[rndgermandude]

So what? Doxing isn't inherently evil or inherently good. It has to be seen in context, and it is your and my and the journalist's moral obligation to look at the context first and weigh the likely harm to the person you dox against the possible good it can do. And it doesn't matter if the information was kinda public in some obscure corner of the internet or some public record or commercial database before. Once you publicize their information, you create publicity and draw a target on that persons back.

Dox some criminal? OK, but you have to be sure your allegations have merit and you've done your due diligence[0]. This is mostly what Krebs does.

Dox some politician who had an extramarital affair? Maybe OK. Dox their extramarital partner? Probably not OK.

Dox the latest terrorist? Generally OK. Dox every person that ever came into contact with the terrorist? Not OK. Publish personal information about the victims of the terrorist without their (next of kin's) consent? Not OK, even if you only report information you got from their facebook.

Dox some kid who misbehaved once on the internet, thereby directing an army of assholes on twitter to take notice, dox the kid further and bully them? Not OK.

When I was young (pre-facebook era), one of my teachers got murdered; her husband was later convicted. Some (tabloid) journalists showed up like locusts camping around our school, offering money for our pictures and other private information about the victim, her husband and their kids. Not OK. The same journalists also found "public information from open sources" about e.g. the kids' memberships in youth groups and such, and published that and also went to those youth groups for more information like they did at our school. Not OK.

[0] There was more than one case where "helpful" people on the internet and sometimes journalists published the names of alleged criminals who turned out to be entirely innocent, which didn't stop people from bullying them or even neighbors from forming mobs to "visit" them at home.

[tptacek]

When you say "doxing isn't inherently evil or good", you're putting us on the same page.

We do not agree about the particulars. For instance: the extramarital partners of politicians? To me, fair game. Kids who commit crimes on the Internet? To me, fair game.

Counterexamples? Sure. Undocumented immigrants who could be forcibly deported. I have a special obligation not to help ICE find those people. Iranian democracy activists. I have a special obligation not to subvert advocacy for democracy in authoritarian regimes.

But I don't have a general obligation to help maintain someone's pseudonymity, nor does anyone have the general right to restrain my own speech to protect their pseudonymity.

I understand that the rule exists on Reddit, and, to a lesser extent, here. And I respect the rule... on Reddit. And here. But in real life? I have a problem with message board norms leaking into the real world.

[rndgermandude]

>the extramarital partners of politicians? To me, fair game.

I knew somebody, part of our gang of friends, who had a one night stand with a local "personality", was then revealed by some "journalist" only giving a the first name and printing a picture with a black bar across the eyes (which is still more than enough for people who knew him to identify him, of course), outed as gay in the process, didn't even know the other dude was married or a "personality", and after being shunned and bullied by a lot of people including his parents and grandparents ended up hanging himself in a tree near the place in the woods where our gang used to barbecue in the summers. At least his parents showed up for his funeral.

I have no doubt the journalist who doxed him had no intention of causing that amount of harm. And yet, the journalist could have considered the situation a little more thoroughly, considering that the the identity of my friend had no bearing on the story whatsoever. I can only hope it was a mistake that this journalist learned from, and not general disregard for other human beings' welfare.

And I am telling you that story in the hopes you and others agreeing with your "fair game" will keep it in mind if they ever are in the position where they have to make a moral decision whether to dox or not dox somebody.

[tptacek]

I would generally have a problem with deliberately outing an LGBT person (or an undocumented immigrant, or any of a number of at-risk groups of people). And performatively revealing sensitive information about anyone for no reason at all is at least unneighborly (I can't go so far as to call it immoral). But none of that is what Krebs did. He violated the code of a subculture he does not belong to, in a manner that journalists do all the time. I think this particular subculture is entitled and unrealistic and that their weird expectations deserve to be challenged.

[rndgermandude]

Krebs doxed a few people who didn't want to be doxed, for reasons I do not consider good enough, and doxed a lot of people who didn't want to be doxed for reasons I consider good enough. That's all I said. YMMV

I have no idea why you keep trying to frame what I said differently.