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

Official Warning: Zero3K

reactos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 138 posts

Re: Official Warning: Zero3K

#111

Post by shadowgovt »

2h wrote: post #107
shadowgovt wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is not. In fact, the opposite right (the right to face one's accuser) is enshrined Constitutionally in the United States when we bring the force of law to bear on a citizen. Anonymity has value in specific contexts. It is not a universal right in all contexts.

trolling online is not a crime, so no crime, so no right to face anyone.

Harassment can be, in fact, a crime.

If your position is "Well they should involve the courts first," we are probably reaching agreement, but we're all aware of how weak the legal system is regarding online harassment, right? Most cyber-crime falls way outside the jurisdictions that are traditionally designed to handle harassment (as harassment was traditionally a very geographically-localized crime).

I'm personally willing to let the bar for "Disclosing enough information about someone's handle that they can be found IRL" lower than "a warrant is out for their arrest."

(This does raise an interesting question: perhaps we do need some kind of new cross-jurisdictional legal organ to decide when harassment raises to the bar of "doxxing acceptable" whether or not it raises to the bar of "prosecutable." That'd be nice to have; then we could have a generally-accepted standard for when it is and is not okay).

Re: Official Warning: Zero3K

#112

Post by 2h »

shadowgovt wrote: post #111
2h wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

trolling online is not a crime, so no crime, so no right to face anyone.

Harassment can be, in fact, a crime. If your position is "Well they should involve the courts first," we are probably reaching agreement, but we're all aware of how weak the legal system is regarding online harassment, right? Most cyber-crime falls way outside the jurisdictions that are traditionally designed to handle harassment (as harassment was traditionally a very geographically-localized crime). I'm personally…

> If your position is "Well they should involve the courts first,"

no because no crime has been committed, unless you count the doxxing.

Re: Official Warning: Zero3K

#113

Post by 2h »

shadowgovt wrote: post #108
2h wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is just more rationalizing. to justify doxxing, which is itself essentially stalking (or worse) should be a quite high bar, which hasn't been crossed, even in this situation. If the troll was threatening life or some other crime, then fine do what you need to do. but the person is just essentially being annoying, that is not grounds to doxx someone. if they do not have the skills to keep out harmful users, thats…

A captcha doesn't keep out harassing users; they're human, after all. Changing the communications policy of the organization to only allow people a communications forum after they've been vetted might. That's a significant change that puts an OSS project at a severe disadvantage towards gathering support / interest. Also, it wouldn't even work in this situation; the actor in question proved willing to use every commu…

> A captcha doesn't keep out harassing users; they're human, after all.

its not my job to teach people how to police their own forums. nor is it the judicial systems job.

Re: Official Warning: Zero3K

#114

Post by shadowgovt »

2h wrote: post #109
shadowgovt wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slippery slope is absolutely a risk. Claims that a person transgressed should not be taken lightly. ... but in the presence of persistent harassment that will not cease online, tying the behavior to the person behind the behavior and bringing proper consequences to bear is the only regulatory system that actually works. There's a reason that you can be fined or imprisoned for trying to pull crap like that IRL. But I…

> tying the behavior to the person behind the behavior and bringing proper consequences to bear is the only regulatory system that actually works nope. trolling online is not a crime, so no regulations are needed. its the same as if someone walks up to you in real life and calls you a jerk. you dont get to do anything about that. you just move on.

I think you're choosing an example that is lower-severity than the topic on the table.

If someone just walks up and calls me a jerk (and, well, we ignore the particulars of the words they used and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words), I agree.

If they do it every day, every hour, or call my house 24 times a day, I can legally compel them to stop.

Re: Official Warning: Zero3K

#115

Post by shadowgovt »

2h wrote: post #113
shadowgovt wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A captcha doesn't keep out harassing users; they're human, after all. Changing the communications policy of the organization to only allow people a communications forum after they've been vetted might. That's a significant change that puts an OSS project at a severe disadvantage towards gathering support / interest. Also, it wouldn't even work in this situation; the actor in question proved willing to use every commu…

> A captcha doesn't keep out harassing users; they're human, after all. its not my job to teach people how to police their own forums. nor is it the judicial systems job.

In this case, they're policing their own forums by, having exhausted other options, disclosing the bad actor's name and warning others of the bad actions.

Re: Official Warning: Zero3K

#116

Post by 2h »

shadowgovt wrote: post #114
2h wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> tying the behavior to the person behind the behavior and bringing proper consequences to bear is the only regulatory system that actually works nope. trolling online is not a crime, so no regulations are needed. its the same as if someone walks up to you in real life and calls you a jerk. you dont get to do anything about that. you just move on.

I think you're choosing an example that is lower-severity than the topic on the table. If someone just walks up and calls me a jerk (and, well, we ignore the particulars of the words they used and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words ), I agree. If they do it every day, every hour, or call my house 24 times a day, I can legally compel them to stop.

this is a user posting on an issue tracker, so your example doesn't hold either.

Re: Official Warning: Zero3K

#117

Post by 2h »

shadowgovt wrote: post #115
2h wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A captcha doesn't keep out harassing users; they're human, after all. its not my job to teach people how to police their own forums. nor is it the judicial systems job.

In this case, they're policing their own forums by, having exhausted other options, disclosing the bad actor's name and warning others of the bad actions.

so they have resulted to crime, to combat a problem user?

Re: Official Warning: Zero3K

#118

Post by shadowgovt »

2h wrote: post #112
shadowgovt wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harassment can be, in fact, a crime. If your position is "Well they should involve the courts first," we are probably reaching agreement, but we're all aware of how weak the legal system is regarding online harassment, right? Most cyber-crime falls way outside the jurisdictions that are traditionally designed to handle harassment (as harassment was traditionally a very geographically-localized crime). I'm personally…

> If your position is "Well they should involve the courts first," no because no crime has been committed, unless you count the doxxing.

Doxxing is not illegal in the US.

It may be a component of another crime, such as slander or incitement to violence.

If the individual in question believes this organization has done either of those things, they are welcome to involve the law (as the other party is doing).

Re: Official Warning: Zero3K

#119

Post by shadowgovt »

2h wrote: post #117
shadowgovt wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, they're policing their own forums by, having exhausted other options, disclosing the bad actor's name and warning others of the bad actions.

so they have resulted to crime, to combat a problem user?

Do you have proof they have resorted to crime?

What crime? Be specific. You could perhaps suggest slander, incitement to violence, or invasion of privacy.

High bar to satisfy a case for any of those three. Consider everything a private investigator could do IRL if one retained their services to track down an unknown individual; in general, none of those actions are considered criminal (though the spied-upon person would certainly wish the PI wasn't tailing them).

Re: Official Warning: Zero3K

#120

Post by pwdisswordfish9 »

aidenn0 wrote: post #101
serf wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's really not his or her job to fix abusers. most societies believe that each individual must contribute to some degree. It's being lost, but for most societies historically the mentally ill were the burden of the immediate family. Now we see the effects of the mental illness affecting society-at-large, it stands to reason that the entirety of the affected population is now somewhat responsible for making their ow…

> If I walked past litter on the ground in my home-town, I wouldn't say "Hey, not my job." and walk past it, I would pick it up for the betterment of my town. If for 3 years I am constantly picking up litter as fast as other residents throw it on the ground, at what point to I just move to as different town where people litter less?

That depends on how selfish you are.
Post reply on HN