How do we explain doxxing to a septuagenarian in dusty black robes?

[Phiwise_]

A thought has been bouncing around in my head for a while: Most people on the internet might agree in concept that doxxing is totally not rad, surfer bros, and should probably be illegal for similar reasons to things like credible threats of violence. However, to get from disapproval to illegal requires passing and explaining a new law, and the fossils that run our legal institutions basically refuse to put any effort into their jobs unless you at least do all of the legwork of drafting the bill for them.

Therefore, at some point we need to seriously ask ourselves the question: What does a proper anti-doxxing law look like? What sort of things does it prevent, and, just as importantly, what does it explicitly say is still allowed? The perpetual issue nowadays for free speech advocates is that nefarious interest orgs propose new bills on top of news-driven surges of popular interest to trojan horse in the name of platitudes like privacy, cybercrime, and such, and need to be regularly killed to keep our liberties intact. Unfortunately, there's an asymmetry in that they only need to succeed once to subject us to years of kangaroo nonsense, as we see in things like the DMCA. The proper strategy is to go on the counterattack, to have a bill ready-in-hand to publicize as an obviously superior alternative whenever the issue comes up, so we need to get it in-hand now to be ready when that push comes again.

 

[Houseman]

I wouldn't particularly like being doxxed, but I don't know if it should be illegal.

 

[Gauche]

You start by undressing them

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

I wouldn't particularly like being doxxed, but I don't know if it should be illegal.

It already is, technically. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2261A

18 U.S. Code § 2261A - Stalking​

(2) with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that—
(A)
places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person, a pet, a service animal, an emotional support animal, or a horse described in clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of paragraph (1)(A); or

(B)
causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A),

 

[Dale Gribble]

It doesn't matter because the laws are selectively applied. As in, if an "alt right" figure (I absolutely hate that term but you guys will understand) we're to dox a leftist figurehead they would be punished to the full extent of the law, whereas before Elon bought twitter there were known, public accounts that only focused on doxxing people on the right, people who went to Trump rallies and the like. I'm sure they still exist today, in some form, probably on telegram or some other corner of the internet.

Even if such a bill were to become a thing it wouldn't pass anyway, imo.

Don't you guys understand, if you ever dare to challenge the system you will be absolutely crushed? Rights, laws, constitution be damned, they will find a way, and if they can't, they will make one.

Speaking of, just dug this gem up.

You are being redirected...

It's just like I was saying, even if such a bill were to pass, it would contain some bullshit clause about how its ok to report "extremists" but doxxing is not. It all just ends up being a bunch of jewish pilpul.

 

[Houseman]

It already is, technically. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2261A

18 U.S. Code § 2261A - Stalking​

(2) with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that—
(A)
places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person, a pet, a service animal, an emotional support animal, or a horse described in clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of paragraph (1)(A); or

(B)
causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A),

Oh, well there you go, thread over!

 

[Phiwise_]

It already is, technically. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2261A

18 U.S. Code § 2261A - Stalking​

(2) with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that—
(A)
places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person, a pet, a service animal, an emotional support animal, or a horse described in clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of paragraph (1)(A); or

(B)
causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A),

Hmm, has anyone ever been successfully prosecuted specifically for doxxing under these stalking laws? I've not heard of it anything like as much as I've heard of doxxes just floating around without much concern. I feel like appealing for prosecution would be a much more common response from the doxxed if there wasn't a reason stopping it.

 

[Dale Gribble]

Hmm, has anyone ever been successfully prosecuted specifically for doxxing under these stalking laws? I've not heard of it anything like as much as I've heard of doxxes just floating around without much concern. I feel like appealing for prosecution would be a much more common response from the doxxed if there wasn't a reason stopping it.

The only examples you'll find of arrests being made are cases where system officials, senators, congressmen, police officers, etc were doxxed. Not sure about conviction and sentencing. It's also important to note doxxing only pertains to private information, not public information. Registered to vote? Your address is public information.

 

[Phiwise_]

The only examples you'll find of arrests being made are cases where system officials, senators, congressmen, police officers, etc were doxxed. Not sure about conviction and sentencing. It's also important to note doxxing only pertains to private information, not public information. Registered to vote? Your address is public information.

I asked for specific examples, and on purpose. The point of the question was if there's not some case law or such reason this law can't be applied to doxxing at all; if you can't help with that it'd be nice if you'd not waste bits repeating yourself on a different topic.

 

[Phiwise_]

I wouldn't particularly like being doxxed, but I don't know if it should be illegal.

You might be right, but this seems doomed to remain a minority opinion, at least in the short term. Since we live under a republic the supermajority opinion seems likely to surface eventually, so it might be prudent to pull a Fabian: push the most circumscribed bill we can write, as the firstest option with the mostest preparation, and then use that as a backstop while we move the cultural needle. Better than leaving open the chance for UK-style speech laws from a panicked electorate, right?

 

[Dale Gribble]

I asked for specific examples, and on purpose. The point of the question was if there's not some case law or such reason this law can't be applied to doxxing at all; if you can't help with that it'd be nice if you'd not waste bits repeating yourself on a different topic.

You can find examples of arrests under a different law, but it only applies to government officials, is what I was saying.

18 U.S. Code § 119 - Protection of individuals performing certain official duties

www.law.cornell.edu

That's the one they use when they want to persecute, but it doesn't apply to average Americans. I don't understand all the legal jargon. So if you want doxxing to be illegal, that's what you should be looking at. I think the one Lazarus posted is more to charge people with cyber stalking.

 

[Houseman]

You might be right, but this seems doomed to remain a minority opinion, at least in the short term. Since we live under a republic the supermajority opinion seems likely to surface eventually, so it might be prudent to pull a Fabian: push the most circumscribed bill we can write, as the firstest option with the mostest preparation, and then use that as a backstop while we move the cultural needle. Better than leaving open the chance for UK-style speech laws from a panicked electorate, right?

I would think that restricting people's free speech rights in response to an imagined future crisis is just as bad as restricting people's free speech rights during an actual crisis.

If anything, protections should be added to codify it as legal now, before the crisis comes.

 

[Arnox]

As I said before, I don't think revealing people's PI should be protected under free speech. It's a very dangerous precedent. People should have full control over their PI, barring criminal investigations of course.

 

[Phiwise_]

I would think that restricting people's free speech rights in response to an imagined future crisis is just as bad as restricting people's free speech rights during an actual crisis.

If anything, protections should be added to codify it as legal now, before the crisis comes.

There's nothing imagined here. There has been outcry before, and there obviously will be again, and more of it as people become ever more connected to the open mainline of the web. It's one thing to say you'd like to see codification of doxxing as speech, but it's another entirely to say you're actually going to get it done somehow. To repeat, there are lots of activists with no interest in free speech at all who have come dangerously close to passing sweeping restrictions, and they will rake you and your sponsor through the coals while you get basically zero public support. You'll probably be ignored by the EFF and the ACLU nowadays, which will be taken as evidence of deserving it. You will not succeed; indeed, you will only set your own cause back more.

The only option, then, is to change public opinion, again basically on your own. I'm not saying you shouldn't or can't do it, but how long will it take you? Months, years, decades? In the meantime, your opponents will be hard at work on the obviously just as difficult task of... trying to convince elected officials to pass a no personal cost bill with majority support and an emotional hook. What, exactly, do you think the odds are that you win that race? Even without an "imagined future crisis"?

Call me crazy, but I think good present ethics that invite bad future ethics are bad present politics. You don't tack upwind by declaring it would be wrong to set your rudder as if it was at your back like you deserve.