While not a popular opinion, personally feel that people should have the legal right to remain anonymous, even if they have a public persona.
"It oughtta be illegal" is easy to say but not so easy to actually make happen.
In the middle are various levels of negligence and poor handling of PII which should attract severe punishment to provide economic incentive to protect PII or simply not collect it in the first place.
The whole goal of doxing is intimidation.
(To be clear, I have no reason to believe it will ever be a popular opinion, nor do I see the point in even trying to make it one; that said, not aware of any fundamental reasoning of why it’s impossible.)
>> So then what happens if someone's anonymity is stripped away?
It would be impossible in any significant way, since it would be impossible to digitally identify any entity without having there prior consent; something that’s easily possible with existing technology. If person revoked that permission, retaining data would be illegal, even for the government. If government needed to identify someone, it would be done systematically and anonymously; for example, if a person needed to pay taxes, access a controlled area, etc - it would all be done anonymously with persons consent, if they decline to provide the required anonymous digital tokens, response would be predefined, and would include being deported to an exiled region.
>> Do they sue the de-anonymizer, or does the de-anonymizer face criminal penalties? Or both?
Both.
>> How does one determine an appropriate penalty for this sort of thing?
Person loses access to modern technology, is deported, would be unable to reach anyone once deported, and would never be allowed to return.
>> Does it matter if the victim made themselves stupidly easy to dox?
No, blaming victim is obviously irrational.
_____
Again, if there specific issues other than it not being a popular opinion, please let me know. Otherwise, like I said, an individual being able to control their identity is limited only by popular opinion.
So this person should get a penalty which in some ways is more severe than what murderers get?
> No, blaming victim is obviously irrational.
Okay, but I mean, if I publish my own name and address in a public space, and then someone else who doesn't like me takes that information and republishes it in a manner I disapprove of, is that person still a doxer?
That's an extreme example but doxing almost never involves information which is not already publicly accessible to someone stubborn enough. It just involves following threads, correlating information, using public databases, etc.
Being deported is way more humane than imprisonments. Personally, to me, being controlled than governments, corporations, etc logging my identity and any other information as they want is from of control I neither agreed to, nor would and would happily deport myself to a country than did not.
>> if I publish my own name and address in a public space, and then someone else who doesn't like me takes that information and republishes it in a manner I disapprove of
That would not be possible, at least in a significant way; any directly or indirectly identifiable information digitally published would require approval and would be revocable.
___
Again, might point is two parts: (1) people would never agree to this; (2) but if they did, there is nothing I am aware of the would make it impossible.
Is this okay? Should this person have a right to "be forgotten"? Even if we assume this person could somehow articulate a manner, method and value of negative impact this association has caused, is there a correct avenue to address this?
- The news outlets are not doing anything wrong, they largely have reported only facts. They're precluded from mentioning the perpetrator by name, and the good Samaritan is reported by name as having intervened in the crime and preventing it from escalating; these are indisputable facts.
- Is the person reviewing job applicants to blame for possibly not going past the title of an article when searching a prospect's name and city?
Unfortunately as reality here has shown, there is no correct way forward. Legislatively, the USA does not hold the rights of the good Samaritan above the Constitutional rights of the press and witnesses. Imagine the feelings that develop in the good Samaritan in realizing they're powerless against the public record while having done nothing wrong and being accused of no crime.
at ruby conferences he attended, folks would offer him a ride back home, so he'd have them like, drop him off at a park near his house or at a street corner. all of his talks and writing was written as "_why," and his event namebadges carried his screen name as well.
i remember thinking that one of the reasons why he "disappeared" in 2010 was because some folks were trying very hard to uncover his real-world identity
If so, I disagree.
He was a wonderful and quirky man. A true artist. And artists, unfortunately, seem to have a sort of tortured relationship with the world sometimes.
I hope he's found his peace wherever he is. I'm sure he understands how much he touched and inspired so many of us. Shine on, _why, wherever you are.
Edit: they had pics of his wife and a screenshot of his home on Google Maps... That's doxxing