Should doxxers be doxxed?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

https://globalnews.ca/news/9068032/twit ... xed-again/

These creepy stalkers weren't content to falsely frame a Twitch streamer, as threatening politicians, to drive from her home. They doxxed her at her hotel now too.

How the hell are the police; or CSIS if need be; not able to trace, identify, and publish the names and faces of the perpetrators of this shit? Didn't we give them extremely broad snooping powers a few years ago? I seem to recall a politician saying of it "either you are with us, or you are with the child pornographers." 36 million people endorsed that statement by not distancing themselves from it. So what's the point of those damn snooping powers if you can't even use them for something as seemingly straightforward as tracking down and doxxing doxxers and slanderers? Is there any reason not to give these creeps a taste of their own medicine?

[Nipponkyo]

Such investigations can be very difficult. Especially these days when anyone with even mediocre level of tech knowledge can do a decent job of covering their tracks online if they wanted to. VPNs, proxy servers, encrypted browsers, etc. are all easily accessible and easy to use these days.

[Sordhau]

Yes. Full stop.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Such investigations can be very difficult. Especially these days when anyone with even mediocre level of tech knowledge can do a decent job of covering their tracks online if they wanted to. VPNs, proxy servers, encrypted browsers, etc. are all easily accessible and easy to use these days.

Then we need regulations that ensure VPNs only cover the tracks of people communicating through dictatorships like China, while still being traceable to police services in democratic countries, investigating actual harassment or the framing of people as uttering threats they didn't actually utter.

[THE Grob]

https://globalnews.ca/news/9068032/twitch-streamer-trans-woman-clara-sorrenti-keffals-doxxed-again/

These creepy stalkers weren't content to falsely frame a Twitch streamer, as threatening politicians, to drive from her home. They doxxed her at her hotel now too.

How the hell are the police; or CSIS if need be; not able to trace, identify, and publish the names and faces of the perpetrators of this shit? Didn't we give them extremely broad snooping powers a few years ago? I seem to recall a politician saying of it "either you are with us, or you are with the child pornographers." 36 million people endorsed that statement by not distancing themselves from it. So what's the point of those damn snooping powers if you can't even use them for something as seemingly straightforward as tracking down and doxxing doxxers and slanderers? Is there any reason not to give these creeps a taste of their own medicine?

No if it's me. Yes if it's everyone else.

[Jabberwocky]

Dox is a new word to me.

[Katganistan]

No.
People should not be harassed and placed in danger.

[Aethertia]

Of course not. That would sink us down to their level.

[Sordhau]

No.
People should not be harassed and placed in danger.

Unless of course they're harassing people and putting them in danger. In which case, yes they should. Bullies should be bullied, terrorists should be terrorized. It's the only language they understand.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

No.
People should not be harassed and placed in danger.

What do you think of the US prison system, then? People are placed in danger when they are placed in prison, and they are much worse than harassed. Do you condone this? If so, what's the distinction, and if not, to what do you attribute the average voter's decision to allow it to continue?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Of course not. That would sink us down to their level.

I'm not sure that's necessarily the case. Is it sinking to a kidnapper's level to resort to put them in prison?

[Hatshepsut]

If all doxxers should be doxxed then the people who doxx the doxxers, who have thus become doxxers themselves, should also need to be doxxed.
Which seems self defeating if your goal is to prevent people from being doxxed.

Not to mention that laypeople doxxing doxxers sounds like internet vigilantism to me, and that never ends well.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

If all doxxers should be doxxed then the people who doxx the doxxers, who have thus become doxxers themselves, should also need to be doxxed.
Which seems self defeating if your goal is to prevent people from being doxxed.

Not to mention that laypeople doxxing doxxers sounds like internet vigilantism to me, and that never ends well.

Which is part of why I mentioned in the OP that I would rather CSIS does this than just some random nobody.

But this idea that giving someone a taste of their own medicine makes us no different than them is pushing it. Firstly, it's morally different to do it to someone who deserves it than to do it to someone who doesn't. Secondly, how come you don't typically see it in regards to, let's say, how society treats prisoners?

Eh, maybe it's just my anger talking. :/

[Sordhau]

If all doxxers should be doxxed then the people who doxx the doxxers, who have thus become doxxers themselves, should also need to be doxxed.
Which seems self defeating if your goal is to prevent people from being doxxed.

Not to mention that laypeople doxxing doxxers sounds like internet vigilantism to me, and that never ends well.

Vigilantism becomes necessary when the state becomes incapable or apathetic.

[Hatshepsut]

But this idea that giving someone a taste of their own medicine makes us no different than them is pushing it.

If you do a bad thing to a bad person you've still done a bad thing.

[Gallia-]

No.
People should not be harassed and placed in danger.

Unless of course they're harassing people and putting them in danger. In which case, yes they should. Bullies should be bullied, terrorists should be terrorized. It's the only language they understand.

Large and true.

[Sordhau]

But this idea that giving someone a taste of their own medicine makes us no different than them is pushing it.

If you do a bad thing to a bad person you've still done a bad thing.

Depends on how bad the thing was. Torturing someone is always wrong no matter what they did. There is nothing inherently immoral about executing an unrepentant mass-murderer, however.

[Nipponkyo]

Such investigations can be very difficult. Especially these days when anyone with even mediocre level of tech knowledge can do a decent job of covering their tracks online if they wanted to. VPNs, proxy servers, encrypted browsers, etc. are all easily accessible and easy to use these days.

Then we need regulations that ensure VPNs only cover the tracks of people communicating through dictatorships like China, while still being traceable to police services in democratic countries, investigating actual harassment or the framing of people as uttering threats they didn't actually utter.

Even without a VPN, a tech-savvy person can still do a decent job of covering their tracks online if they wanted to. Tracing IP addresses can helpful in tracking people down, but its far from foolproof. IP addresses can easily be changed or even spoofed, making very difficult and even next to impossible to correctly identify the culprit.

[Hatshepsut]

Depends on how bad the thing was. Torturing someone is always wrong no matter what they did. There is nothing inherently immoral about executing an unrepentant mass-murderer, however.

A doxxer is not a mass-murderer.

When a mass-murderer is executed it is often after a lengthy trial, prison stay, and appeal process, and the mass-murderers friends and family are not then also executed.

If you doxx a doxxer you are not just submitting a doxxer to bullying and harrassment, you are also submitting everyone who lives with them to bullying and harrassment; this includes their children, if they have any.

[Gallia-]

Depends on how bad the thing was. Torturing someone is always wrong no matter what they did. There is nothing inherently immoral about executing an unrepentant mass-murderer, however.

A doxxer is not a mass-murderer.

When a mass-murderer is executed it is often after a lengthy trial, prison stay, and appeal process, and the mass-murderers friends and family are not then also executed.

If you doxx a doxxer you are not just submitting a doxxer to bullying and harrassment, you are also submitting everyone who lives with them to bullying and harrassment; this includes their children, if they have any.

If you dox a doxer you're exposing them to things that doxing exposes people to? Shocking.

Tit for tat is the oldest legal principle in history.

[Juristonia]

No.
People should not be harassed and placed in danger.

This.

The problem here is a lack of proper law enforcement.

[Spanish Inquisitors]

If you dox a doxer you're exposing them to things that doxing exposes people to? Shocking.

Tit for tat is the oldest legal principle in history.

I agree. Who cares if some innocents are harmed as long as justice is served.

[Sordhau]

Depends on how bad the thing was. Torturing someone is always wrong no matter what they did. There is nothing inherently immoral about executing an unrepentant mass-murderer, however.

A doxxer is not a mass-murderer.

When a mass-murderer is executed it is often after a lengthy trial, prison stay, and appeal process, and the mass-murderers friends and family are not then also executed.

If you doxx a doxxer you are not just submitting a doxxer to bullying and harrassment, you are also submitting everyone who lives with them to bullying and harrassment; this includes their children, if they have any.

Yeah, it's almost like actions have consequences. Funny how that works.

[Juristonia]

A doxxer is not a mass-murderer.

When a mass-murderer is executed it is often after a lengthy trial, prison stay, and appeal process, and the mass-murderers friends and family are not then also executed.

If you doxx a doxxer you are not just submitting a doxxer to bullying and harrassment, you are also submitting everyone who lives with them to bullying and harrassment; this includes their children, if they have any.

Yeah, it's almost like actions have consequences. Funny how that works.

Assuming that the online mob actually doxxes the correct person instead of some poor sap who wasn't involved.
Which, of course, is something that would never ever happen, because people are very smart and always do their due diligence when it comes to investigating shit on the internet.

[Gallia-]

If you dox a doxer you're exposing them to things that doxing exposes people to? Shocking.

Tit for tat is the oldest legal principle in history.

I agree. Who cares if some innocents are harmed as long as justice is served.

Yes, that's the point. If you find someone who is uncooperative and engages in some negative behavior, returning the behavior at them will (generally) get them to become cooperative, by stopping that behavior. If it doesn't, you slowly escalate until they come around. This is pretty basic stuff that you learn in school when you realize that "telling the teacher" doesn't work, but having a scrap about it (whatever "it" is) makes friends from enemies.

Doxxing a doxxer will probably get them to stop once they realize it's putting their family "in danger" by putting their private information out in public. If they don't, then I guess it will need to escalate to something more dramatic, like a civil suit, or even making a complaint with their ISP or local PD about that particular person harassing you. As long as you have their private information you'll be fine.

If you can't be sure it's them then maybe some people can start a small business or worker's coop built to dox people for payment.