When my site was attacked and I tracked down all the information I could find to solve the problem, I asked Voat if I should share the doxx of those who attacked the site. Literally no one answered the question. Instead, I was mostly attacked, but it was a genuine inquiry. I erred on the side of caution, but, recently, when @kevdude was threatened with a frivolous lawsuit, I decided that those responsible should get a taste of their own medicine. Especially, since doxxing was not yet a bannable offense.
Additionally, I question why doxxing finally became bannable when @srayzie had her criminal history posted, and not before that. It seems like she required special protection and everyone else was fair game. But, in order to maintain a sense of fairness, the rule was applied more widely.
Of course, I have been painted by the bad guy but only by those who refuse to admit @srayzie was doing the same thing, only worse. Whatever anyone thinks of @gothamgirl, all of the accusations against her are conjecture and @srazyie is factually everything everyone accused @gothamgirl of being. Factually. In that there is no question. DUI, drug charges, trespassing, failure to appear, failure to pay and on and on.
With all the moralizing that has gone on, I find it truly distasteful that anyone should expect @srazyie to be an authority on anything. She is the exact opposite type of person who should be involved in any conservative movement. If you are going to moralize at me, then you should be prepared to aim that in the proper direction because I would never stoop to what my detractors have stooped to and supported.
Doxxing has been a bannable offense for years, as an aside, but:
I would never stoop to what my detractors have stooped to and supported
You mean, like... Doxxing?
Just so we're on the same page, I'm not on anybody's side about this. I find the entire episode distasteful, and the use of doxxing to fuck with somebody in the real is despicable, unethical, and cowardly. Both sides who engaged in this sort of behaviour should be banned and publicly shamed.
I can't believe some stupid shit like this would implode the user base either, like fuck people c'mon. Whatever happened to adults acting like it?
There are a lot of definitions of what people think is "doxxing" but most are not actually doxxing and I certainly am not doxxing for the specific intent of harassing users. If the state of California considers it public information, then so do I. I was highlighting that a criminal was trying to moralize at a large group of people when she, herself, is a complete lowlife who thought doxxing was fine.
And, in truth, I've doxxed plenty of people on this site and, even now, nobody cares about pedophiles being doxxed... like Kevin Reynolds of East Hampton Babysitters. So, there is a double standard and there is no legal line.
If someone is doxxed, most people do nothing.
However, when @gothamgirl was doxxed, it was specifically to harass and allow people to call her kids school or something and, in the case of @kevdude, he was harassed with a lawsuit, specifically.
So, let me ask you... what is your understanding of what doxxing really is? A face picture? A name? An email address? Publicly available information? Private information? There is a spectrum of opinions on this.
But, to find all "doxxing" to be "disgusting behavior" you would havce to find Wikileaks to be terrible, as well. I'm sure you have a line, somewhere.
If you gather and publish information on a specific person, whether you are responding to being doxxed, whether you're threatening/harassing them yourself or simply enabling others to do it, you are doxxing. That's what it is, gathering and publishing information to identify a particular individual, generally to further ones own motives and not for a good cause.
All doxxing is disgusting and unethical behavior, that's all there is to that.
WikiLeaks does not, generally, point to John Doe down the street and say "He's a pedo, get em!". They usually stick to bigger things and do not make individuals who have a slight expectation of privacy a focus. Public officials, celebrities, etc, have a diminished right to privacy but not nonexistent. They're just under more scrutiny and while 'Did you know Harrison Ford has a house in TN?' wouldn't be doxxing because he is in the public domain, if you listed mine it would be because I, not being so, would have a higher expectation along with the hopefully added respect of any adult who came across it to ignore it.
Unfortunately, we do not live in a world of morals.
I did not gather information about one specific person. I gathered information about a group of people who were harassing me and spreading lies. I did not post the information but I did ask Voat first about it and nobody bothered to respond. I posted one piece of information that is provided by the government that anyone can look up.
When I was doxxed, someone thought it was great to make a bunch of dating profiles for me all over the country. Fortunately, there aren't any recent pictures of me online that would make sense in an online dating profile, so the ruse was somewhat obvious.
I'm not sure if you are suggesting what I did was illegal doxxing, but it does not qualify as restricted information. The information I shared is public information and not restricted or private in any way. It is possible to make it private by having the records sealed, but that is not something @srayzie was willing to do because... lazy.
There is no federal law that criminalizes all of the conduct that may be called doxing, such as publishing someone’s contact information. However, there is a federal law against stalking that @srayzie is guilty of. 18 U.S. Code § 2261A.
I have to strongly disagree that all doxxing is wrong. In fact, I don't think there is a problem with doxxing, in general. Everything is already on the Internet and if it moves from one place to another there is no crime and there is no ethical conundrum. It is, indeed, what people do with the information that the law provides for.
(2) with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that—
(A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person …; or
(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person …
shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title.”
I wanted to state my disagreement with a lot of what you said, but I also want to clarify to others, because of your wording, what @srazyie has done is illegal. What I have done is not. Being guilty of a crime is not a legal cause for "emotional distress."
So, in the absence of any action being taken for an actual legal problem that @srayzie was creating... where Voat was allowing a crime to repeatedly take place... the obvious choice was to expose a criminal for what she is. And, like magic, the problem solved itself.
But, again, I don't have a problem with posting criminal histories on state websites. I think it is very, very clear, in the eyes of the law and anyone with a reasoned approach that information posted by the government is perfectly within everyone's rights to share.
No one could do any decent reporting if they were limited to your standards. Not everyone is a politician and nobody should b e a protected class. The intelligence community has all your doxx, you should have theirs. It's that simple.
@srayzie played a stupid game and won a stupid prize.
Posted automatically (#62364) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@thewebofslime: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @Crensch)
I did not gather information on one specific individual...
I did not post any information...
I posted one piece of information...
Bro, that's three contradictions in your first like 3 sentences.
Yeah, we're all aware this information can be found with a simple court search. I see you're trying to quote some law like a lawyer, nobody said you did anything illegal.
I said it was amoral, unethical, and cowardly.
You set out specifically to identify and gather information on individuals you somehow believed were harassing you and then set about using said information in nefarious ways, or provided that information to other players whom you knew would engage in inappropriate conduct.
That is doxxing. It's that simple. Quit twisting my words. We've gone over this several times. Reporters already don't identify anybody beyond name, they most assuredly don't post their address and say "Hey. We think this guy might be guilty of something but we don't really have any proof, but hey. Don't do anything. *Wink.
And, really, that's the crux of the issue is the threats. If people could act like adults, this wouldn't be as much of an issue. You learn something about a neighbour, and you go 'oh' and file it away for your dealings later. Sure, you spread it around so other people know what's up. But you don't threaten their children, or post pictures of their house around town, that's fucking low.
These people were factually harassing myself and others. You are suggesting that I don't defend myself, which is terrible advice.
It is not amoral to look up a criminal record, nor is it unethical. Megan's Law website exists for a reason. It isn't cowardly, as it levels the playing field of someone who was already engaged in doxxing. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Reporters already don't identify anybody beyond name
False.
I didn't post anyone's address... also a false accusation. Just regroup your thoughts... don't be dishonest.
"Hey. We think this guy might be guilty of something
The person in question is literally, factually guilty of many things. We have the court records to prove it.
"doxxing" is a neologism. It isn't illegal. It is what people do with the information... just like the Megan's Law website.
But you don't threaten their children, or post pictures of their house around town, that's fucking low.
I did no such thing. Knock it off. I posted information from a state/website and I made no threats.
view the rest of the comments →
thewebofslime ago
When my site was attacked and I tracked down all the information I could find to solve the problem, I asked Voat if I should share the doxx of those who attacked the site. Literally no one answered the question. Instead, I was mostly attacked, but it was a genuine inquiry. I erred on the side of caution, but, recently, when @kevdude was threatened with a frivolous lawsuit, I decided that those responsible should get a taste of their own medicine. Especially, since doxxing was not yet a bannable offense.
Additionally, I question why doxxing finally became bannable when @srayzie had her criminal history posted, and not before that. It seems like she required special protection and everyone else was fair game. But, in order to maintain a sense of fairness, the rule was applied more widely.
Of course, I have been painted by the bad guy but only by those who refuse to admit @srayzie was doing the same thing, only worse. Whatever anyone thinks of @gothamgirl, all of the accusations against her are conjecture and @srazyie is factually everything everyone accused @gothamgirl of being. Factually. In that there is no question. DUI, drug charges, trespassing, failure to appear, failure to pay and on and on.
With all the moralizing that has gone on, I find it truly distasteful that anyone should expect @srazyie to be an authority on anything. She is the exact opposite type of person who should be involved in any conservative movement. If you are going to moralize at me, then you should be prepared to aim that in the proper direction because I would never stoop to what my detractors have stooped to and supported.
Memorexem ago
Doxxing has been a bannable offense for years, as an aside, but:
You mean, like... Doxxing?
Just so we're on the same page, I'm not on anybody's side about this. I find the entire episode distasteful, and the use of doxxing to fuck with somebody in the real is despicable, unethical, and cowardly. Both sides who engaged in this sort of behaviour should be banned and publicly shamed.
I can't believe some stupid shit like this would implode the user base either, like fuck people c'mon. Whatever happened to adults acting like it?
thewebofslime ago
There are a lot of definitions of what people think is "doxxing" but most are not actually doxxing and I certainly am not doxxing for the specific intent of harassing users. If the state of California considers it public information, then so do I. I was highlighting that a criminal was trying to moralize at a large group of people when she, herself, is a complete lowlife who thought doxxing was fine.
And, in truth, I've doxxed plenty of people on this site and, even now, nobody cares about pedophiles being doxxed... like Kevin Reynolds of East Hampton Babysitters. So, there is a double standard and there is no legal line.
If someone is doxxed, most people do nothing.
However, when @gothamgirl was doxxed, it was specifically to harass and allow people to call her kids school or something and, in the case of @kevdude, he was harassed with a lawsuit, specifically.
So, let me ask you... what is your understanding of what doxxing really is? A face picture? A name? An email address? Publicly available information? Private information? There is a spectrum of opinions on this.
But, to find all "doxxing" to be "disgusting behavior" you would havce to find Wikileaks to be terrible, as well. I'm sure you have a line, somewhere.
Memorexem ago
If you gather and publish information on a specific person, whether you are responding to being doxxed, whether you're threatening/harassing them yourself or simply enabling others to do it, you are doxxing. That's what it is, gathering and publishing information to identify a particular individual, generally to further ones own motives and not for a good cause.
All doxxing is disgusting and unethical behavior, that's all there is to that.
WikiLeaks does not, generally, point to John Doe down the street and say "He's a pedo, get em!". They usually stick to bigger things and do not make individuals who have a slight expectation of privacy a focus. Public officials, celebrities, etc, have a diminished right to privacy but not nonexistent. They're just under more scrutiny and while 'Did you know Harrison Ford has a house in TN?' wouldn't be doxxing because he is in the public domain, if you listed mine it would be because I, not being so, would have a higher expectation along with the hopefully added respect of any adult who came across it to ignore it.
Unfortunately, we do not live in a world of morals.
thewebofslime ago
I did not gather information about one specific person. I gathered information about a group of people who were harassing me and spreading lies. I did not post the information but I did ask Voat first about it and nobody bothered to respond. I posted one piece of information that is provided by the government that anyone can look up.
When I was doxxed, someone thought it was great to make a bunch of dating profiles for me all over the country. Fortunately, there aren't any recent pictures of me online that would make sense in an online dating profile, so the ruse was somewhat obvious.
I'm not sure if you are suggesting what I did was illegal doxxing, but it does not qualify as restricted information. The information I shared is public information and not restricted or private in any way. It is possible to make it private by having the records sealed, but that is not something @srayzie was willing to do because... lazy.
There is no federal law that criminalizes all of the conduct that may be called doxing, such as publishing someone’s contact information. However, there is a federal law against stalking that @srayzie is guilty of. 18 U.S. Code § 2261A.
I have to strongly disagree that all doxxing is wrong. In fact, I don't think there is a problem with doxxing, in general. Everything is already on the Internet and if it moves from one place to another there is no crime and there is no ethical conundrum. It is, indeed, what people do with the information that the law provides for.
I wanted to state my disagreement with a lot of what you said, but I also want to clarify to others, because of your wording, what @srazyie has done is illegal. What I have done is not. Being guilty of a crime is not a legal cause for "emotional distress."
So, in the absence of any action being taken for an actual legal problem that @srayzie was creating... where Voat was allowing a crime to repeatedly take place... the obvious choice was to expose a criminal for what she is. And, like magic, the problem solved itself.
But, again, I don't have a problem with posting criminal histories on state websites. I think it is very, very clear, in the eyes of the law and anyone with a reasoned approach that information posted by the government is perfectly within everyone's rights to share.
No one could do any decent reporting if they were limited to your standards. Not everyone is a politician and nobody should b e a protected class. The intelligence community has all your doxx, you should have theirs. It's that simple.
@srayzie played a stupid game and won a stupid prize.
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this v/GreatAwakeningMeta comment by @Crensch.
Posted automatically (#62364) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@thewebofslime: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @Crensch)
Memorexem ago
Bro, that's three contradictions in your first like 3 sentences.
Yeah, we're all aware this information can be found with a simple court search. I see you're trying to quote some law like a lawyer, nobody said you did anything illegal.
I said it was amoral, unethical, and cowardly.
You set out specifically to identify and gather information on individuals you somehow believed were harassing you and then set about using said information in nefarious ways, or provided that information to other players whom you knew would engage in inappropriate conduct.
That is doxxing. It's that simple. Quit twisting my words. We've gone over this several times. Reporters already don't identify anybody beyond name, they most assuredly don't post their address and say "Hey. We think this guy might be guilty of something but we don't really have any proof, but hey. Don't do anything. *Wink.
And, really, that's the crux of the issue is the threats. If people could act like adults, this wouldn't be as much of an issue. You learn something about a neighbour, and you go 'oh' and file it away for your dealings later. Sure, you spread it around so other people know what's up. But you don't threaten their children, or post pictures of their house around town, that's fucking low.
thewebofslime ago
These people were factually harassing myself and others. You are suggesting that I don't defend myself, which is terrible advice.
It is not amoral to look up a criminal record, nor is it unethical. Megan's Law website exists for a reason. It isn't cowardly, as it levels the playing field of someone who was already engaged in doxxing. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
False.
I didn't post anyone's address... also a false accusation. Just regroup your thoughts... don't be dishonest.
The person in question is literally, factually guilty of many things. We have the court records to prove it.
"doxxing" is a neologism. It isn't illegal. It is what people do with the information... just like the Megan's Law website.
I did no such thing. Knock it off. I posted information from a state/website and I made no threats.