Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Doxxing defense: Remove your personal info from data brokers

computerworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 163 posts

Re: Doxxing defense: Remove your personal info from data brokers

#141

Post by rudolf0 »

mafribe wrote: post #139
rudolf0 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"KingOfPol" is known for lying and generally being not too mentally stable, so it's certainly not a stretch. Sarkeesian on the other hand is unlikely to lie about such things, but there was clearly some exaggeration involved.

Why is Sarkeesian "unlikely to lie about such things"?

Because she's (sort of) a public figure and if it was revealed she was lying, it would look very bad for her? She also hasn't had a history of lying about such things in the past, so there's no reason to suspect she is now. She is known to have lied about certain other issues, but not in a way that's relevant to threats or harassment. She also doesn't come across as mentally unhinged or malicious. I dislike her, but I don't think she lied about any of the threats.

The other person being discussed, KingOfPol, is known for his narcissism and fabrication of stories, so it's a bit different.

Re: Doxxing defense: Remove your personal info from data brokers

#142

Post by muyuu »

wpietri wrote: post #25
muyuu wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not men too?

This response grates a little. It's so common that it's widely discussed and parodied. E.g.: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/phmt-argu... http://www.robot-hugs.com/but-men/ And it's closely related to the "not all men" line, equally mocked: http://www.listen-tome.com/save-me/ http://imgur.com/gallery/z5AYz66 But assuming that you are sincere and just unaware of the context: The reason that I person…

Still, it would make zero sense to me that someone would provide a service against doxxing and limit said service to women. Why discriminating against men? Men can also be victimized by doxxing.

How about providing it to people instead of just the female subset of people?

Re: Doxxing defense: Remove your personal info from data brokers

#143

Post by Symbiote »

rootlocus wrote: post #72
Someone1234 wrote: post #18

The US really needs something akin to the EU's Data Protection Directive[0]. I've seen tons of businesses hide some tiny clause in their T&Cs (page 30, subsection 15, paragraph 11, etc) which allows them to resell your data to whoever will pay. For example the National Geographic Store sold my personal data when I purchased something from them (even with no check-box opt out, etc during checkout), and I've been recei…

It's unfortunate that more and more services started blacklisting mailinator.

Last week I have pointed a subdomain (x.example.net) to Mailinator.

I've only used it once so far, but I don't expect many sites to have made the effort to block it.

Re: Doxxing defense: Remove your personal info from data brokers

#144

Post by logfromblammo »

grecy wrote: post #99
logfromblammo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The protection prevents the government from denying you the ability to make the threat. It does nothing to prevent them from pursuing a criminal prosecution after you have made it, or to prevent your victim from litigating a tort claim against you for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

I suppose the 2nd amendment prevents the government from denying me the ability to use a gun to shoot someone too... but saying that isn't constructive to the discussion of how to do we stop people shooting each other with guns. Yes, I have the right to threaten someone because it's free speech, but I should still be punished for doing it. (i.e. I have the right to have a gun and use it to shoot someone, but I should…

Basically, if an action could be considered a check upon government power, the government is not allowed to prevent people from doing it in the name of fighting crime.

You are allowed to have the gun that you might use for murder, because you might also use it to rebel against a corrupt government or in self-defense. You are allowed to use common channels of communication to make unlawful threats, because you could also use them to spread ideas unpopular to the ruling class. Only in the case where there is no possible constructive use or government-limiting use would the government be justified in engaging prior restraint.

As you might imagine, such a situation is exceedingly rare. A device designed to spread anthrax spores in an aerosol, for instance, has no peaceful purpose, and I would not consider it a legitimate check upon government power, as it would indiscriminately kill civilians as well as government agents. So you could be prosecuted just for having it, because it is presumed that it could not be used for any purpose that is not inherently criminal.

If there is any possibility that you might do something with innocent intent, the state has to wait until you do that thing with ill intent before punishing you for it. Now, there are a lot of laws and precedents that defy that principle, on a continuous spectrum from things I consider barely reasonable to things I consider to be completely unjust BS, so don't mistake any of this for real legal advice. What should be and what actually happens are often very different things.

Re: Doxxing defense: Remove your personal info from data brokers

#145

Post by ceejayoz »

mafribe wrote: post #139
rudolf0 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"KingOfPol" is known for lying and generally being not too mentally stable, so it's certainly not a stretch. Sarkeesian on the other hand is unlikely to lie about such things, but there was clearly some exaggeration involved.

Why is Sarkeesian "unlikely to lie about such things"?

If nothing else, the pattern of harassment and threats made towards not just her, but other women in gaming, are readily verifiable and hard to miss. It's not just one person complaining about this stuff.

Re: Doxxing defense: Remove your personal info from data brokers

#146

Post by snowwrestler »

doctorfoo wrote: post #137
snowwrestler wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> whether appreciating an attractive body is the same as objectification I know this is off-topic, but the statement above is literally objectification, because it refers to a body (which is an object) instead of a person.

No, it is not. If I thought the owner of said body had no value other than their body, you would be correct. You can appreciate a persons body, you can appreciate a persons personality. Doing the former doesn't magically invalidate the latter. That I appreciated just the body with a glance, at a point in time, doesn't mean the women has no worth other than this. If I went around saying women had no value other than f…

> You can appreciate a persons body, you can appreciate a persons personality. Doing the former doesn't magically invalidate the latter.

Making a statement about a body excludes the personality from the statement. There's nothing to invalidate because there is no content on that subject. I'm not making a value judgment here about you--this is how language works, logically. The word "body" exists to distinguish from the mind; talking about one excludes the other.

Generally speaking, you can save yourself a lot of trouble by restricting references to the "body" to a medical context. In every other situation, refer to the person. There's no downside to it, and it avoids misunderstandings.

> If I thought the owner of said body had no value other than their body, you would be correct.

No one but you knows what you think, they only know what you say.

Just to be clear: I'm not judging you as a person and I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm trying to give you advice about how your use of language will be interpretted.

Edit: Just to be super clear, if you had written "whether appreciating an attractive person is the same as objectification", I would agree with you. But by referencing the body, you're using the word for the object.

Re: Doxxing defense: Remove your personal info from data brokers

#147

Post by danudey »

Someone1234 wrote: post #18

The US really needs something akin to the EU's Data Protection Directive[0]. I've seen tons of businesses hide some tiny clause in their T&Cs (page 30, subsection 15, paragraph 11, etc) which allows them to resell your data to whoever will pay. For example the National Geographic Store sold my personal data when I purchased something from them (even with no check-box opt out, etc during checkout), and I've been recei…

The odd thing is that Canada's version of a data privacy act, PIPEDA, was enacted 14 years ago (2000) specifically so that people could trust private corporations with their data while e.g. shopping online [1].

In the end, the problem with these sorts of things is that once people are making millions doing something that should be illegal, they have the resources to ensure that it never becomes illegal.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Information_Protection...

Re: Doxxing defense: Remove your personal info from data brokers

#148

Post by codezero »

HNaTTY wrote: post #108
codezero wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I self host a domain that accepts anything@ and file it into a special inbox. This lets me give real addresses to specific sites and blacklist them as needed.

I hope you're doing anything@subdomain.example.com otherwise you'll get catchall spam.

Surprisingly, I haven't been getting catchall spam. If that happens I'll just write a quick interface to add permitted stuff through easily or just create a pattern that catchall won't use :)

Re: Doxxing defense: Remove your personal info from data brokers

#149

Post by codezero »

wiredfool wrote: post #122
codezero wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I self host a domain that accepts anything@ and file it into a special inbox. This lets me give real addresses to specific sites and blacklist them as needed.

I did that, until I got the second run of someone sending spam to [dictionary]@mydomain.

Luckily this hasn't happened yet. Last time someone spammed my "throw away" domain I just took it offline (killed DNS) for a few days, that seemed to work :P

Re: Doxxing defense: Remove your personal info from data brokers

#150

Post by grecy »

logfromblammo wrote: post #144
grecy wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose the 2nd amendment prevents the government from denying me the ability to use a gun to shoot someone too... but saying that isn't constructive to the discussion of how to do we stop people shooting each other with guns. Yes, I have the right to threaten someone because it's free speech, but I should still be punished for doing it. (i.e. I have the right to have a gun and use it to shoot someone, but I should…

Basically, if an action could be considered a check upon government power, the government is not allowed to prevent people from doing it in the name of fighting crime. You are allowed to have the gun that you might use for murder, because you might also use it to rebel against a corrupt government or in self-defense. You are allowed to use common channels of communication to make unlawful threats, because you could a…

> the state has to wait until you do that thing with ill intent before punishing you for it.

OK Great. Originally I said the state should wait until you've stalked/harassed/intimidated someone, then punish you for it.

Why are you having a conversation about rights?

From what you just said, it has nothing to do with it.

Post reply on HN