poll Doxxing - Yes or No?

[Internet.Domains]

Doxxing - Should we do it?

Doxxing, also spelled "doxing," refers to the practice of using the Internet to source out and collect someone's personal and private information and then publicly releasing that information online in a revengeful manner.

The domain community is often subject to people who back out of agreements. It comes with the territory. When someone backs out after an agreement is reached, it is time consuming and frustrating.

So should we dox? Is it fair to dox? What are the consequences if we dox? How does doxxing help legitimize domain investing and reselling? Is Doxxing a bad look for the community as a whole?

We don't like being labeled as "squatters" so should we be careful we are not labeled "doxxers" to those outside of domain investing?

 

[Ategy]

Yes but that's not doxxing if you consider the transaction a legal binding agreement, I would say more people will stop doing business with marketplace showing no desire to enforce contracts, and if a big enough deal I would imagine someone would sue GoDaddy for the info.

Yeah .. I wasn't even asking for everything (and obviously had zero intention of "Doxxing" since my goal was to close the sale) .. I just wanted a way to contact the buyer .. but the broker refused.

It was last year I think .. really wish I remembered more of the specific details!

I take the opposite approach. I feel there would be more liability to a marketplace that releases private information and ends up having someone doxxed (harrased) causing severe damages.

The problem with that is then you'll just have more and more cases of people making phantom purchases if there are no consequences to them illegally breaking a sales agreement.

It's kinda like saying some people get killed by cars .. so let's remove all cars from the road (which we should do for environmental reasons .. but that's a different debate .. lol). Most cars, just like most requests for contact information, are going to be used legitimately and for good, valid and justified reasons.

They have the right to sue, not to dox. Big difference.

Yeah .. but how do you sue without knowing who the buyer even is?

 

[equity78]

Yeah .. I wasn't even asking for everything (and obviously had zero intention of "Doxxing" since my goal was to close the sale) .. I just wanted a way to contact the buyer .. but the broker refused.

It was last year I think .. really wish I remembered more of the specific details!


The problem with that is then you'll just have more and more cases of people making phantom purchases if there are no consequences to them illegally breaking a sales agreement.

It's kinda like saying some people get killed by cars .. so let's remove all cars from the road (which we should do for environmental reasons .. but that's a different debate .. lol). Most cars, just like more requests for contact information, are going to be used legitimately and for good, valid and justified reasons.


Yeah .. but how do you sue without knowing who the buyer even is?

They might be doing that as they are worried about what some here are talking about, but GoDaddy giving you the bad buyer's info is not them doxxing them, you certainly were not going to dox them, you would weigh your legal options.

 

[Internet.Domains]

Wait you brought DOX into this, what makes you think someone suing someone for $100,000 has anything to do with doxing them? Doxing is what people are trying to use as an out for those who did not meet their legal requirement, that's not doxing, this is doxing:

What is doxxing?
Doxxing is a cyber attack that involves discovering the real identity of an Internet user. The attacker then reveals that person’s details so others can target them with malicious attacks. Doxxing is analyzing information posted online by the victim in order to identify and later harass that person. Here is what we’re going to cover today in this anti-doxxing guide. Use the links below to easily navigate it:

• What is doxxing – a definition
• How a troll gets doxxed – violentacrez, an example of doxxing
• How a Nazi gets doxxed – did he deserve it?
• Doxxing victims – how doxxing and swatting lead to tragedy
• Doxxing victims – leaked photos
• Doxxing victims – targeted by Instagram influencers
• How you can get doxxed and how to avoid getting doxxed

https://heimdalsecurity.com/blog/doxxing/

I am not sure how my response seems, but marketplaces release info so you can proceed with legal options, not to dox. Under no circumstances do I feel they do it for doxxing. However, by releasing private information, one could make the argument, if doxxing occurs and harm is incurred, the marketplace could be holding a liability.

 

[Internet.Domains]

Yeah .. but how do you sue without knowing who the buyer even is?

I suppose that's the risk we take. You can either accept that risk or not.

Either way, I am just stating that other marketplaces may take the same approach as GD if doxxing occurs instead of legal proceedings.

 

[equity78]

I am not sure how my response seems, but marketplaces release info so you can proceed with legal options, not to dox. Under no circumstances do I feel they do it for doxxing. However, by releasing private information, one could make the argument, if doxxing occurs and harm is incurred, the marketplace could be holding a liability.

When did I say they release info to dox? Of course they are giving the info to one person, which would not be doxing, they are not making it available to the general public. So the only person who could dox would be the seller, which wouldn't be smart since they are trying to win a legal proceeding and getting involved in another one potentially would not be smart.

 

[Internet.Domains]

When did I say they release info to dox?

Must be a misunderstanding, because I never said that, or at least I never meant that. I am not sure where my points got so cloudy.

 

[Ategy]

I am not sure how my response seems, but marketplaces release info so you can proceed with legal options, not to dox. Under no circumstances do I feel they do it for doxxing. However, by releasing private information, one could make the argument, if doxxing occurs and harm is incurred, the marketplace could be holding a liability.

@Internet.Domains .. how bad a problem do you think doxxing is? Seriously .. 99.9999++% of requests for information have nothing to do with anybody wanting to doxx anyone!

In fact I think many of us (including myself) initially responded not entirely as we would have liked because we weren't even aware of the clear and exact meaning of the term until later in the conversation. I never even heard the term until today ... all I knew is that Doxie was short for Dachshund .. who admittedly can be quite vicious ... if you're a squirrel!

For example I initially thought I was partially OK with doxxing because I thought "doxxing" also included simply naming and warning other people of someone who regularly breaks contracts .. when I understand now that isn't what doxxing is in any way at all.

It's wrong to assume all requests for information is for doxxing purposes .. and more importantly .. in a lot of places there are laws (direct or indirect) against inciting harm on anyone.

By your same argument then in theory almost no broker assisted transaction could ever occur unless they specifically hold the funds and pay them anonymously (they would never be able to give the buyer or seller's info to the other). Escrow.com could never allow the buyer to contact a seller to give the transfer codes or for the buyer to give the seller their account info. The entire global marketplace of anything indirectly person to person would essentially stop working ... all sites such as craiglist, kijiji, etc would shut down for fear someone used contact information there to doxx somebody!


As far as I know Doxxing is not a significant issue in any way in domaining .. this feels like a debate where everyone gets worked up on either side of the merits of witch-hunts .. when there are no witches!
(sorry to any Wiccans out there, but that was the clearest way to make my point .. lol)

 

[Internet.Domains]

.. how bad a problem do you think doxxing is?

I seem to notice it more and more on NP lately, so I threw a pole up.

It's wrong to assume all requests for information is for doxxing purposes

I don't assume that. In fact I specifically stated otherwise.

Under no circumstances do I feel they do it for doxxing.

this feels like a debate where everyone gets worked up on either side of the merits of witch-hunts

I didn't intend to get anyone worked up or create a witch hunt. I was truly interested how the community felt and hoped to bring education and awareness to the subject. In the end, I was hoping we could rise above the practice of doxxing.

 

[Ategy]

Must be a misunderstanding, because I never said that, or at least I never meant that. I am not sure where my points got so cloudy.

lol .. you kinda did .. lol .. basically your entire argument seems to be that marketplaces should not give up delinquent buyer information because the seller could use it to doxx buyers!

Which obviously @equity78 and I feel is rather absurd ... and thankfully now it appears now that you've made it out of the clouds, you do as well and we can close this and all agree that if someone doesn't pay or complete a contract, the seller should be able to have access to the delinquent buyer's info!

AND .. there shouldn't be any reason to ever think the seller wants the information to be used to call on others to cause personal harm to the buyer!
(I think you might want to stop watching any Liam Neeson or conspiracy movies for a while .. lol .. and get yourself a Doxie/Dachshund .. they're awesome!)

 

[Ategy]

I seem to notice it more and more on NP lately, so I threw a pole up.

Well then I'm sorry for making it seem like your claims were so ridiculous (you should have linked or cited the specific cases .. because as far as I know public naming and information in the domain community has only been shared for the purposes of warning others .. and never to incite personal harm on anyone.

Anyhow .. can you please give us a few examples .. because I'm certainly not aware of any?

 

[Internet.Domains]

lol .. you kinda did .. lol .. basically your entire argument seems to be that marketplaces should not give up delinquent buyer information because the seller could use it to doxx buyers!

Which obviously @equity78 and I feel is rather absurd ... and thankfully now it appears now that you've made it out of the clouds, you do as well and we can close this and all agree that if someone doesn't pay or complete a contract, the seller should be able to have access to the delinquent buyer's info!

AND .. there shouldn't be any reason to ever think the seller wants the information to be used to call on others to cause personal harm to the buyer!
(I think you might want to stop watching any Liam Neeson or conspiracy movies for a while .. lol .. and get yourself a Doxie/Dachshund .. they're awesome!)

You really seem to be turning this into something its not. If there is a misunderstanding, my apologies.

As far as linking to specific cases there is a thread that is "popular" at the moment. You can find it. I would rather not call out the OP as it is along the lines of what I am speaking against.

 

[Peak.Domains]

Anyhow .. can you please give us a few examples .. because I'm certainly not aware of any?

Why would you be aware of examples, you hadn't even heard of it until today :P

I don't know of any examples within the domain community in particular where this has lead to bad outcomes, but there are plenty of examples in general where doxxing has lead to very bad outcomes, and 5 out of 19 people today so far think we should doxx people, which is at least a little concerning, wouldn't you agree?

Edit: To be clear, I don't believe anyone here is advocating doxxing in the malicious sense, and I'm assuming the people who said "yes" in the poll were operating with a different definition that's closer to "Bob Loblow wasted three weeks of my time and backed out of a deal, FYI."

 

[Internet.Domains]

because as far as I know public naming and information in the domain community has only been shared for the purposes of warning others .. and never to incite personal harm on anyone.

Lol!....Really!?.....You can try to justify it, but it doesn't make it right.

 

[equity78]

Well then I'm sorry for making it seem like your claims were so ridiculous (you should have linked or cited the specific cases .. because as far as I know public naming and information in the domain community has only been shared for the purposes of warning others .. and never to incite personal harm on anyone.

Anyhow .. can you please give us a few examples .. because I'm certainly not aware of any?

https://www.namepros.com/threads/doug-messer-dougyymesser-non-payer-at-dan-com.1152097/#post-7377792

 

[Ategy]

Why would you be aware of examples, you hadn't even heard of it until today :P

I never heard the term "Doxxing" .. but I am capable of understanding it's underlying definition. What I meant was not "I never heard of any domainer doxxing" .. but effectively the same thing "I never heard of any domainer publicly sharing information with the intent of someone getting personally harmed".

I don't know of any examples within the domain community in particular where this has lead to bad outcomes, but there are plenty of examples in general where doxxing has lead to very bad outcomes, and 5 out of 19 people today so far think we should doxx people, which is at least a little concerning, wouldn't you agree?

No .. because like me I'm fairly sure they too originally didn't get the actual meaning of Doxxing.

Originally I thought it was a tamer open-ended definition:
"Sharing of someone's personal information which could lead to someone getting shamed *or* harmed"

Not the actual more specific definition of:
"Sharing of someone's personal information with the intent to incite harm personal towards the person"

Now that I clearly understand the definition of doxxing, I'm against it (I was never for it .. but I voted sometimes because I thought doxxing could also include "public warning of someone proven to be dishonest" .. and I'm fine with that).

So don't get too worried about those other 5 people (EDIT .. It's actually only 3 people) .. I'm pretty sure they didn't vote that way because they wish harm on anyone .. more that they like think it's fine that repeat deal breakers be made aware of for the purpose of saving others from going through phantom deals.

(BTW .. Going to change my sometimes to NO now .. lol)

 

[Ategy]

Lol!....Really!?.....You can try to justify it, but it doesn't make it right.

What are you talking about? Justify what ???

There is nothing wrong with calling out someone on being an intentional deal breaker (obviously as long as you're 100% sure they are .. lol). That is NOT doxxing! That's warning your colleagues against potential harm to the entire community! It's NOT enticing harm or violence!

The news reported on Bill Cosby being a rapist .. by your broad definition that would be doxxing .. and it's not!
If someone said "John Doe is a rapist .. he lives at #### main street apt #123 .. someone should go there and shove a cactus up his butt to teach him a lesson" .. THAT would be doxxing!

In the few hours I've now spent reading and informing myself it's clear that "doxxing" is the public sharing of personal information with the intent of causing personal harm to someone.

I just saw that thread .. and it is NOT a case of doxxing! There is ZERO incitement to personally harm the buyer in question .. the seller simply wants to contact the buyer with the intent of concluding their already agreed upon sales agreement. As long as what the OP said happened is truth and there is no incitement of personal harm, then it 100% is not doxxing .. and there is nothing wrong or illegal in any way with what he's written. Where do you see the incitement for others to harm the buyer?

For you personally, maybe the idea of trying to get someone who has been deliberately unresponsive, and who broke a legal agreement with you, to respond via going to social media might be a bit harsh or past your personal comfort level .. but it is NOT doxxing as long as he is not inciting personal harm (which I saw ZERO indication of)

Publicly naming someone to warn others of someone who could potentially break a contract with you is NOT doxxing (it's what I originally and incorrectly thought was part of the definition of doxxing)!

In this case I don't even see implied/indirect incitement of personal harm.


Are there any other examples where personal harm was actually incited?

 

[Internet.Domains]

What are you talking about? Justify what ???

There is nothing wrong with calling out someone on being an intentional deal breaker (obviously as long as you're 100% sure they are .. lol). That is NOT doxxing! That's warning your colleagues against potential harm to the entire community! It's NOT enticing harm or violence!

The news reported on Bill Cosby being a rapist .. by your broad definition that would be doxxing .. and it's not!
If someone said "John Doe is a rapist .. he lives at #### main street apt #123 .. someone should go there and shove a cactus up his butt to teach him a lesson" .. THAT would be doxxing!

In the few hours I've now spent reading and informing myself it's clear that "doxxing" is the public sharing of personal information with the intent of causing personal harm to someone.

I just saw that thread .. and it is NOT a case of doxxing! There is ZERO incitement to personally harm the buyer in question .. the seller simply wants to contact the buyer with the intent of concluding their already agreed upon sales agreement. As long as what the OP said happened is truth and there is no incitement of personal harm, then it 100% is not doxxing .. and there is nothing wrong or illegal in any way with what he's written. Where do you see the incitement for others to harm the buyer?

For you personally, maybe the idea of trying to get someone who has been deliberately unresponsive, and who broke a legal agreement with you, to respond via going to social media might be a bit harsh or past your personal comfort level .. but it is NOT doxxing as long as he is not inciting personal harm (which I saw ZERO indication of)

Publicly naming someone to warn others of someone who could potentially break a contract with you is NOT doxxing (it's what I originally and incorrectly thought was part of the definition of doxxing)!

In this case I don't even see implied/indirect incitement of personal harm.


Are there any other examples where personal harm was actually incited?

verb
INFORMAL
gerund or present participle: doxxing

1. search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent.

Publishing private identifying information, such as personal name and email, for backing out of a sale is doxxing. You can try to justify it as a "warning" to others, but that could also be considered the malicious intent part of the definition.

I realize you are new to this issue, but our youth, at least my middle schooler, is being taught in school to not ever use identifying information about others due to intent not always distinguishable.

If there is a non paying bidder on NP it only becomes doxxing when the personal identifying information is made public. Using a username only is not doxxing and would fall under your "warning" system.

 

[oldtimer]

To me it seems like doxxing as defined here is a bigger sin than backing out of a domain deal.

Also you should only get mad if a veteran domainer keeps making offers on the forum for the wrong intensions and keeps backing out of deals on purpose, otherwise when it comes to end users and newbies it's something that you just have to forget about and move on to your next domain deal. IMO

 

[Ategy]

search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent.

So then my original interpretation wasn't all that far off .. it's the word typically which renders the entire term doxxing so broad that it could be completely benign to extremely dangerous.

The problem here is that with such a wishy-washy definition the word becomes so incredibly vague and unprecise so as to be an extremely bad choice of word(s) to base this much broader debate on.

Regardless of what you want to call it ..
It's not wrong to call someone out who has deliberately broken a legal contract with you that he never intended to honour AND is avoiding you without any explanation. It is not wrong to share that person's name with other people in your community in order to help them avoid having the same thing happen to them.

But it is is wrong to publicly identify someone with the intent of inciting harm personal against them (even if they broke a contract with you).

By the definition you posted, the term "doxxing" has no place in this debate or discussion as "doxxing" is simply the act of acquiring information .. it's what happens after that which is the ONLY part that counts and that should be discussed/debated.

If the definition of doxxing were the exact same as you posted but replacing the word "typically" with the word "always", then that would be a clear and specific enough definition on which to base this discussion upon.

 

[Internet.Domains]

lem here is that with such a wishy-washy definition the word becomes so incredibly vague and unprecise so as to be an extremely bad choice of word(s) to base this much broader debate on.

No, the definition is not wishy-washy. What is wishy-washy is trying to justify doxxing by calling it a "warning."

 

[Ategy]

Please stop using the word doxxing .. the definition you used is way too broad. Please answer this ..

Is it wrong for a reporter at a courthouse to inform themselves on the perpetrator of a crime, then include the name of the perpetrator in a report of the case to be published on the Internet?

Because THAT SPECIFICALLY is included in your definition of doxxing!

(EDIT | ADDED: Please please please tell me you're understanding what I'm trying to say now! lol)

 

[Internet.Domains]

Please stop using the word doxxing .. the definition you used is way too broad. Please answer this ..

Is it wrong for a reporter at a courthouse to inform themselves on the perpetrator of a crime, then include the name of the perpetrator in a report of the case to be published on the Internet?

Because THAT SPECIFICALLY is included in your definition of doxxing!

(EDIT | ADDED: Please please please tell me you're understanding what I'm trying to say now! lol)

The definition of doxxing is precise. You seem to be confusing a court of law or official government business with doxxing. There is a difference. Here is the Wikipedia definition:

Doxing or doxxing (from dox, abbreviation of documents) is the Internet-based practice of researching and broadcasting private or identifying information (especially personally identifying information) about an individual or organization.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

The methods employed to acquire this information include searching publicly available databases and social mediawebsites (like Facebook), hacking, and social engineering. It is closely related to Internet vigilantism and hacktivism.

Doxing may be carried out for various reasons, including to aid law enforcement, business analysis, risk analytics, extortion, coercion, inflicting harm, harassment, online shaming, and vigilante justice.[7][8]

 

[Ategy]

The definition of doxxing is precise.
...
Doxing may be carried out for various reasons, including to aid law enforcement, business analysis, risk analytics, extortion, coercion, inflicting harm, harassment, online shaming, and vigilante justice.[7][8]

Sure the definition might be precise .. but it's scope is way too broad and "doxxing" part actually IS NOT at all part of: "... may be carried out for various reasons, including to aid law enforcement, business analysis, risk analytics, extortion, coercion, inflicting harm, harassment, online shaming, and vigilante justice". Those are simply potential reasons for doxxing .. whether good or bad, they are not actually an active part of "doxxing" which is essentially just gathering/sharing of information .. which could be good OR bad)

Doxxing can be carried out for good reasons .. for neutral reasons .. and for bad reasons .. therefore saying "doxxing" is good or bad is simply not correct or precise .. unless you are personally against the use of doxxing to "aid law enforcement" and every other potentially good reason !?

There is absolutely nothing wrong legally or morally with the gathering of information (well .. most general information .. lol) .. it's what you do with it that counts .. but what you do with "doxxed" information can range from 0% to 100% on the good/evil spectrum .. why you're blanket vilifying "doxxing" as something so completely wrong regardless of how the information is used is just completely inaccurate.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can be ...

Doxxing for bad = bad (what you hear about most but happens the least)
Doxxing for benign reasons = benign (what actually happens most)
Doxxing for good = good (what happens a lot than for bad reasons)


Doxxing is not automatically bad .. it most certainly can be bad ... and specifically in the cases where it is deliberately used to incite personal harm against someone, then that it is 100% bad and should indeed be frowned upon. But that is NOT at all the case in the linked thread.

I suppose you're allowed to read more into what was written and assume the seller was trying to incite personal harm on the buyer (when there is very specifically ZERO content or evidence to support that point of view) .. and you are entitled to feel the results of that specific incident of doxxing could be bad.

But the rest of us are also entitled to actually read what is exactly written and see ZERO intention of inciting personal harm in any way what-so-ever, and think that the sharing of some basic information (name, email, and not his personal address) of a potential scammer CAN actually be a good thing if done properly and specifically without inciting harm in any way .. as is exactly the case here.

 

[Internet.Domains]

Sure the definition might be precise .. but it's scope is way too broad and "doxxing" part actually IS NOT at all part of: "... may be carried out for various reasons, including to aid law enforcement, business analysis, risk analytics, extortion, coercion, inflicting harm, harassment, online shaming, and vigilante justice"

Doxxing can be carried out for good reasons .. for neutral reasons .. and for bad reasons .. therefore saying "doxxing" is good or bad is simply not correct or precise .. unless you are personally against the use of doxxing to "aid law enforcement" !?

There is absolutely nothing wrong legally or morally with the gathering of information (well .. most general information .. lol) .. it's what you do with it that counts .. but what you do with "doxxed" information can range from 0% to 100% on the good/evil spectrum .. why you're blanket vilifying "doxxing" as something so completely wrong regardless of how the information is used is just completely inaccurate.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can be ...

Doxxing for bad = bad (what you hear about most but happens the least)
Doxxing for benign reasons = benign (what actually happens most)
Doxxing for good = good (what happens a lot than for bad reasons)


Doxxing is not automatically bad .. it most certainly can be bad ... and specifically in the cases where it is deliberately used to incite personal harm against someone, then that it is 100% bad and should indeed be frowned upon. But that is NOT at all the case in the linked thread.

I suppose you're allowed to read more into what was written and assume the seller was trying to incite harm on the buyer (when there is very specifically ZERO content or evidence to support that point of view) .. and you are entitled to feel the results of that specific incident of doxxing could be bad.

But the rest of us are also entitled to actually read what is exactly written and see ZERO intention of inciting personal harm in any way what-so-ever, and think that the sharing of some basic information (name, email, and not his personal address) of a potential scammer CAN actually be a good thing if done properly and specifically without inciting harm in any way .. as is exactly the case here.

Sure, I will agree to disagree. It's all good.

Give your Doxie a hug. He needs a little attention.

 

[Ategy]

lol .. He's awesome .. and most certainly always wants hugs and attention!

You can Dox my Doxie if you'd like .. maybe you can research his name here!


Which actually makes me realise ... lol ...

The definition of doxxing is precise...
Doxing or doxxing is the Internet-based practice of researching and broadcasting private or identifying information

While he did share the name and email of the delinquent buyer .. he didn't have to research for it .. it was actually "given" to him from Dan.com because the buyer reneged on sales agreement/payment!


Don't feel too bad though .. because of all this you get to see some great Doxie Dachshund pics!