When it comes to the ethics of doxing (doxxing?), context matters, according to a post by feminist/atheist blogger Rebecca Watson, "Why I'm Okay With Doxing." Revealing the IRL identity of people who send harassing and threatening messages is ethical; revealing the identity of people who simply disagree with you is not.
But who decides what meets the criteria of "harassment" and "threat?" I believe that the person who doxed me viewed my mockery and attention as "harassing" because he views anyone who criticizes him as "a hater" and a mortal enemy. That's a function of his own pathology. Similarly, I am sure Paul Elam, Mike Cernovich and Chuck C. Johnson can justify their own outrageous violations of women's privacy on the grounds they are engaged in an ideological war. The threat their victims pose is very real to them. "Exposing" their opponents by publicly humiliating them is an intimidating weapon in their arsenal (well, pretty much their only weapon).
Complicating the whole issue is that the word "doxing" (like the word "troll") has come to mean a lot of different things. Is it "doxing" to Google, and then publicize, the address of someone who blogs under their real name? Is it "doxing" to publicize public records or private blogs?
And in an era when it is commonplace for both sides of the cultural divide to tweet vengeful fantasies of murder, rape and mutilation to one another, how credible are these threats? When I was doxed, I received a number of anonymous comments from people urging me to kill myself; as unpleasant as these sentiments were to read, it would be disingenuous for me to claim that I considered these to represent real threats against my person.
I love the anonymity of the internet, but I have never felt it was sacrosanct. Perhaps that's because I'm of a generation that did not grow up with the expectation that I had a "right" to anonymity. I've always recognized that the privacy of the internet is an illusion. I've learned that if anything characterizes the age we live in, it is that all of us are constantly under surveillance. People -- including me -- should be prepared to be held accountable for their words and actions. And perhaps the threat of being doxed is not an entirely bad thing, if it reminds us of that.
"Perhaps that's because I'm of a generation that did not grow up with the expectation that I had a "right" to anonymity."
ReplyDeleteI think, actually, the 'older crowd' (I'm somewhere in the middle) can be even MORE naive when it comes to the internet, and privacy. Wasn't long ago each and everyone could use their own social security number as a user NAME. Then identity theft started, and people had to get bigger and better passwords and usernames, and never ever use one's ss# on the net if it's avoidable. Thing is, for us non-millenials, life without the net was a lot more private…it would take over a month to get less than half the amount of personal information available on a person now within minutes…assuming it was available at all. The CIA could wasn't able to do in fifty years, privacy-infiltration wise, what the internet has done in less than a decade.
I just downloaded the WWI and WWII draft registration cards of my great grandfather. That was cool. It's a double edged sword, this internet business.
Not sure I'm entirely with Watson on this one, though I did enjoy seeing the clip of Buzz Adrin decking that lunar skeptic.
ReplyDeleteAs you say, what constitutes a threat is relative, and I don't like this whole 'it's really bad unless we do it to bad guys, then it's cool' line of thinking. To me that separates this from being good vs evil and more into warring tribes.
That said what constitutes doxxing is also subjective. What happened to you was pretty disgraceful because Forney really had to do some digging to get personal info, which he released in the hope it would do you harm. And despite what he believes, you never did him any harm. That is a bit different than Watson or Sarkeesian publishing hateful emails that people have sent them. Personally if I was going to start harassing an individual with obscenities and threats I wouldn't then expect that individual to respect my right to privacy. As Watson points out, such people DO have the option not send abusive emails to total strangers.
But still, the notion of putting all of someone's personal information out there is something I'm really uncomfortable with.
At the end of the day it makes me uncomfortable too. That being said I can only imagine what it's like to go through what Anita and Rebecca have. Maybe it's not the done thing on principle but I don't expect people to perfectly hold onto certain values after years of such abuse.
DeleteThey're only human.
"I believe that the person who doxed me viewed my mockery and attention as "harassing" because he views anyone who criticizes him as "a hater" and a mortal enemy."
ReplyDeleteWe cannot overestimate the paranoia and vindictiveness that drives the misogynists, today even more so than in the past. These men (and it is invariably men) indeed see any sign of disagreement or, God forbid, criticism, as personal attacks and will justify doxing of their critics as self-defense.
I think anonymity can be useful. Most people don't want their conversations online, however controversial or mundane, to take up the first fifteen pages of search results when employers look them up. It's competitive out there, so you don't want your random personal yammerings cluttering up your real name. Brand management 101 lol
ReplyDeleteBut anon culture does have some serious downsides. People say all kinds of things when they think they're invincible. People don't normally talk like that in public forums IRL (or even on facebook) and if they do, they face serious social disapproval and material consequences, typically a powerful check on the worst of our anti-social urges.
I've got a handle that's like halfway in between. I'm comically easy to dox-- it's never happened b/c no one cares and I don't know how I'd feel if it ever did! It's certainly not bulletproof tinted glass. It reminds me to not be a completely obnoxious little shit. But hopefully it's enough of a sheer curtain to spare my future employers and former lovers the weirdest of my ever-evolving opinions and tipsy ramblings in their search results. :D
I think there are two reasons to post anonymously online. One is so a person can say and do terrible things without being held accountable, two is to attempt to shield yourself from such people.
DeleteI'm sure I too could easily be doxxed as I'm pretty clueless about such things. But if I ever was, at least I've only ever said things I would stand by publicly, even if that has led to me keeping a rather tame blog.
I'd be interested to know you're take on Nick krauser
ReplyDeleteMyself, I hadn't heard of him before. But at your suggestion I checked his tweeter feed, just a bog standard bigot as far as I can see, the usual misogyny/racism cocktail with a few plugs for his books along the way. Less self-pitying than Roosh, I'll say that for him. But what has he to do with the issue of doxxing? Is he a doxxer or a victim of doxxing?
DeleteOr a plethora of other pua's. To be quite honest I'm not sure why Roosh gets so much attention compared to the other manosphere dudes. There's much worse. Like Heartiste for example.
DeleteHe's know for this kind of thing - doxxing?
Deletehttp://krauserpua.com/2015/01/23/pestering-girls-for-naked-selfies/
How can we protect innocent women like this one from people like this?
DeleteEeuch! Well that it certainly very creepy behavior. Though I'm not sure it counts as doxxing as he didn't reveal the girl's name and edited the naughty bits out of the photos. I still think he's just a garden variety wanker.
Delete@Paleo Cream Puff, I think the fascination with Roosh is that he's is such a car crash in slow motion. He doesn't so much brag about his exploits as perpetually whinge about how utterly miserable and disappointed he is with life, while inexplicably still attempting to market his lifestyle to impressionable young men, while even more inexplicably, succeeding.
It seems to me this innocent women has been sexually exploited. Shouldn't this be a criminal offence for those men who do it???
DeleteIt's a murky area. I think legally if you send someone an image it's theirs to distribute as they wish, as opposed to when a person's account is hacked and images stolen, as happened to Jennifer Lawrence which was a clear case of theft. The reason that revenge porn site got taken down was because many of the images had been hacked from women's accounts, as well as the fact images were undoctored and accompanied by personal information which made they're publication clearly malicious.
DeleteSo while Krausser is behaving unethically, I don't think this instance can count as a crime, particularly when he isn't revealing her identity, face or body, so can't be accused of trying to harm her reputation. There are much nastier fish to fry out there than this sleezy little douche nozzle.
Speaking of doxing So SSM closed down her old blog after being dozed by a manospherean she had a falling out with. She now has a new blog using her real name, and this blog seems to be toned down a bit on that a good deal of the kooky, kinky, manosphere-unicorn-girl persona is gone. Though she's still very reactionary, and thinks ladies shouldn't vote. And dosent seem to understand the point of the tweeter who mentioned voting:
ReplyDeleteI didn't break the link cause it's a screenshot
https://archive.today/vJssr
I think a handful of Free Jingerites doxed her first. Forney got most of his info from various threads at FJ's forums, which manophereans just don't read.
DeleteSSM made it so, so easy, though. Hell, if she'd wanted to get caught, she'd couldn't have made it any easier. She threw a big hissy fit over a parody blogger and reported the "issue" to Wordpress-- using her real name! From there, it was like netting fish from a barrel. Her FB was wide open, and lot of her husband's job info is public record...
I don't remember how FJ found her home addy, though.
Once a kook, always a kook.
DeleteThe smug is as thick on that new blog as it was on the old one. Some things never change.
The Southern Poverty Palace (SPLC) doxes people all the time.
ReplyDeletePlease cite an example.
DeleteJust go to their website & and look at their profiles of various humans.
DeleteI didn't go through their whole site, but I did go to the part that they have on the manosphere. No doxxing.
DeleteI went to the SPLC web site and looked at their profiles on extremists, is that what you were referring to?
DeleteThat's not doxxing, it's compiling information on people who've chosen to be public figures. It does not list any of their personal information, like home address, phone number, bank details etc, Neither could I find profiles where people operating under pseudonyms were unmasked. Nowhere are visitors to the site encouraged to go and harass these people personally, and the descriptions of them are free of slurs and the kind of offensive language you'll find in one of Paul Elam's screeds, like his current one where he offers a bounty to anyone who can dig up a photo of AVFM's current female target:
http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/01/19/paul-elam-youre-no-mlk-a-voice-for-men-offers-a-100-bounty-for-a-clear-photo-of-its-latest-feminist-foe/
Incidentally, while the SPLC does address misogynist groups, I didn't find any members of the manosphere in the section profiling extremists.
Yes, I'd like to see some examples too. I'm always hearing about evil SJWs are, but I rarely see examples that stand up under scrutiny.
ReplyDelete