This post is linking to doxing and that is never acceptable. Moderators please remove. I also reported this but wanted to bring broader attention to the issue since the post got support.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Doxxing discussion out of Market Action
- Thread starter schonelucht
- Start date
This post is linking to doxing and that is never acceptable. Moderators please remove. I also reported this but wanted to bring broader attention to the issue since the post got support.
agree with this, especially since the purpose of doxxing is almost always to find ways to attack people in additional ways (a dog whistle of sorts).
What the linked twitter post does is to demonstrate that several, apparently unrelated social media accounts actually are related and thus useful for a manipulative practice called sockpuppeteering. In that process the names of the (two) persons behind this is uncovered, but it is not done for the purpose of revealing those names (nor is a physical address revealed).
So I think this does not qualify as doxing, with regard to intent or with regard to abuse of the involved person's privacy.
Since people here evidently have very different backgrounds and may be unaware of what doxing can imply, I would like to point out that I actually agree with schonelucht's opinion on doxing, a severe form of harassment. Internet users who have had their physical address disclosed via doxing have experienced that a SWAT team was sent to their address, in some cases with actual loss of life as a consequence.
Well lets agree that there are different levels of harassment and addresses should not be disclosed and we all don't want any harm to be done ... people should not be threatened or similar but I call it a good thing if any kind of orchestration or conspiracy exists that its uncovered.
P.S. ... and looking at mickifickis picture I understand he is deeply relaxed on that matter, has no real adress and selects every evening a different tree for the night...
Last edited:
No. You are twisting the narrative. Here is what the tweet says (redacted)
Tweet said:
It's not about multiple unrelated social media accounts. It's about one account and who is the owner of that account. It's doxing. The next step is harassement as we can witness from a follow up tweet
Other tweet said:
This is NOT ok.
As you can see that tweet is already having an effect : people reach out to employer's of the doxed account with suggestive questions 'do you support your employees, etc...'. Even if we accept that the original intent of the tweet was innocent (which I don't) then the effect is still the same. Obviously we are not at the level of SWATting people but this kind of behaviour is a slippery slope where people incite each other to cross line after line. You clearly know about this issue so you should recognize it easily. Please reconsider and delete your post.
bdy0627
Active Member
I don't know where this person gets their info but it looks good to me.
skabooshka @skabooshka
Daily production update. On July 11, 2018 Tesla produced approximately: Model 3: 700 Model S: 180 Model X: 140
skabooshka @skabooshka
Daily production update. On July 11, 2018 Tesla produced approximately: Model 3: 700 Model S: 180 Model X: 140
Sorry, but I disagree with you here. This individual(s) are deceptively trying to damage a company under disguise. An identity was discovered and noted. What these persons are doing is not within normal or reasonable ethical boundaries. A little surprised I am with your level of concern on this particular matter.
Maybe a small arduino device phoning home?
Wrong. Documenting the identity of anonymous rumor-spreaders (and in this case, trespassers!) is frequently acceptable.
Publishing someone's home address and unlisted phone number == unacceptable. (That's "doxxing")
Publishing their name and background, so that people can identify for themselves whether the source is credible and/or a sockpuppet and/or an agent of another power == necessary. (This is what was linked to)
Last edited:
Corporate espionage is the answer. Basically asking for his identity to be researched.
The one thing I'll agree with schonelucht on is that harassment is never acceptable. Provide the dossier of evidence on who this is to Tesla Legal with the evidence of corporate espionage, (and perhaps Union Pacific police with the evidence of trespassing on railroad property), and leave it at that.
The effect of the tweet (and my perspective on it), is that these anti-Tesla accounts are controlled by two brothers. The tweet indicates that one of the two is connected with an incumbent car manufacturer. I find that this is all relevant in evaluating the material posted on their accounts. As far as I can see, the tweeter leaves it at that (and raises the barrier for people wanting to go further, by only posting screen shots as opposed to text that search engines can pick up on).
I think we will just have to disagree on whether this is acceptable.
Let me ask you this:
The court filings related to Martin Tripp surely has real world information to distinguish him from other people with the same name. Are we also to not link to those documents from here, in order to reduce the risk that someone will abuse that information?
It doesn't matter if the information is relevant or not to investors. Doxxing should ALWAYS be actively discouraged
You clearly don't understand why doxxing is a problem. It's not just knowing someones name and occupation that is problematic. It's because there is no due process, no recourse, no defense, no formal accusation, no constitutional protections and oversight. In short, none of the things that make up the carefully balanced legal system in trying to work towards a just resolution.
If you feel that the account is engaging in illegal action, the correct course of action is to tip law enforcement. NOT to go play detective yourself or even encourage others to do so by linking. I am always willing to agree to disagree for things that are actually up for debate but this just crosses the line for me.
You're just wrong here. I have had secondhand encounters with enough people who've had to resort to private detectives and private security (law enforcement was useless) to know that you're wrong. Maybe law enforcement is more reliable in the Netherlands than it is in the United States. I would believe that.
Operative word 'private'. We are talking about something completely else, which is invasion of privacy to the point that harassement follows.
Harassment is bad and must be stopped.
Identifying and publishing the identity of people who are engaging in corporate espionage is not "invasion of privacy".
In fact, protecting their identity is collusion with the corporate espionage.
jhm
Well-Known Member
Does a fictional persona have a right to privacy? Does personal privacy mean that I have the right to evade social accountability for my actions by inventing a fictional public persona and hiding behind that? Do we really have a right to anonymous trolling?
One of the basic tests for unethical behavior is what happens when hidden behavior becomes known. If you need to hide your identity to get away with something, you are likely engaging in unethical behaviour. Trolls use fictitious personas because they are engaging in offensive behaviour for which they would not want to be held personally accountable. This right here is ethically suspect. Personally I use discrete social media names, but I always bear in mind that this can be linked back to my name. The question is whether I am willing to abide by what I have posted and done when someone knows my true identity. This outlook causes me to limit my behavior to only do things that I am willing to be held accountable for. So it is one thing to be discrete on line, knowing that you are always accountable for what you do; and it is quite another thing to think that you have the right to troll anonymously and evade social responsibility for your actions.
My view is that anonymous trolling is unethical behavior. As such it compromise that value that society places on privacy. If one wants to safeguard privacy, then unethical trolling must be denounced.
The issue of doxing is paradoxical in that the one who is doxing another may well be using an anonymous fictional identity. Thus, my point above holds. It is ethically suspect behaviour. Doxing is a form of trolling. If one, in their own name, reveals the name behind a fictional persona, this may well be a courageous ethical act. It is courageous because to do so in ones own name does make one openly accountable for the act itself. Anonymous trolls by contrast are cowardly and abusing respect for privacy to evade public accountability.
Yes. There is a person behind the fiction and that person is entitled to their privacy. That's human rights 101. You don't give those up by remaining anonymous.
They are accountable as everyone else. File it with relevant law enforcement if you think they are doing something illegal, file a complaint with Twitter if you think they violate the Terms of Use, ban them here if they disrupt this forum or submit a tip to the SEC if you think they are manipulating the stock. All that is perfectly fine and all that is totally different than doxxing.
Sure, go ahead. But respect their fundamental rights. That means : don't ask the government to outlaw their speech, don't tresspass on their property, don't hit them in the face and don't invade their privacy.
Schonelucht, you do know that most spies and saboteurs and a lot of corruption were identified by independent research of the sort you're denouncing? And when law enforcement was unable or unwilling to do anything, the media was frequently used to expose them.
Tracking down Yevgeny Prigozhin's Russian troll farm was done by the same sort of research.
Harassment is bad. Identifying the source of a disinformation campaign or the identity of a spy is not harassment. I would condemn anyone who harassed Montana Skeptic or shabooshka; figuring out their oil & auto connections is legit. And it is interesting that they have undisclosed oil & auto connections.
To make this very clear, I'll give you a real-world example in the political arena: uncovering Vice President Dick Cheney's secret meeting with oil execs (with an undisclosed guest list), figuring out which execs attended, and publishing their names: totally legit. (An important piece of journalism, in fact.) (Cheney actually complained that their privacy was being violated, which was bullshit.)
Publishing their home addresses and telling people to pester them: unacceptable. (And did not happen.)
Doxxing attacks are usually done to people who *already publish their names and backgrounds*, in fact, and usually done by people who are hiding their names and backgrounds.
Tracking down Yevgeny Prigozhin's Russian troll farm was done by the same sort of research.
Harassment is bad. Identifying the source of a disinformation campaign or the identity of a spy is not harassment. I would condemn anyone who harassed Montana Skeptic or shabooshka; figuring out their oil & auto connections is legit. And it is interesting that they have undisclosed oil & auto connections.
To make this very clear, I'll give you a real-world example in the political arena: uncovering Vice President Dick Cheney's secret meeting with oil execs (with an undisclosed guest list), figuring out which execs attended, and publishing their names: totally legit. (An important piece of journalism, in fact.) (Cheney actually complained that their privacy was being violated, which was bullshit.)
Publishing their home addresses and telling people to pester them: unacceptable. (And did not happen.)
Doxxing attacks are usually done to people who *already publish their names and backgrounds*, in fact, and usually done by people who are hiding their names and backgrounds.
Last edited:
Similar threads
