Dox Dropping: Good or Bad

I support Dox Dropping. With groups like Wiki Leaks and Anonymous dropping the dox of criminals and perpetrators of war crimes (even if they are the leaders of that droppers own government, is justified because it lets the public know a crime is taking place and it must be stopped.

example of Dox Dropping

Good. Out all the perpetrators of corruption and oppression, whether it's governments or organized crime. They're enemies of humankind, so dropping the dox on them is fair game.

I wonder about reliability, however.

It would not really take much effort to fabricate accusations against someone, distribute them anonymously and then let the "Internet Hate Machine" do its work...

edited 2nd Nov '11 10:58:20 AM by Carciofus

thats why i trust Anonymous and Wikileaks, they say "this is this guys dox and this is why we are dropping them"

Neutral at best. It's fine to draw attention to the fact that something is happening, but once you say "Now, harass this guy over the phone and at work, here's his home address" you give up the moral high ground. Add to that the potential for easy abuse and I can't see this as an outright good thing. All you'd really need is a fake story and someone's information and you could ruin them just because you don't like them. Or because you think it's funny.

In addition, it increases the chance for innocents to be harmed. Say something happens to his daughter because everyone on the internet now knows where she lives and goes to school. That puts the dox droppers partially at fault.

It isn't always good or always bad. I support dox dropping on criminals and such, but not if it gets innocent people killed. When dox were dropped on undercover agents who were deeply immersed in criminal environments, that endangered their families. I don't support that whatsoever.

Maybe people who do things like that should pony up their own "dox" if they feel so strongly about everything being out in the open.

I don't think you have to worry about victims getting hurt in most cases, but the criminal getting hurt is another thing I hope for.

Hoping that anyone gets hurt is abhorrent to me. We don't have the right to judge that harm is deserved upon someone. That said, the world becomes a better place with certain cases of this, and whistleblowers are given nowhere near enough support/protection in general life, such as the workplace.

How is it bad to wish death on mob and cartel members that do nothing but cause harm to people?

I think you give people too much credit. Hell, going back to the one you linked, even without anyone else involved, I can easily see this judge beating his daughter more over minor things just because he's pissed off all the time about being harassed by Anonymous.

Punishing criminals is all well and good, and an example does need to be made every once in awhile, but handing out someone's information and saying "rather than try and get this on the news or call the police or social services, you should fuck with this guy at all hours of the night and here's his home address and cell phone number and where he works" is not the right way to go about it. And it puts you at fault for anything that happens to both him and any innocents harmed int he process.

I know I sound like The Punsher but AND!! Let them go after the judge.

I think it's mainly due to the belief that if someone wishes harm on other people regardless of what they did, it speaks volumes about their true character.

edited 2nd Nov '11 11:50:08 AM by RedViking

Well look at that, no typing up of my own opinions necessary, I've been comprehensively ninja'd.

Whether or not this is alright depends on what the mob person in question did. Not all mob members are on the hit squads or get to order said squads to commit murders.

Yup.

You just successfully missed the point entirely. Point is, other people besides the judge could be put at risk because of that information.

Anonymous is stupid because instead of having proper, regulated authorities go after people they think they should just go all vigilante for the lulz and their own entertainment. They don't really care. They just like to see people squirm. They choose people we see as acceptable targets because they can avoid scrutiny themselves that way.

Anonymous is no more trustworthy than any other vigilante group. That is to say, they aren't trustworthy at all.

Considering that I don't see the authorities as anything better than vigilantes, whether Anonymous has legitimate authority to do what they do is a non-issue. For the most part, they go after targets that deserve getting knocked down a few pegs, so I'm cool with their actions.

Operative words.

Police, whatever we may think, do have regulations. They do have rules. They do have elected officials that command them.

Anonymous is a bunch of hacking scumbags that happen to go after people we don't like to skirt the law, under "see no evil, hear no evil." They have no rules, and have no qualms with the potential suffering of people who don't deserve it.

Thus, they are dangerous and unacceptably uncontrollable and unaccountable.

Ok the cop can't do shot anymore not with every gang buying "the best defense attorney money can buy" getting them off on technicalities. It's bullshit man. We need some comicbook justice in the real world.

The real world isn't a comic book.

The real world doesn't have "good" and "bad." In the real world, people who run about in suits and masks and capes are called "mentally disturbed." In the real world, the Punisher would go down in a hail of bullets via the local SWAT team for causing a minor holocaust via collateral damage. In the real world, there are no supervillains, just foolish people who never had a chance at a proper life thanks to the broken aspects of the system.

In the real world, justice doesn't work like that.

I know that. But that doesn't mean we don't need someone like the punished to go around new York and take out the 5 families (the 5 mob families of the net York area), head down souh of the border and take out the cartels, then hit africa and whip out the warlord. I know it's a guy like the puniest wouldn't last an hour but it's what we NEED.

van, downside with that is organized crime has the potential to be lucrative. Everytime you wipe out a group, another one will arise to take it's place.

As for the topic at hand, I'm neutral. Sometimes it's good, but if it endangers innocent people are people doing their job like the DEA then hell no. Just because you CAN release info doesn't always mean you SHOULD.

I recall a recent debate over the merits of undercover police after it was discovered that one in Britain fell guilty to He Who Fights Monsters and joined the other side while undercover. The issue is that sometimes only by joining in with such groups can vital intel be gathered. It's not exactly the same, but it still relates in that deception and other activities that might be questionable are also sometimes necessary for the greater good to prevail. Sometimes, such questionable activities include the exposure of private information about people.

Depends. On governments and companies and the like? Yes, please, they always need moe transparency, and less possibility to hush up their crimes.

But on private persons? No. Privacy should be sacrosanct.

The DEA can't be described as an innocent party: Drug cops raid people's homes, kill people's dogs, and put perfectly decent people in jail to satisfy puritans' thirst to punish deviance.

They ruin regular people's lives, snoop in people's houses and stuff, and overall act like fascist pigs. Whatever happens to a DEA agent, he has it coming.

If you oppress the public, you're fair game for dox dropping.

edited 3rd Nov '11 11:03:22 AM by SavageHeathen

Oh, Savage, your unique brand of comedy never fails to brighten my day!

What comedy? Those who violate the rights of the people, be they cartels engaging in slavery and mass murder or authorities being oppressive, should be publically exposed and shamed, and not shielded from the people's anger.

The good thing about transparency is that puts thugs who mess with the people in dire straits.

edited 3rd Nov '11 11:37:11 AM by SavageHeathen

I have to agree with savage. People>>>>>>everything else