Live data from Hacker News

Doxxing defense: Remove your personal info from data brokers

computerworld.com

161–163 of 163 posts

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

#161
post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry if I was unclear. I am talking about two separate things: a commercial service and a nonprofit who would provide subscriptions to the service. As I said, I want to subscribe. However, nonprofits pretty regularly provide services to limited groups of people. Veteran's groups focus on veterans. Women's shelters focus on women. The Alliance of Transylvanian Saxons focuses on Transylvanian Saxons. So if some existi…

A commercial service is paradoxically (or not) exonerated of their own market-limiting decisions. It's when we're talking about a non-profit that moral issues arise for things like discrimination for gender (in this case would be discrimination towards males). The problems doxxing creates don't distinguish between males and females. Veterans suffer a number of problems that these orgs care about, same for women's she…

If the nonprofit is, as I imagined, targeted at diversity in tech or women in tech, then I am not seeing any moral issues.

If some other non-profit would like to provide these hypothetical services to other groups or to everybody in general, that is also awesome. I would encourage that.

But as somebody who already donates to various groups like the Ada Initiative and Black Girls Code, I am saying I would give further money to an organization like that for providing an anti-doxxing service to their target audience.

The point of my (very short) comment was "take my money!" So that if some maker here was inspired, they'd know to contact me. That's all.

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

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's not an exhaustive analysis. I recommend to look at risk vs reward.

The risk of getting caught is essentially zero: just use Tor and VPN via an 'unfriendly' third country to send fake threats to yourself, or get a friend to do that for you. Clearly the police is not going to investigate, because all these cyberthreats are obviously not serious. The upside on the other hand ... Sarkeesian made how much last time by playing the damsel-in-distress? Wasn't it over $100k? That's quite an incentive. And then there is the political effect: the mainstream media, for various reasons, will automatically sides with the damsels.

I spent quite a lot of time in activists' milieu and I smell attack techniques in a Leninian mould, see e.g. Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals".

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

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I doubt the empirical veracity of this claim. You are pushing a convenient mainstream narrative.
Post reply on HN