We don't know that none of the names are real. And even if they aren't, the article is still showcasing his failed attempt at doxing the owner of archive.today and providing a starting point for anyone else wanting to try.
> they were all already posted publicly previously
Doxing very often consists of nothing more than collecting data from a bunch of public sources
> Doxing very often consists of nothing more than collecting data from a bunch of public sources
I simply don't agree that this looks like doxing. No addresses or even any private information were reported. It's just a Google using WhoIs data and, in one case, the person said, in a public forum, that archive.is is "my website." Why would they have said that if they were worried about people finding out who it belongs to?
If they'd have stumbled upon an address to a private residence and reported that, sure, that would look like doxing. I just don't see it here.
I simply don't agree with that, either. It just seems like journalism to me. No details were reported that would reasonably be expected to compromise anyone's safety. Why should it be disallowed to investigate the ownership of a website? People used to do this all the time when they were going to order products from a web store they'd never used before, to try to deduce if it was trustworthy. They'd look up the owner, verify that the store has a physical address, etc. Were they not supposed to be doing that? They're just supposed to never Google any of that and just pray instead, because, if they learn any of that information, they've done something morally reprehensible? That's absurd.
And, to that point, archive.is isn't so different from a store. They accept donations, so it seems perfectly reasonable to ask and answer questions about where the donations go IMO. Is it unreasonable to look at and report on Archive.org's nonprofit details?
What does that even mean? Are you trying to suggest that journalism is inherently okay? A piece of despicable journalism simply cannot exist?
>No details were reported that would reasonably be expected to compromise anyone's safety.
So it's okay because he failed at what he set out to do? I'd counter that regardless of whether or not the doxing was successful, publishing this information serves no other purpose but to aid future attempts.
>Why should it be disallowed to investigate the ownership of a website?
You have to be kidding, I feel like anyone with even just the most basic social skills would be able to understand that absolutely nobody gives a shit about what you do as long as it doesn't affect other people.
> And, to that point, archive.is isn't so different from a store. They accept donations, so it seems perfectly reasonable to ask and answer questions about where the donations go IMO.
Obviously it is very different from a store.
Besides, why would you spend time trying to identify the owner of a store who is obviously not interested in identifying themselves? Surely the right choice is to pass in approximately 100% of such cases.
Rights don’t emanate from one’s subjective personal beliefs. Sure, there are “natural rights” espoused by political philosophers, but in the real world, rights are enshrined in constitutions and codified in laws that we are all subject to.
It's absolutely relevant. Some activities break the law; others don't. Why should we care about and assign a negative appellation like "doxxing" to lawful investigative activity?
Whether you care about somebody getting doxed is orthogonal to whether they've been doxed. Whether you care or not is entirely up to you, it has no relevance.
> Companies exist to provide jobs. Not only to make money for the owner and externalise all the negative effects on society.
I think it's safe to say that the one who starts something has the privilege to make the call on its purpose. And I'd bet most if not all people who start companies do so in order to make money for themselves, and providing jobs is a means to that end.
So, if a company could make profit without employing a single person, it would still serve its purpose.
I guess a lot of people feel that if they didn’t have the ability to know about all relevant products and services, the quality of their lives wouldn’t suffer.
Such regulation would inevitably introduce exceptions for products with limited-time use (because it doesn't make sense to support everything forever), manufacturers would explicitly mark all products as such, and consumers wouldn't even find it wrong.
New incentives to would hit market reality where most people want cheap devices, not lifetime support for something they themselves consider practically disposable.
If most consumers don't care, regulation won't help. Much like climate change.
I think it's the mass immigrations that (some) people are calling out as not in their own best interest, without necessarily believing the immigrants are bad or in any way worse humans than themselves to call it racist.
They knew, or should have known. They knew exactly what he had bought and in what quantity, and anyone who knew anything about radioactive material would have concluded it was safe, or if they had doubts, they would have sent maybe two people to go knock on his door and ask to look around.
This was someone or a small group inside the border force who didn't have a clue what they were doing, cocked up, tried to make a big showy scene of things, and then scrambled to save face after the actual experts clued them in that a) what he had was safe and b) was 100% legal to own. (note that he was prosecuted for something that the border force allowed through years before the sample they erroneously thought was a problem, and that was not illegal to own, only illegal under a very twisted interpretation of an obscure law to import).
Also, the question shouldn't be "Did they know it was harmless?" It should be "Did they know it was harmful?" You don't initiate a huge hazmat incident, close off homes and evacuate people just because "you're not sure it was harmless." You do that when you know it's harmful.
The hazmat crew was literally manufactured drama for a prosecutor (who somehow continues not to be named in this ridiculous case) to build a better case.
reply