[gyrovague-com]

Jani here. What you describe as "doxxing" consisted of a) a whois lookup for archive.is and b) linking to a StackExchange post from 2020 called "Who owns archive.today" [1]. There is literally no new information about the site's owner in the post, all names have been dug up before and are clearly aliases, and the post states as much.

[1] https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/145817/who-owns-...

[freehorse]

Is the argument that it is "failed doxxing", or that you did not try/intend to dox?

[Minor49er]

Huh, that's what Kiwi Farms says about the people that they talk about online too. And Cloudflare famously retaliated against them, but are retaliating against the victim in this case because Archive.today responded to the doxing in the wrong way apparently

[croes]

Isn’t doxxing most of the time just collecting data from multiple public sources and connect them?

[protimewaster]

Maybe, but I don't think that distinction matters here. Surely you're not contending that it counts as doxing every time someone collects data from multiple public sources?

I've always understood doxing to be PII, which aliases aren't, AFAIK, unless they're connected to a real person. And, to my knowledge, everyone is contending that the names in the blog post are all aliases. And, regarding aliases, I've never understood it to be doxing for someone to say "FakeNameX and FakeNameY appear to be the same user."

So, to me, the thing that makes it not look like doxing is that it simply doesn't meet the basic definition of doxing. It provides no PII.

[Izkata]

You're both right. Combine the two and you get what doxxing originally was:

"Dox" is short for "documents", and it originally referred to compiling a multi-page document of all known personal information, using disparate public sources: name, address, phone, email, employer, family members, family address/phone etc, etc, etc. It came from troll boards and was designed to make it easy to harass targets.

The term got significantly watered down when it got out to the broader internet.

[bastawhiz]

How low has the bar gotten where doxxing is literally just doing a Google search and a whois lookup about a well-used public website? The hackers of the 90s and aughts would laugh you straight out of the irc server with this comment.

[croes]

This is more than just a Google search and a whois lookup

https://gyrovague.com/2023/08/05/archive-today-on-the-trail-...

[JasonADrury]

Nonsense, by the mid-aughts google searches and whois lookups were key tools for doxing. If you had been around in the hacker scene at that time, you'd be well aware instead of trying to inject fabricated mystique.

[walletdrainer]

Yes, that is exactly what “doxing” almost always refers to. It’s a very disingenuous response.

[thomassmith65]

If the site operator is working for the FSB, doxx away! Although the world needs a better alternative to Internet Archive, it shouldn't be an alternative that is an arm of an authoritarian government.

[JasonADrury]

I don't see how this description changes the fundamental nature of your actions.

Even a half-assed attempt at doxing is still an attempt at doxing.

It'd be much easier to accept that you're acting in good faith had you deleted the post when it became obvious that the target doesn't appreciate it.

You could still do that, and it would very simply be the right thing to do.

[Permit]

You are attempting to perform a rhetorical sleight of hand here. You are well aware that linking to a Stack Exchange post and running WHOIS is not grounds for a DDoS as a measured response. In light of this fact, you attempt to portray it as “doxxing” to mislead people into thinking that someone’s identity or address was published against their will.

I encourage everyone to read the original article and make their own conclusion. Do not take this poster at their word.

[bastawhiz]

You've thoroughly discredited yourself and your other comments with this. If anything, this comment reads exactly like the messages from the archive.today operator. No sensible person could read the original blog post and read this comment as anything other than an attempt to spread lies and pressure Jani.

[Lazare]

I'm absolutely open to the argument that Jani has does something wrong, but nothing you've said has really even accused them of anything.

If you want to define doxing narrowly (as it was historically) then I would agree that all (or nearly all) such cases are wrong, but this is by no means clearly doxing. If you want to define doxing widely (as is common lately), then I'll accept this is clearly an example of doxing, but note that there's nothing inherently wrong with doxing.

Just saying "doxing" does not establish that the underlying actions are immoral, and so it does not follow that the target not appreciating it is relevant. If I take the last parking place in a crowded lot, the driver behind me certainly won't appreciate it, but I have no obligation to give it up. If you think Jani has done something incomparable to taking a parking place, you need to make the case.

[JasonADrury]

We called this exact pattern of behaviour "doxing" on IRC in the early 2000s, I really don't know why you think I'm using some new definition.

It's probable that in the later 00s this would have been called a "faildox", but it's still just a fundamentally dick move to try to identify someone online who doesn't want to be identified. It doesn't matter if you do a completely shit job at it.

[iamshs]

I hate this. Archive.today provides a useful service for people like us in developing countries; without archive.today we would not even have luxury to read and document a lot of stuff. In our countries, hard disks are expensive and internet is not fast either. We don't have the luxury to just download; and so many useful Youtube video are just made private after one phone call from Police. Why take it away from us...

[unethical_ban]

Maliciously amplifying public information for the purpose of directing anger is also doxxing. Whether that's what you did, I'll let others chime in.