[notatoad]

yeah, this whole idea that "doxxing" is a universal harm needs to be corrected. not exposing people's real-world identities is a courtesy we obey to protect each other from harassment. if it becomes a way to protect the harassers, then we've lost the point.

nobody has a natural right to anonymity, and if your actions are causing real harm then you should expect some of the real-world consequences that come from having your identity exposed.

[catiopatio]

Your position is effectively “it’s not harassment when we harass someone, because we’re not the harassers”.

Doxxing is an escalation intended to cause real harm in the real world.

[shadowgovt]

> Doxxing is an escalation intended to cause real harm in the real world

Correct. And is the necessary escalation when online-only tools have failed and the attacker will not relent (such as this circumstance, where the actor in question is taking active steps to bypass methods to down-sample their signal).

I'm assuming most people holding a position in this conversation aren't absolutists (for example, they recognize why the FBI honeypots / tricks people / subpoenas information to de-anonymize those suspected of crime). Is the issue which hands hold the power / take the step of de-anonymizing someone? If that is the issue, what is the recommend course of action in this scenario (which exceeds people's tolerance to continue to operate freely in the OSS community without harassment but does not meet the threshold of an FBI criminal investigation)?

[2h]

> And is the necessary escalation when online-only tools have failed and the attacker will not relent

other tools are available (captcha, TLS fingerprinting, browser fingerprinting). if the moderator is not using these, its not a free permission for them to doxx someone.

[2h]

> nobody has a natural right to anonymity

is this a joke?

https://epic.org/issues/democracy-free-speech/anonymity

[shadowgovt]

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.

[2h]

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

[shadowgovt]

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).

[2h]

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

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

[shadowgovt]

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).

[notatoad]

just because a lobby group exists to push the idea that everybody has a right to anonymity, doesn't make it true