% of names in the book without effort, so this is just disingenous
paulddraper 2 days ago [-]
> Every house in the country used to get a giant paperback book every year
If you did that in Europe you'd get fined 4% of annual turnover.
Wild how much basic practices have changed in 2 decades.
duttish 2 days ago [-]
We got those giant books here too.
paulddraper 2 days ago [-]
Not anymore though.
(In fact, even a stiff fine, which is my point.)
EricBetts 2 days ago [-]
You could choose to be unlisted, or only use initials
NDlurker 2 days ago [-]
I don't know if every state is like this, but in my state, all state employee salaries are public information that anyone can look up. Why should federal employees have their information hidden? They're supposed to work for us.
jojobas 2 days ago [-]
Same reason that FBI agents' identities are classified - so that people who disagree with what a democratically established agency is doing to uphold the law don't go out intimidating or killing them.
NDlurker 2 days ago [-]
What's the difference? BCI is the state equivalent of the FBI. Do you think people are going to go out and kill them just because their identities are public? That's absurd.
No, of course no drug cartel, gang or disgruntled citizen would ever do such a thing, they are definitely not doing that in Mexico already after all.
NDlurker 2 days ago [-]
Why isn't it happening to state employees? Why do you think federal employees are special?
jojobas 1 days ago [-]
Because of course it is sometimes, despite state level agencies typically dealing with somewhat lesser crimes and not-so-controversial topics, and don't attract neither as much organized crime attention nor a movement to dox and harass its members.
If those employees didn't do anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about.
reallydoingthis 2 days ago [-]
[flagged]
iAMkenough 2 days ago [-]
Why would I want them to worry? Are you insinuating they did something wrong?
aliasxneo 2 days ago [-]
I'm sure this line works well with doxx'ing victims.
iAMkenough 2 days ago [-]
Public servants? It’s the line the government uses to justify dragnet mass surveillance.
No harm in knowing who is working for you.
aliasxneo 2 days ago [-]
> It’s the line the government uses to justify dragnet mass surveillance.
Agreed. But I don't see how that justifies your original comment.
bobthepanda 2 days ago [-]
The original comment is clearly an expression of schadenfreude.
dpkirchner 2 days ago [-]
It's the line that folks on a certain side of the political divide (typically aligned with DHS) tend to bring out whenever we talk about the harms of surveillance.
parthdesai 2 days ago [-]
Do those doxxed victims have significant power over an average person?
With great power comes greater responsibilities
DeluluDon 2 days ago [-]
Yeah Spiderman is such an influence over real life.
aliasxneo 2 days ago [-]
The whole epitome of this thread is that my enemies got doxx'd and so now I shall jump through dozens of logical hoops in order to justify it.
Oh, also, if you're not happy with this, you obviously must agree with everything they are doing.
2 days ago [-]
whoanoway 2 days ago [-]
[dead]
aliasxneo 2 days ago [-]
> If those employees didn't do anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about.
That's the line I responded to, in case you didn't read it.
parthdesai 2 days ago [-]
That is the line govt uses/used to justify mass surveillance. OP is just flipping the table?
Every house in the country used to get a giant paperback book every year with the name, address, and telephone number of everyone that lived in the community. This information has never been considered secret.
Doxxing specifically refers to unmasking a pseudonym. That’s it. If there’s no pseudonym, it’s not doxxing.
Society has really not adapted well to this.
The ways people have opened themselves to harassment and targeting have been increased significantly since phone books.
People were not hard to target and harass in those days.
When I used phone books:
- My banking accounts weren’t globally accessible
- The data companies collected about me was effectively non-existent, and wasn’t globally accessible
- My phone had no information about me, didn’t know my minute-by-minute whereabouts, and if somehow you organized a DDOS against it, I could just take it off the hook and walk away
- My employer didn’t have social media, and couldn’t be bombarded with accusations against me
- Swatting was less likely, because there weren’t 8 billion people with easy access to my data
I could probably go on for a while. None of the above is me “opening myself up” except by virtue of owning a smartphone, which is difficult to avoid.
Yes, you could. They took a phone call or showing up instead, but you absolutely could be - both real and false.
Ah yes, my mom randomly gets swatted all the time!
(What are you talking about?, lol: this is again an intentionally-prominent-person’s problem, not a general societal shift.)
But carrying one with you at all times, and giving it all of your attention, giving attention to notifications and tags on multiple wide-open-to-public platforms - that’s not a spectrum of choices?!
C’mon.
We can just take it off the hook and walk away. We succumb to pressures.
If you did that in Europe you'd get fined 4% of annual turnover.
Wild how much basic practices have changed in 2 decades.
(In fact, even a stiff fine, which is my point.)
https://govsalaries.com/salaries/ND/north-dakota-attorney-ge...
https://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2016/12/14/tbi-charges-mur...
https://fox59.com/news/indycrime/indy-man-charged-with-intim... - note the state won't disclose who the victim was
Also it seems like states tend to hush it down to not expose their agents further.
Balancing transparency with not exposing LEOs to another Operation Snow White seems like common sense to me.
No harm in knowing who is working for you.
Agreed. But I don't see how that justifies your original comment.
With great power comes greater responsibilities
Oh, also, if you're not happy with this, you obviously must agree with everything they are doing.
That's the line I responded to, in case you didn't read it.