What is dox'ing? (AskVoat)

submitted ago by WhiteRonin

Seriously, what is dox’ing?

Today a sub and a user got a global under the auspices of dox’ing. I saw her pictures. But guess what! I same them on her sub the first time, I just typed her name into bing ....

OMFG!!! I just dox’ed her.

Top hit! The first link on the first page.

I’m gonna link to it because the mind crime Nazis will say I dox’ed her too.

So, is posting a picture of public persona that puts up her Picture on Twitter that is reposted here a dox?

Let’s consider another case.

Ok, so let’s get into what a real dox is:

  1. Get a user from voat

  2. Type in their username

  3. Only alts pop up

  4. Do some more digging and get a name associate via another site.

  5. Pass that person’s real name and address onto another user(s).

This is a real dox.

Is making public of an alt of an alt a dox?

Personally I don’t think so.

Any other scenarios?

So, if posting pictures of a public twitter account that has the same alt as the one her on voat a global ban situation, what shall we do if a person were to track down a user and exposes their real name and address?

Is this a situation for global ban or not?

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

ooberlu ago

Wrapped up in this drama are 2 very separate and very different issues that most people are confusing; trying to wrap up into one accusation; and conflating in an attempt to garner sympathy without sticking to facts and laws.

1) There is first the issue of doxxing. (Srayzie's husband's info getting publicized)

2) There is second the issue of privacy. (Srayzie' photos getting uploaded)

On the first topic of doxing. This is illegal if private information is released for the purpose of harassment. Private information is usually in the form of a phone number, first and last name, a home address and/or work address. Doxing is illegal.

Most site admins have no choice but to take threats of doxing seriously, otherwise they can be held liable for negligence. Putt had no choice but to ban once a threat to dox was made known.

~

On the second topic of privacy. Srazyie has absolutely no expectation of privacy if her photos were previously uploaded onto another social media site.

If Srayzie had already uploaded her photos onto another social media site, she waived away all her rights over those photos. Correct me if I am wrong, but her photos were found on Twitter, I believe. Has anybody here bothered to read the TOS for Twitter? Here is a short excerpt that is applicable to her situation:

You are responsible for your use of the Services and for any Content you provide, including compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations. You should only provide Content that you are comfortable sharing with others.

Repeat that last sentence: You should only provide Content that you are comfortable sharing with others.

Also of note:

By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed). This license authorizes us to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other companies, organizations or individuals for the syndication, broadcast, distribution, promotion or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use. Such additional uses by Twitter, or other companies, organizations or individuals, may be made with no compensation paid to you with respect to the Content that you submit, post, transmit or otherwise make available through the Services.

TLDR on that last paragraph:

  • You grant fair use to Twitter for any content you submit.

  • Twitter will distribute your content worldwide.

  • Don't expect to be paid by Twitter.

  • Don't expect to be paid by any company or individual who wants to use your content.

You can find both paragraphs under Section 3. Content on the Services

Trolls finding Srayzie photos available online are no different than people making memes out of pictures of Clinton or Trump and passing them around. Unless she had taken steps to copyright her selfies - which I highly doubt - she has zero expectation of privacy regarding those photos. They have been freely available in the public domain and are legally considered public property under copyright laws.

WhiteRonin ago

Clarification for number 2: didn’t Neon Revolt cause more problem than a sub making fun of her?

ooberlu ago

That I don't have any knowledge of.

thelma ago

Doxxing is not illegal in the USA to my knowledge.

Voat user agreement only prohibits "sensitive" information...not ALL information. Name, address, date of birth are not sensitive.

Voat sub rules have no-doxing .. but I think the "personal info" is limited to "sensitive info" due to voat user agreement terms.

But even if there is a difference between sub rules and voat TOS...then violating the sub rule should only result in a ban on the sub and not all of voat.

The sub "no dox" rule is not limited to others..it includes all users, including those that "dox" themselves.

If there is a rule that no photo, document, or posted text or other posting info that could aid in the IDing of a person then this would be a Voat rule, which can be more restrictive..and less restrictive rules outside Voat would be moot. Have to follow Voat rules.

IMO if there was a site-wide non-doxxing rule and a user post their own pic and then other users re-post it on voat then all, including the pictured user, would need to be banned (on sub or entirely on voat depending on the rule).

IMO doxxing should be fine, in accordance with following the other rules in the user agreement.

ooberlu ago

Doxxing is not illegal in the USA to my knowledge.

It falls under cybercrime or cyberstalking and there are federal laws governing such. 'Doxxing' is what we call it online, but there are very specific behaviors that define cyberstalking and it usually has to meet all of the criteria in order to be construed as such. Cases usually get prosecuted around evidence showing proof of intent to harm.

Voat user agreement only prohibits "sensitive" information...not ALL information. Name, address, date of birth are not sensitive.

Agreed. And it does not define what "sensitive" or "information" or "sensitive information" entails. This leaves those terms open for interpretation.

Voat sub rules have no-doxing .. but I think the "personal info" is limited to "sensitive info" due to voat user agreement terms.

Again, it's not defined in the User Agreement. So it leaves room for open interpretation. It's a pretty sloppy User Agreement, IMO. Could be much more airtight.

But even if there is a difference between sub rules and voat TOS...then violating the sub rule should only result in a ban on the sub and not all of voat.

I don't recall if there are specific rules regarding subs in the Voat User Agreement. This might be an unprecedented case for Voat.

If I understand the situation now, Trigglypuff was banned for threatening to dox. That resulted in a sitewide ban.

However, IMO, the subverse should still be left up. But that's up to Putt's discretion, not mine. I'm just a bystander commenting on the confusion of 2 separate issues that people misconstrue.

The sub "no dox" rule is not limited to others..it includes all users, including those that "dox" themselves.

Am unclear what you're referring to here.

IMO if there was a site-wide non-doxxing rule and a user post their own pic and then other users re-post it on voat then all, including the pictured user, would need to be banned (on sub or entirely on voat depending on the rule).

You have to go back to the facts: 1) Srayzie uploads her own photos which are (most likely) not copyrighted. 2) Srayzie's photos belong to public domain (free use) under copyright laws 3) trolls find her photos online 4) trolls use her photos as satire.

What Srayzie did with her selfies is not considered "doxxing" herself.

IMO doxxing should be fine, in accordance with following the other rules in the user agreement.

She will get no sympathy from me when/if she does get doxxed. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes, as the saying goes.

She should have learned a long time ago not to engage with the trolls, much less declare "war" on them. The idiocy she's demonstrated as of late utterly astounds me.

thelma ago

If Voat wanted to clarify their terms, to avoid the issues associated with ambiguities (remember not all goats here have dealt with privacy issues in a legal sense), I think that Voat would have already done so in the user agreement . I think Voat is happy with the rules as currently written. I have no desire to see changes. The other rules are clear enough about malicious behavior.

Perhaps the user agreement may change. But I think that doxxing minors might be a tangled web of shit. I have not looked at changes in the laws related to minors and doxxing - most stuff I work with are with adults, usually with gov't employees and agencies; just for that reason I don't dox with online forums.

To clarify, if there was a clear defined "no doxing" rule - then if I doxed myself then I would expect to be punished the same as if another doxed me. Unless the rule was clearly noted that I could dox myself w/o issue.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Yeah, sometimes. Welcome to the internet.

ooberlu ago

not all goats here have dealt with privacy issues in a legal sense

I'd agree that not many goats have had to deal with privacy issues legally. Ironically, these are probably the same goats who go to Facebook; overshare their private lives; then post about it on Twitter that their data was sold without consent. (face palm and a clear indication they never read the TOS.)

I think Voat is happy with the rules as currently written. I have no desire to see changes.

It's a pretty casual User Agreement. It has its pros and cons. Pros being not requiring expensive lawyers for TOS on a site that's known for nigger/kike/faggot/tranny/jews did 9/11 on v/Introductions. Cons being that it's open to interpretation and potential abuse/misuse.

I have not looked at changes in the laws related to minors and doxxing

The only state that I am familiar with that has laws surrounding minors is in California (something something actors and protecting their ages.)

Interest to note, however, there is an uptick in charging of minors in doxing. Minors are not always the victim when it comes to cyberstalking. They've lately become the perps in some newsworthy cases.

To clarify, if there was a clear defined "no doxing" rule - then if I doxed myself then I would expect to be punished the same as if another doxed me. Unless the rule was clearly noted that I could dox myself w/o issue.

I see what you're getting it now. That would be left up to Voat to define what it means to 'dox', then, as applicable to the Voat website.

Welcome to the internet.

The Internet Always Remembers.

WhiteRonin ago

Well, sensitive information is passed anyways ...

thelma ago

Well, some person did not define "sensitive" in the TOS. Not me. Not @whiteronin either.

Get some popcorn.

WhiteRonin ago

I have never passed sensitive information via pm nor on voat ... Putt can run a search via DB calls to prove this.

Shit, I know several goats phone numbers and I’m sure the hell ain’t gonna share them!

Now, the question remains, who doxed somebody - for reals ;-)

Yep, 🍿