[donbright]

Q "But don't we sell the same kind of data to our paying customers?"

X "Yes, but when we do it, it's not doxxing"

Q "Why not?"

X "Because we would never do it for any nefarious reason"

Q "What about that time we scraped the data of those groups that were linked to that reporter, so that one company could do oppo research and prepare a PR counterattack, targeting specific journalists"

X "That wasn't nefarious. We made a lot of money doing that"

[friedman23]

>X "Yes, but when we do it, it's not doxxing"

Was this just you making up someone's response? Because neither of those companies listed in the title sell people's info.

Your comment is just a terrible strawman.

[tinus_hn]

‘Doxxing’ is such a useless term anyway. In this case all the database is is the search results for ‘ICE’ on LinkedIn. That’s data these people filled in themselves. But now that attention has been called to it it’s ‘doxxing’.

The phonebook is full of ‘doxxing’. Who cares.

[erric]

Not to mention that most govt. employees record of employment is public info( in the us anyway). Being law enforcement this may be a little different, however this info may be foiable or even just sitting on the ice web site.

[qbaqbaqba]

Are you referring to the Facebook-Cambridge Analytics controversy?