Feminist Frequency posts critics' personal info on Twitter

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Thaius:
Anita was definitely in the wrong here (whether purposeful or accidental), but I'm not exactly feeling any sympathy for the miserable son of a bitch that sent her that horrible email. She was right to call him out, just not to put his personal info up with it.

In fairness, I suspect if she had masked the details, she would be accused by the people now claiming she broke the law of "making it up."

bobleponge:
Okay, so I see a lot of people in this thread claiming that what Anita did was clearly, obviously illegal. Is it? I'd really like some evidence here.

Is posting someone's email and IP address truly illegal, and if so, under what circumstances?

Well, several peopole have claimed various statues, none of which apply in this case, so it's probably not illegal.

But this is the internet, and things like facts won't get in the way of a good rant.

jpz719:

You do realize accusing someone of lying is infact a legit critque?

You realise that you just cut out the half of the line that was most important, right?

You also understand that simply saying someone's lying is not, in itself, a critique, right?

Falling:
Fair enough, but I would suggest that sort of hyperbole is not terribly helpful as it borders on histrionics.

I suppose in a rational discussion it was an unneeded aspect to include the hyperbolic example. Still, didn't think it would be taken as a serious opinion on what I think might happen instead of just the go-to extreme example for any personal information released online (or the usual warnings about releasing said info about oneself.)

Was it right for Anita to post up information including peoples email address and IP, even if they're probably anon/proxy, no it wasn't. However considering the torrent of this sort of abuse she received its very easy to understand why she's had this lapse of judgement.

Frankly I don't get the hate and vitriol being direct at Anita/femfreq. She is performing a valuable service not just for women but for gaming as a whole, we need our medium to grow up and I for one would love to see a few less hackneyed tropes and a few more original ideas. We don't need 500+ variations on the damsel in distress theme, its just lazy if nothing else.

I think the main thing I would like to point out is that we have nothing to lose here and a lot to gain, we're not going to see games, styles, and themes we know and love disappear, but we might see more variety and some new perspectives. Its win win so far as I'm concerned.

bobleponge:
Okay, so I see a lot of people in this thread claiming that what Anita did was clearly, obviously illegal. Is it? I'd really like some evidence here.

Is posting someone's email and IP address truly illegal, and if so, under what circumstances?

Not sure if it is or is not legal... However I postulate the following question.

If someone here posted Anita Sarkeesians personal information, or information that would allow someone to say, find her home address, would there be a single person here that would not come to the conclusion that such posting could be a legitimate and real threat to her personal well being?

Generally speaking it is probably not wise to post information of such nature on the Internet, even if it is in response to something someone else did.

AtomChicken:
Welp, just waiting for the catfight on the Internets to ensue.

Anita has long since passed into obscurity for me, I believe it'll be up to a more educated post-Second Wave and Third Wave feminists to discuss and spearhead these issues. Anita is good about whining, pointing fingers, and pointing out the obvious. But where ARE my games that talk about women's issues? Where are my games where we can experience a woman's unabashed POV, the psychology of their world and challenges they face?

Many feminists are good at raising a ruckus, but where's Gaming's Judy Chicago, Georgia O'Keefe, and Suzanne Lacey?

Instead we get Anita lowering herself to trolldom, so good riddance to it all. I'll stand on my ivory tower and demand a game that tries to address these issues, rather than twitter antics.

Good point and you know something? As a guy who generally plays guys in RPG's and suchlike by choice, those games as you describe them are ones I would support, buy, and play.

If for nothing else, educational purposes :)

Dragonbums:

And for the most part the only people who seriously use them to contact anybody are teenagers, trolls, or jokesters. So there is a very high chance that the email does not even belong to the person who sent that email to Anita. And as more posts surface about the nature of the "info" displayed on the email, it's looking a lot like a faux email, than legitimate personal info.

Except you cannot rule out that this could just as easily be someone's actual email address

Dragonbums:

I do not see how blaming the person who's IP address has potentially been posted is a positive approach when a criminal act has occurred.

Except for the fact that if it were truly criminal, than she would of been reported and charged by now. All I see is a lot of hot air of people declaring "She broke teh law!" and nothing actually happening to her or Feminist Frequency as an organization.

Not in the EU courts.

Twitter will only respond to the actual person who's information is present and as this is online it's entirely possible no-one has taken action yet.

Most Law enforcement generally leaves it initially to the sites themselves to sort out and will intervene when the victim contacts them to press charges.

As far as the organisation the EU courts are pretty slow and it would require the actual victims to report her most likely. Because no action has been taken doesn't mean no action could or may be taken. Breaking the law doesn't instantly result in the police outside your home, it takes time for the system to work unless someones been killed and the killer is smiled at 3 CCTV cameras and is sitting waiting at home.

Dragonbums:

There are a number of possible retaliations Ms Sarkeesian could have picked.

And I'm pretty sure, considering all the hate she gets through her emails on a daily basis she has done all of them.

Except this time she made a very bad choice. Hell if its that much hassle I'd put word filters on my email account to remove emails with specific offensive words.

Dragonbums:

The one she chose was the illegal one.

Considering nothing has even happened to her I highly doubt what she did was even illegal.

Not all illegal actions see an immediate return.

What she did was illegal, however action against it isn't always instant unless the person in question legitimately fears for their life due to it.

Dragonbums:

It does not make her actions right or justified simple because she felt offended by them.

Sorry, but most objective people in this thread are finding a hard time trying to feel any sympathy for the sender of the email. If your going to send someone garbage laced with insults and no substance, than boohoo that your called out for being as shitlord.

Was it the right thing? No. But I can hardly give two fucks either way.

I'm not being sympathetic to him or her I'm pointing out that this response was an illegal one and Anita isn't even admitting her mistake.

I'm pointing out that Anita knows just what she's doing here and has done to try and drum up more controversy and claim people are just doing it because she's female. She's trying to create a reason for people to feel they still need her in an industry that has better people for the job and might well have developed past her even before her series started.

I'm not going to defend someone committing illegal actions and others saying it's fine. I'm not someone who believes the ends justify the means. She could have easily blurred out the information but didn't.

Dragonbums:

As I said That we know of. That doesn't mean it isn't being done, I illustrated to a previous poster that there is a trend of this. Infact some of the people pulled up by Anita have faced mass reports to have them banned.
No matter the feelings on their actions it doesn't negate the fact there is a trend of action being taken by some fans.
Also fans of Anita are pretty obsessed it's just a lot more of a rare occurrence that anyone calls them on it.

So basically a bunch of hypotheticals that will probably never occur. But hey, it's so much easier to make up imaginary "Anita fanatics". So you still have at least something to stand on in this whole argument.

Trends indicate it's entirely possible. Sure it's hypothetical but so are most things. Hypothetically it won't rain frogs tomorrow, trends show that raining frogs is a very rare occurrence but that doesn't mean it won't rain frogs.
So do you think it will rain frogs tomorrow ?

Dragonbums:

Does the fact nothing has happened negate the criminal act here ?

Sure does. If what she did was such a breach of law, than why haven't any of you reported her to the EU Data Protection yet?

Simple. Generally the EU data protection act sees cases based on an individuals private data. As the data isn't mine then it would be the lowest priority as I cannot prove who the data belongs to nor would I be acting on their behalf. They have to have intent to push for the conviction in these cases.

Take for example ABH cases in the US where people can push for the conviction or simply not and essentially forgive the person them self.

It's far harder to have a case brought up when you cannot identify the actual owner of the data and prove you are acting on their behalf with their knowledge.

Dragonbums:

Probably because it's a load of hot air.

It is still a criminal act. It's just the kind that happens a lot more frequently that you might expect but in private. However it's a tougher one to challenge when you're not directly the victim.

Dragonbums:

Hell maybe worse, maybe the guy can't say anything because his IP is constantly being flooded.

So....what? He can't fucking call them? Use his internet cell phone? Use someone else's computer? Come the fuck on dude.

The potential is there. Again who knows these individuals may come forward they may not. The potential however was created by Ms Sarkeesian for this to happen.

Dragonbums:

Check back and look at the reply I posted earlier, plenty of nice name calling going on from fans.

Oh yes namecalling. Something that every group ever has done on the inside and out. That's completely in the same league as some of the stuff Anita's detractors have done- like making a flash game where you can beat up her face. Yes. Name calling. That is definitely proof that Anita's phantom "fanatics" will do horrible things to the email recipient. Like sending him 300 boxes of pizza.

Again, we only know about the stuff Anita's detractors have done because Anita the victim revealed it. We do not know what could be being done to the victims in this incident.

We have no indication of the extent given the facilities that some of the fanatics will go to. This is the first time such information has been present. All we can do is work off trends and wait and see.

Dragonbums:

Again it's entirely up to the people involved to make the claim and pass it through the EU court.

Let me rant about how Anita is a criminal lawbreaker in the same league as Al Capone, but it's not my problem if nobody reports it, but here let me make a thread about how she's a super evil criminal now and how you all should hate her for this criminal act that I'm not going to do anything about because really it's not my problem guys.

Again welcome to the way certain laws work. What was done was still an offence however it's up to those involved to make sure it's resolved.

Do you really want to excuse someone of a criminal act because they were offended ?

Dragonbums:

They may not even be aware of it at present or for all we know it's stuck in the 4-6 week processing time the EU court has.

Cool. So between you saying it's not your problem if they report her or not and this info I can safely say this thread is a waste time. Just like every single Anita thread ever to come into existence on this website and beyond. It's full of maybe's and hypotheticals, and things that never will actually happen, but making a big deal about it anyway.

Not even surprised.

[/quote]
The head of a charity organisation just potentially breached someone's privacy and leaked personal information to the public. I see no reason why this shouldn't be a huge thing considering people went mad at the NSA for collecting and storing information to try and stop terrorist attacks.

If you don't feel it's worth discussing you can just not, that is an option here.

Falling:
My what active imaginations we have.
They've been bombarded to oblivion with emails from rabid Anita fans?
These poor victims might wind up in the gutter dead?
We don't even know if they even provided a true email, and yet we're going straight to murder as a possible outcome?

In the absence of facts, flights of fiction will do, I suppose.
But the outrage becomes glaringly disproportionate when we entertain such extreme hypotheticals and outright fantasies, based on such limited information.

Nor did Anita know if they were real.
However she published them publicly anyway.

Intent, it's an important thing to understand that it doesn't just mean sleeping under a canvas frame.

Again it's the potential that could happen. Though I don't think anyone said they could be dead in a gutter.

Let me say this again.

The head of a charity has committed a criminal activity and then claimed people were conspiring against her and she never did those actions despite the evidence being public for all to still see.
Sorry but if you don't believe the head of a charity committing a criminal act and then telling lies about it isn't something there should be a fuss about then I can only imagine you see any crime on a personal level and insignificant and not worth punishing short of murder.

bobleponge:
Okay, so I see a lot of people in this thread claiming that what Anita did was clearly, obviously illegal. Is it? I'd really like some evidence here.

Is posting someone's email and IP address truly illegal, and if so, under what circumstances?

You can tackle it from two angles.

1) Doxxing and deliberate breach of privacy

2) Acting as the head of a corporation (Feminist frequency is a registered charity) and ot abiding by data protection standards such that data was intentionally released

From EU court website
"Under EU law, personal data can only be gathered legally under strict conditions, for a legitimate purpose. Furthermore, persons or organisations which collect and manage your personal information must protect it from misuse and must respect certain rights of the data owners which are guaranteed by EU law."

Anita has failed to protect the data from misuse by releasing it in such a way and has not respected the rights of the data owner.

If people want to know more here's a link to the EU court doccument
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31995L0046:en:HTML

Ehhhh,

While I don't agree with anita on most of her so called "points", I will say abuse like that is not ok and the moron that said those things can kindly piss off

With that said, this is inexcusably childish and unprofessional if she really did this, the "facts" seem kind of murky but if anita really did do this (which all current evidence is pointing to) its inexcusable, I know for a fact if she spouted hate at a critic of hers and then he did the same thing, the critic would be harrased into oblivion...

So I'm going to say if she did this, well she is an incredible hypocrite and is being completely unproffesional, even though the harassers are very much being dicks, but their is no current concrete evidence so I'm going to maybe wait for an update on this one before coming up with a conclusion

The_Kodu:

bobleponge:
Okay, so I see a lot of people in this thread claiming that what Anita did was clearly, obviously illegal. Is it? I'd really like some evidence here.

Is posting someone's email and IP address truly illegal, and if so, under what circumstances?

You can tackle it from two angles.

1) Doxxing and deliberate breach of privacy

2) Acting as the head of a corporation (Feminist frequency is a registered charity) and ot abiding by data protection standards such that data was intentionally released

From EU court website
"Under EU law, personal data can only be gathered legally under strict conditions, for a legitimate purpose. Furthermore, persons or organisations which collect and manage your personal information must protect it from misuse and must respect certain rights of the data owners which are guaranteed by EU law."

Anita has failed to protect the data from misuse by releasing it in such a way and has not respected the rights of the data owner.

If people want to know more here's a link to the EU court doccument
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31995L0046:en:HTML

Ok, except Anita is an American. Pretty sure she lives in California, so EU laws don't really apply. Are there any relevant US laws?

bobleponge:

Ok, except Anita is an American. Pretty sure she lives in California, so EU laws don't really apply. Are there any relevant US laws?

Actually I believe the US has signed up to this act too. So just because they're not strictly part of the EU it doesn't mean they haven't signed up to allow this to be law.

Oh, good lord. I've agreed and disagreed with Anita on things before. I honestly think her video expositions rank about as high as videos of milk curdling (in space, at temperatures of -3,000 degrees), but whatever. Some people find them gripping. Who cares?

Here's the kinda-hilarious-if-you-think-about-it conundrum: if you disregard the emailer's poor choice of "criticism" (and you should, 'cause it really doesn't matter what keys he slapped before hitting "send" at this point), Anita has either done something extremely cruel on purpose, or extremely cruel by accident. Given how people often call her stupid, she's either proving them correct with this insane lack of judgement, or she badly needs to be arrested. Even if posting people's information like that in order to incite others to ruin their lives is currently legal, it really shouldn't be. I don't care if you're a neonazi who thinks Hitler was the best thing that happened to humanity--as long as you're not doing illegal things, you don't deserve to have your life ruined for thinking a thought. Even if you say that thought, and it's an oozing black mess of hideous bile. You didn't kill anyone. You didn't steal. Hell, you're probably already banned on like, 70 boards for saying those things, and that's really as far as it ought to go (it's not censorship if a private establishment decides it doesn't want to listen to you anymore). There is no such thing as a thought crime (yet), and the really ought not be. Ever.

And to everyone who thinks "meh, what's the worst that can happen?", look at some of the controversies with reddit and personal information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit#Community_and_culture mentions a couple, but I recall there being others). This is worse than just losing a credit card number to some anonymous hacker. People support Anita. I'm sure some of them wouldn't think twice about doing awful things to people who send her hate mail (every community has these...). I'm certain the punishment won't fit the crime here.

TopazFusion:

Ultratwinkie:

TopazFusion:
Not that I'm condoning doxing or anything, but how do we know that guy didn't use a throwaway email account and proxy IP address?

If he didn't even take basic measures to mask his own identity before sending something like that, then he's even more of an idiot than that email makes him out to be.

I am pretty sure I saw a daily telegraph email address in there. I don't know about you, but I don't think news outlets are in the business of renting out emails.

True, but it's possible to spoof an email sender address.

All I'm saying is, too many people seem to be taking things at face value.

Sure, Anita dun goofed. But jumping on the hate-train about this, is just silly.

There is a flaw there. Spoofing means the email could still be real so some innocent bastard is about to have his day ruined and possibly his life too if people took it seriously.

I know that because one of my old emails got flooded with hate after it got spoofed to do whatever the hell somone was doing with it. I was lucky it was an old email I no longer use for anything or else I would have to move everything within the day.

I don't really like Anita, but if I were constantly recipient of caustic messages from vile dipshits, I'd probably lapse ethics and protocol at some point in dealing with it... Though hopefully I am never tested in that manner, I'd like to think, if I was, I would be able to retain a stance of non-engagement... but everyone snaps and growls sometimes.

You shouldn't write people horrible emails because you disagree with them, but nor should you try and hurt people by painting a target on their back along with their personal details. Both because it makes you look bad and it's a shitty thing to do, individually and respectively.

...

Append: Upon further consideration, no, she REALLY shouldn't have done that even in understandable spite and frustration. It's is bad for her, bad for them, bad for her greater cause in that it's dangerously irresponsible. I realize people have deliberately tried to go after her in the same way, but 'gaze ye not into the abyss' etc... Bullying back is a bad option as a public figure with nebulous, but vocal influence.

The_Kodu:

bobleponge:

Ok, except Anita is an American. Pretty sure she lives in California, so EU laws don't really apply. Are there any relevant US laws?

Actually I believe the US has signed up to this act too. So just because they're not strictly part of the EU it doesn't mean they haven't signed up to allow this to be law.

Gonna need a source, cause I don't think that's true. From my understanding, the EU is way more strict about digital privacy than the US.

I actually did some quick research, and what I found was pretty inconclusive. You do have protection from people revealing private information, but the definition of "private information" is a pretty huge grey area, especially when it comes to the internet. Email addresses and IP addresses are arguably not private, especially if they willingly gave them to Anita by using her website's messaging service.

So, to answer my own question:

Did Anita break the law? Maybe? Who knows? Gonna need an actual lawyer for that one*.

Did Anita OBVIOUSLY break the law? Nope. Nothing obvious about it.

*there might, MIGHT be grounds for a civil suite, but that depends on a whole lot of information that none of us have access to. Read about it here, it's actually pretty interesting: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/publication-private-facts

Gethsemani:
The double moral in this thread is delicious.
Anita Sarkeesian and feminists get doxxed with everything including real name and home address along with comments that implies the doxxers want others to harass the doxxed people (and don't mind if the doxxed people get physically hurt): "It ain't that bad"/"Them are just trolls"/"She has it coming for being so hateful against men". Two hostile haters attacking Sarkeesian has their IP-number and e-mail revealed in two screenshots, possibly by mistake: "ANITA ARE DOXXING THEM, THIS MUCH WRONG! VERY RAGE!"

Now, doxxing ain't cool and no matter if Sarkeesian intended for it to be doxxing or not, she made a mistake at best and some unethical shit at worst. But just looking at the pictures makes it obvious that the real victim here is Sarkeesian, who only responds to a vicious attack on her person.

With that I am out of this thread so that the circle jerking hate fest against Sarkeesian that usually ensues can continue uninterrupted. Enjoy.

Heres my belief with any person who wants their beliefs in the public eye:

You must learn to deal with every bit of hate that comes towards you, whether its deserved or not.

While I do personally believe shes an awful awful person, "A man who jumps in front of a car cannot be a victim of poor driving"

She cannot be a victim for receiving hate. Plain and simple. She knew what was coming, so she cant be a victim. If she bitches saying she is? To use an ironic phrase: MAN THE FUCK UP. If she cant? She shouldn't be gotten herself on the public eye in the first place.

Regardless, this is likely a publicity stunt anyhow, so who cares about her?

The_Kodu:

Except you cannot rule out that this could just as easily be someone's actual email address

And it can just as easily be nobodies email address.

Not in the EU courts.

Twitter will only respond to the actual person who's information is present and as this is online it's entirely possible no-one has taken action yet.

Which means, nobody gives a fuck.

Most Law enforcement generally leaves it initially to the sites themselves to sort out and will intervene when the victim contacts them to press charges.

And seeing as how the victim hasn't done squat we can assume that he himself doesn't give a fuck, or the email he was using was a faux so he couldn't give two shits.

As far as the organisation the EU courts are pretty slow and it would require the actual victims to report her most likely. Because no action has been taken doesn't mean no action could or may be taken. Breaking the law doesn't instantly result in the police outside your home, it takes time for the system to work unless someones been killed and the killer is smiled at 3 CCTV cameras and is sitting waiting at home.

And once again, how do we know that she actually broke any laws. I have yet to hear of any one person being prosecuted by the law because some nobody outside of videogames screencapped an email from an equal nobody that can't leave messages without lacing them with insults.

And the more I think about it, the more I know nothing will be done about it because Europe isn't going to give two fucks to wast anyone's time to send over a woman who lives in California USA to another continent, to try her over shitty hate mail on a Twitter account.

Except this time she made a very bad choice. Hell if its that much hassle I'd put word filters on my email account to remove emails with specific offensive words.

That doesn't stop them from coming in. That just means it goes into the spam folder.

Not all illegal actions see an immediate return.

Alright then. Call me back in 3 weeks if something actually happens. Chances are, it will be nothing. I'm waiting.

What she did was illegal, however action against it isn't always instant unless the person in question legitimately fears for their life due to it.

Again, we still don't know if what she did was illegal. And honestly, I'm pretty sure Anita has a fuckton more reasons to fear for her life, than some inflammatory nobody on the internet.

I'm not being sympathetic to him or her I'm pointing out that this response was an illegal one and Anita isn't even admitting her mistake.

I wonder what would happen if it comes to light that what Anita did wasn't doxxing and thus not illegal. Would you be holding the same stance that she is some sort of high ranking criminal?

As I said That we know of. That doesn't mean it isn't being done,

With how hawkeyed all critics are of Anita, I'm fairly certain the minute one of her fanatics does anything, everyone would be on about it, and there would certainly be a thread on the incident on the Escapist in less than a day. So until then, Anita "fanatics" are hypotheticals and nothing more.

Infact some of the people pulled up by Anita have faced mass reports to have them banned.

Are we talking about the Escapist? If so, that's because they are often vitrolic, do not further any discussion about the topic, and in the end resort to name calling and strawman to try and prove a point to the point where the rack up the warnings and get a ban. If the Escapist was truly against anyone Anita they would of locked these mindless threads before it gets it's second post.

No matter the feelings on their actions it doesn't negate the fact there is a trend of action being taken by some fans.

Where?

Also fans of Anita are pretty obsessed it's just a lot more of a rare occurrence that anyone calls them on it.

Bullshit. Of this entire thread, I have seen literally only one fucking person openly admit that they are in support of Anita and her ideas. Just one. Out of all the threads made on the Escapist about Anita, only one of them was made by an actual fan of Anita. Just one. Nobody is ignoring "fanatic" Anita fans and rarely calling them out. They just don't exist even nearly enough to even warrant a fucking comment because the ratio of fanatic haters of Anita far far outweighs whatever phantom fanatic supporters Anita has.

Trends indicate it's entirely possible. Sure it's hypothetical but so are most things. Hypothetically it won't rain frogs tomorrow, trends show that raining frogs is a very rare occurrence but that doesn't mean it won't rain frogs.
So do you think it will rain frogs tomorrow ?

Please tell me where these trends are. Where exactly are they? They sure as hell aren't on the Escapist, and certainly not on any other gaming site that talks about her.

It's far harder to have a case brought up when you cannot identify the actual owner of the data and prove you are acting on their behalf with their knowledge.

Except that if the email really did contain the senders info that wouldn't be a problem. So if there is actually a debate on who that info belongs to that kind of falls apart the whole claim that she "doxxed" anyone.

It is still a criminal act. It's just the kind that happens a lot more frequently that you might expect but in private. However it's a tougher one to challenge when you're not directly the victim.

And it's still unknown if what she did was illegal. I'll say it again- unless she used a phising system to extract info on her sender she didn't dox anyone. And since that's only illegal in the EU- and Anita is in the United Fucking States of America- she did not to do anything illegal.

The potential is there. Again who knows these individuals may come forward they may not. The potential however was created by Ms Sarkeesian for this to happen.

Basically another extreme hypothetical that has never actually happened to the guy. I'm starting to see a pattern here.

Again, we only know about the stuff Anita's detractors have done because Anita the victim revealed it. We do not know what could be being done to the victims in this incident.

Bullshit again. We only know what Anita's detractors done because you guys have to make a big fucking deal about it and do it to such an extreme that even people outside the gaming sphere look at it and go "what the actual fuck". And once again, with how fanatic her detractors are about finding any piece of dirt on her I have no doubts that if her fans did anything remotely abhorrent that you would be the first ones to make a thread on it on the Escapist.

We have no indication of the extent given the facilities that some of the fanatics will go to. This is the first time such information has been present. All we can do is work off trends and wait and see.

Once again, please show me the "trends" you are talking about. Seems like something you made up in the middle of this conversation.

Again welcome to the way certain laws work. What was done was still an offence however it's up to those involved to make sure it's resolved.

Point still stands.

Do you really want to excuse someone of a criminal act because they were offended ?

Do you even know if what she did was a criminal offense in the first place?

The head of a charity organisation just potentially breached someone's privacy and leaked personal information to the public. I see no reason why this shouldn't be a huge thing considering people went mad at the NSA for collecting and storing information to try and stop terrorist attacks.

Are you seriously comparing Anita Sarkeesian to the fucking NSA?

Let me lay down the difference here.

The NSA, did ACTUAL doxxing of people's personal information. They were never given any of the information they acquired. They hacked, soliticed, and forced their way into people's private information to store as data. THAT is doxxing. THAT is something to take alarm of.

What did Anita do? Someone sent her a stank email and she screen capped it with some basic as fuck snipping tool and posted it on Twitter. She didn't force her way into servers to get it. She didn't manipulate people with phising scams to get it. The information was there in the email. However she intended to screencap for the message. Not to release the man's fucking info.

If you don't feel it's worth discussing you can just not, that is an option here.

Don't you think I would of stopped replying to you?

Dragonbums:
The information was there in the email. However she intended to screencap for the message. Not to release the man's fucking info.

Do you have a personal channel to Ms. Sarkeesian? Did she tell you, matter-of-factly, that she did not mean to expose this dipshit's personal info to the entirety of the internet? You're jumping to an unsubstantiated conclusion, much like virtually everyone else posting in this thread.

You yourself pointed out that had Anita not included the man's email address and IP in the screen capture, she would be accused of "making it up". I think we can all agree that Anita also had that in mind when she decided to expose the email in full, so that can only mean one thing: she knew damn well what she was doing when she chose to leave Mr. Pottymouth's personal info uncensored in the screenshot. Either that or she's just not very smart.

It's a matter of debate as to whether she did this with petty retribution on her mind. Regardless of her intentions however, it was entirely unrefined and gives the impression that she's willing to sink down to the same level as some of her more vulgar detractors. She should know better than to react like that at this point.

KungFuJazzHands:

Do you have a personal channel to Ms. Sarkeesian? Did she tell you, matter-of-factly, that she did not mean to expose this dipshit's personal info to the entirety of the internet? You're jumping to an unsubstantiated conclusion, much like virtually everyone else posting in this thread.

If she screencapped with the intent on having people dox the sender of the email I'm fairly certain she would of made such intents clear.

However the accompanying message with the pics was her pointing out these are the types of emails she gets from her "critics." nothing in that indicates that she was actively going out of her way to rally any of her fans to mob the guy with shit.

You yourself pointed out that had Anita not included the man's email address and IP in the screen capture, she would be accused of "making it up".

I think you misquoted. I didn't say that. Another poster(s) did.

So, you're getting angry because being an asshole on the internet could have repercussions?

Anita, just like moviebob, jim, and a lot of people on the internet give their opinions, and show their faces, and they get a lot of shit, you can comment in their videos, you van email them, and a lot of those mails are hateful; and while I don't like the idea of doxxing, the effect is that they are putting them in the spotlight.

Dragonbums:
If she screencapped with the intent on having people dox the sender of the email I'm fairly certain she would of made such intents clear.

Sarkeesian has followers, and I'm sure some of those on the lower end of the ethical chain don't need any persuasion to take action by themselves. Hell, I'd be surprised if that hasn't happened yet at this point in the debacle.

However the accompanying message with the pics was her pointing out these are the types of emails she gets from her "critics." nothing in that indicates that she was actively going out of her way to rally any of her fans to mob the guy with shit.

None of us know for sure whether doxxing was her intention. All we know is that she blatantly exposed personal information in those emails. I'm simply offering that she intentionally left that information uncensored for one purpose or another, malicious or otherwise.

I think you misquoted. I didn't say that. Another poster(s) did.

Ah, thank you for clarifying that - the number of lengthy posts in this thread has got my head reeling ATM :) The quote still stands to highlight my original point though.

bobleponge:

The_Kodu:

bobleponge:

Ok, except Anita is an American. Pretty sure she lives in California, so EU laws don't really apply. Are there any relevant US laws?

Actually I believe the US has signed up to this act too. So just because they're not strictly part of the EU it doesn't mean they haven't signed up to allow this to be law.

Gonna need a source, cause I don't think that's true. From my understanding, the EU is way more strict about digital privacy than the US.

I actually did some quick research, and what I found was pretty inconclusive. You do have protection from people revealing private information, but the definition of "private information" is a pretty huge grey area, especially when it comes to the internet. Email addresses and IP addresses are arguably not private, especially if they willingly gave them to Anita by using her website's messaging service.

So, to answer my own question:

Did Anita break the law? Maybe? Who knows? Gonna need an actual lawyer for that one*.

Did Anita OBVIOUSLY break the law? Nope. Nothing obvious about it.

*there might, MIGHT be grounds for a civil suite, but that depends on a whole lot of information that none of us have access to. Read about it here, it's actually pretty interesting: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/publication-private-facts

Not found the EU one but I have found the US laws layed out

http://uk.practicallaw.com/6-502-0467 " title="" target="_blank"> http://uk.practicallaw.com/6-502-0467

including the right to be forgotten and the requirement for data to be in a "safe harbour"

Dragonbums:

The_Kodu:

Except you cannot rule out that this could just as easily be someone's actual email address

And it can just as easily be nobodies email address.

And Anita knew this ?
Sorry but the intent was present still.

Dragonbums:

Not in the EU courts.

Twitter will only respond to the actual person who's information is present and as this is online it's entirely possible no-one has taken action yet.

Which means, nobody gives a fuck.

Which means it shouldn't be brushed under the rug even so.

Dragonbums:

Most Law enforcement generally leaves it initially to the sites themselves to sort out and will intervene when the victim contacts them to press charges.

And seeing as how the victim hasn't done squat we can assume that he himself doesn't give a fuck, or the email he was using was a faux so he couldn't give two shits.

Who knows if they even actually know about this yet ?

Dragonbums:

As far as the organisation the EU courts are pretty slow and it would require the actual victims to report her most likely. Because no action has been taken doesn't mean no action could or may be taken. Breaking the law doesn't instantly result in the police outside your home, it takes time for the system to work unless someones been killed and the killer is smiled at 3 CCTV cameras and is sitting waiting at home.

And once again, how do we know that she actually broke any laws. I have yet to hear of any one person being prosecuted by the law because some nobody outside of videogames screencapped an email from an equal nobody that can't leave messages without lacing them with insults.

Anita is now acting on behalf of her charity, not merely herself. so no this is not simple two people falling out this is a registered charity doing this now.

Dragonbums:

And the more I think about it, the more I know nothing will be done about it because Europe isn't going to give two fucks to wast anyone's time to send over a woman who lives in California USA to another continent, to try her over shitty hate mail on a Twitter account.

No but they might go after her as a tax entity, not a person. She did this representing her charity not merely herself now.

Dragonbums:

Except this time she made a very bad choice. Hell if its that much hassle I'd put word filters on my email account to remove emails with specific offensive words.

That doesn't stop them from coming in. That just means it goes into the spam folder.

And you don't have them clogging up your inbox and don't have to deal with them. If you go out of your way to be offended then you surely will be.

Dragonbums:

Not all illegal actions see an immediate return.

Alright then. Call me back in 3 weeks if something actually happens. Chances are, it will be nothing. I'm waiting.

We will see won't we

Dragonbums:

What she did was illegal, however action against it isn't always instant unless the person in question legitimately fears for their life due to it.

Again, we still don't know if what she did was illegal. And honestly, I'm pretty sure Anita has a fuckton more reasons to fear for her life, than some inflammatory nobody on the internet.

Exactly why this could take time. What Anita did is illegal

Dragonbums:

I'm not being sympathetic to him or her I'm pointing out that this response was an illegal one and Anita isn't even admitting her mistake.

I wonder what would happen if it comes to light that what Anita did wasn't doxxing and thus not illegal. Would you be holding the same stance that she is some sort of high ranking criminal?

Well she revealed information given privately without consent, thats a breach of her organisations requirement to protect data. So yeh it was illegal.

Dragonbums:

As I said That we know of. That doesn't mean it isn't being done,

With how hawkeyed all critics are of Anita, I'm fairly certain the minute one of her fanatics does anything, everyone would be on about it, and there would certainly be a thread on the incident on the Escapist in less than a day. So until then, Anita "fanatics" are hypotheticals and nothing more.

Unless the person simply isn't talking.

Dragonbums:

Infact some of the people pulled up by Anita have faced mass reports to have them banned.

Are we talking about the Escapist? If so, that's because they are often vitrolic, do not further any discussion about the topic, and in the end resort to name calling and strawman to try and prove a point to the point where the rack up the warnings and get a ban. If the Escapist was truly against anyone Anita they would of locked these mindless threads before it gets it's second post.

On social media sites I mean.

Dragonbums:

No matter the feelings on their actions it doesn't negate the fact there is a trend of action being taken by some fans.

Where?

The links you claimed to have looked at that I've mentioned about 5 times now.

Dragonbums:

Also fans of Anita are pretty obsessed it's just a lot more of a rare occurrence that anyone calls them on it.

Bullshit. Of this entire thread, I have seen literally only one fucking person openly admit that they are in support of Anita and her ideas. Just one. Out of all the threads made on the Escapist about Anita, only one of them was made by an actual fan of Anita. Just one. Nobody is ignoring "fanatic" Anita fans and rarely calling them out. They just don't exist even nearly enough to even warrant a fucking comment because the ratio of fanatic haters of Anita far far outweighs whatever phantom fanatic supporters Anita has.

I've seen plenty appear in threads declare everyone who opposes her sexist and their arguments baseless then leave. I've seen a couple of bans given to people due to it to.

Dragonbums:

Trends indicate it's entirely possible. Sure it's hypothetical but so are most things. Hypothetically it won't rain frogs tomorrow, trends show that raining frogs is a very rare occurrence but that doesn't mean it won't rain frogs.
So do you think it will rain frogs tomorrow ?

Please tell me where these trends are. Where exactly are they? They sure as hell aren't on the Escapist, and certainly not on any other gaming site that talks about her.

The links you claimed to have looked at. The ones I posted in a reply to another person.

Dragonbums:

It's far harder to have a case brought up when you cannot identify the actual owner of the data and prove you are acting on their behalf with their knowledge.

Except that if the email really did contain the senders info that wouldn't be a problem. So if there is actually a debate on who that info belongs to that kind of falls apart the whole claim that she "doxxed" anyone.

Except that would mean tracing the IP and email address myself.

I'll happily voice my opinion on these actions but the moment I have to go to such actions I would surely be called a fanatic hater of Anita for going to such lengths.

Dragonbums:

It is still a criminal act. It's just the kind that happens a lot more frequently that you might expect but in private. However it's a tougher one to challenge when you're not directly the victim.

And it's still unknown if what she did was illegal. I'll say it again- unless she used a phising system to extract info on her sender she didn't dox anyone. And since that's only illegal in the EU- and Anita is in the United Fucking States of America- she did not to do anything illegal.

Except in the US there are a number of similar laws including the requirement to safe harbour data.
Anita broke this law.

Dragonbums:

The potential is there. Again who knows these individuals may come forward they may not. The potential however was created by Ms Sarkeesian for this to happen.

Basically another extreme hypothetical that has never actually happened to the guy. I'm starting to see a pattern here.

Opening someone up to criminal acts in such a way and the act itself being criminal doesn't mean everythings fine as no-one got hurt.

Anita is claiming she's done nothing wrong here. Just because someone fails to kill doesn't mean they get let off,they get charged with attempted murder. Anita did release people information in this instance so just because luckily no-one has yet ended up suffering for it doesn't mean these actions are fine.

Dragonbums:

Again, we only know about the stuff Anita's detractors have done because Anita the victim revealed it. We do not know what could be being done to the victims in this incident.

Bullshit again. We only know what Anita's detractors done because you guys have to make a big fucking deal about it and do it to such an extreme that even people outside the gaming sphere look at it and go "what the actual fuck". And once again, with how fanatic her detractors are about finding any piece of dirt on her I have no doubts that if her fans did anything remotely abhorrent that you would be the first ones to make a thread on it on the Escapist.

It might surprise you to know mostly until someone else broaches the subject I don't bother with Anita short of seeing her work when a new video is released. I only tend to look into things when I'm either writing an article of a C-blog or in a thread like this. But I do make sure I'm pretty through in the information I collect such as knowing about her private twitter account.

Dragonbums:

We have no indication of the extent given the facilities that some of the fanatics will go to. This is the first time such information has been present. All we can do is work off trends and wait and see.

Once again, please show me the "trends" you are talking about. Seems like something you made up in the middle of this conversation.

You read the links didn't you ?
You claimed you looked at them yet here you are accusing me of making things up.
Are you sure you read the links ?

Dragonbums:

Again welcome to the way certain laws work. What was done was still an offence however it's up to those involved to make sure it's resolved.

Point still stands.

Point still stands that it was illegal

Dragonbums:

Do you really want to excuse someone of a criminal act because they were offended ?

Do you even know if what she did was a criminal offense in the first place?

Yes it was one

Dragonbums:

The head of a charity organisation just potentially breached someone's privacy and leaked personal information to the public. I see no reason why this shouldn't be a huge thing considering people went mad at the NSA for collecting and storing information to try and stop terrorist attacks.

Are you seriously comparing Anita Sarkeesian to the fucking NSA?

Let me lay down the difference here.

The NSA, did ACTUAL doxxing of people's personal information. They were never given any of the information they acquired. They hacked, soliticed, and forced their way into people's private information to store as data. THAT is doxxing. THAT is something to take alarm of.

Not quite that is hacking. Doxxing is making that material public.
Both of misuses of personal data and improper handling of it though.

Dragonbums:

What did Anita do? Someone sent her a stank email and she screen capped it with some basic as fuck snipping tool and posted it on Twitter. She didn't force her way into servers to get it. She didn't manipulate people with phising scams to get it. The information was there in the email. However she intended to screencap for the message. Not to release the man's fucking info.

If you don't feel it's worth discussing you can just not, that is an option here.

Don't you think I would of stopped replying to you?

Funny you defend Anita posting and mishandling someone's data because she felt it hurt her feelins yet denounce the NSA for trying to stop people being killed.

Are you really saying people being offended is more of an issue that should be dealt with than people being killed ?

Lalo Lomeli:
So, you're getting angry because being an asshole on the internet could have repercussions?

Anita, just like moviebob, jim, and a lot of people on the internet give their opinions, and show their faces, and they get a lot of shit, you can comment in their videos, you van email them, and a lot of those mails are hateful; and while I don't like the idea of doxxing, the effect is that they are putting them in the spotlight.

I never said I was angry. This is internet drama electric boogaloo. I do this every time there are 2 internet controversies at the same time.

Why should I bother writing anything if someone isn't even going to read the entire thing? This is already the 10th time people assume an OP has a secret agenda. I stated it at the very beginning.

Normally, I would have never bothered to post here. But I saw mention of people wondering what the big deal about doxing was, or saying it's not illegal. It is legal to a certain extent, so long as you keep it to publicly available information.

If you want real world comparisons? You could compare it to looking somebodies number up in a phone book. Following somebody back to their place, and then writing down the address.

If you really want to put what just happened into real world metaphors? This entire thing would be the equivalent of getting into an argument with someone and getting their name. Then you follow them back to their place, record their home address, then look up their number in the phone book. Then you make this information into posters and whatever else have you. You send this information to friends and family while also putting these posters up everywhere saying 'X person is (whatever) because (stuff). Here is their phone number. Here is where they live. If you want to do something with this information, go ahead! I won't stop you.'

Saying it doesn't matter if it's real information or not doesn't really matter. The intent matters more. Hell, even if it wasn't that persons real information, any addresses or phone numbers attached could be those of an innocent and unrelated person, who may now be getting harassed by internet warriors. (RL metaphors? The home you followed them to was their friends.) What if the person with this released information gets murdered or their home vandalized? Who holds responsibility? This kind of method is a bit cowardly, especially for an argument.

Never mind the difference between what's considered a public figure and one of the masses. (I am not sure if public figure is the correct term.)

Kind of unbelievable a so-so youtuber manage to attract so much attention.

She's very good at self-promotion.

KungFuJazzHands:

Sarkeesian has followers, and I'm sure some of those on the lower end of the ethical chain don't need any persuasion to take action by themselves. Hell, I'd be surprised if that hasn't happened yet at this point in the debacle.

Well clearly her lowest ethical fans are pretty damn good because nothing has happened, and I highly doubt anyone would do something in the near future. If they haven't done anything rash now, it's not gonna happen in this instance. The same however can not be said for he detractors. With one even taking the time to make a flash game where you can beat her face in.

None of us know for sure whether doxxing was her intention. All we know is that she blatantly exposed personal information in those emails. I'm simply offering that she intentionally left that information uncensored for one purpose or another, malicious or otherwise.

Except that she didn't actually dox anyone. As I've said earlier, doxxing is the act of phising or hacking into other sites to gain personal info about a person to publicly display. In this scenario, did Anita breach privacy? Yes. Did she dox anyone? No.

Czann:
Kind of unbelievable a so-so youtuber manage to attract so much attention.

She's very good at self-promotion.

I think you underestimate the internet's ability throw a tantrum.

She'd been doing her videos for years with little attention until some people got offended that she was now doing it regarding video games. This isn't some master plan. Gamers just turned themselves into low-hanging fruit.

The_Kodu:

Sorry but the intent was present still.

And what was the intent exactly? Because her intent just seemed to be showing people a shitty message she received.

Which means it shouldn't be brushed under the rug even so.

And yet in previous posts you said it wasn't your problem it was the person in questions. So which is it? Do you actually care? Or is it up to the "victim" to care?

Who knows if they even actually know about this yet ?

Um, if your going to take the time to go on someone's Twitter/site and send them a lengthy email with nothing but shit, than it can be assumed that the person keeps minimal tabs on Anita's social media outlets. And considering how big this was blown up, I'm finding a hard time believing that they are "unaware" of this incident.

Anita is now acting on behalf of her charity, not merely herself. so no this is not simple two people falling out this is a registered charity doing this now.

I'm still waiting for evidence that it was a dox unless you can find proof that she somehow hacked this person or phised him for information, Anita did not dox. Therefore she nor Feminist Frequency break any UN laws.

No but they might go after her as a tax entity, not a person. She did this representing her charity not merely herself now.

And what are they going to do? Fine the organization? If that's really it, than what? She has more than enough money to cover any costs. And that is still debateable if they will even bother to do anything.

And you don't have them clogging up your inbox and don't have to deal with them. If you go out of your way to be offended then you surely will be.

How does one go about "looking to be offended" when the messages she's receiving sole intention is to be as offensive, vitriolic, and toxic as possible? Filters are not fail safe and shit gets through. I wonder if you were ever on the receiving end of endless hate mail.

Exactly why this could take time. What Anita did is illegal

Based on what? Your own assumption? Once again, nothing of what she did was doxxing in the slightest.

Well she revealed information given privately without consent, thats a breach of her organisations requirement to protect data. So yeh it was illegal.

Protect data from what exactly? From what I understand that only covers things such as third parties like say Mozilla getting access to your stuff. Not exactly her screencapping unsubstantial emails on her Twitter account. And let's remember that's still not doxxing.

Unless the person simply isn't talking.

unlikely.

On social media sites I mean.

Examples. Because I have yet to see it there either.

The links you claimed to have looked at that I've mentioned about 5 times now.

Don't put words in my mouth, and most certainly do not lie. You never replied to me with links to anything, and I have certainly never claimed to of looked at said links.

I've seen plenty appear in threads declare everyone who opposes her sexist and their arguments baseless then leave. I've seen a couple of bans given to people due to it to.

Threads where? A single post in a thread of dozens of Anita bashing? Of course they got a ban. They breached rules. But guess what, just as many Anita bashers were met the the banhammer as well.

The links you claimed to have looked at. The ones I posted in a reply to another person.

First off I never said I looked at any links. Secondly it's extremely dishonest of you to claim that you "gave me links" and in that same sentence admit that you sent those links in reply to another user on this thread that possibly has nothing to do with what I am talking about and not only expect me to look at them as if that was addressed to me, but then put words in my mouth and claim that I made the statement that I looked at them. Don't even try to pull that shit with me.

Except that would mean tracing the IP and email address myself.

Which is something you are doing. Not Anita.

Except in the US there are a number of similar laws including the requirement to safe harbour data.
Anita broke this law.

In relation to what? Most of that is in regards to "selling" private info to other companies or corporations so they can see if your data is worth it or not.

Opening someone up to criminal acts in such a way and the act itself being criminal doesn't mean everythings fine as no-one got hurt.

Except that everything is fine and no one got hurt.

Anita is claiming she's done nothing wrong here. Just because someone fails to kill doesn't mean they get let off,they get charged with attempted murder. Anita did release people information in this instance so just because luckily no-one has yet ended up suffering for it doesn't mean these actions are fine.

Another extreme example to blow this way out of proportion.

It might surprise you to know mostly until someone else broaches the subject I don't bother with Anita short of seeing her work when a new video is released. I only tend to look into things when I'm either writing an article of a C-blog or in a thread like this. But I do make sure I'm pretty through in the information I collect such as knowing about her private twitter account.

Yeah, It's amazing that if Anita detractors actually stopped talking about her than *gasp* people will stop giving a shit about her.

Also I bet you are very thorough. That's why half of your claims are based on hypotheticals of things that will more than likely never happen.

You read the links didn't you ?
You claimed you looked at them yet here you are accusing me of making things up.
Are you sure you read the links ?

I don't know. Like I said before, you never actually replied to me with links and expected me to look at links you gave to some other user I have no relation to in the conversation and tried to put words in my mouth saying that I claimed to have looked at links you never actually gave to me.

Point still stands that it was illegal

She didn't dox anyone. So no. It wasn't illegal.

Yes it was one

Who ruled it as such? Internet court?

Doxxing is making that material public.

And also gaining that material through hacking. It's a term for a particular type of hacking.

Somebody using Microsoft snip to paste shit on Twitter is not hacking.

It's like the people who cry "Mah Facebook was hacked!" because they left themselves logged in and their sister changed their password.

Both of misuses of personal data and improper handling of it though.

Funny you defend Anita posting and mishandling someone's data because she felt it hurt her feelins yet denounce the NSA for trying to stop people being killed.

Oh please. The NSA has info on millions of people who don't have a fucking bit of relation to terrorism in any way shape or form. "Protection from terrorists" was a blank slate catch all excuse to let them do whatever the fuck they want under the smokescreen of "national security" against terrorists who still do baseline tricks like putting bombs in their dicks and vaginas.

The fact that you seriously believed that crap says a lot.

Are you really saying people being offended is more of an issue that should be dealt with than people being killed ?

Christ almighty. Now shit talking email sender could get killed. Next you'll be saying that his grand ma and pops could get bombed with Amazon drone planes.

The amount of absurd situations you guys are elevating this to to make this a big deal is simply fucking hilarious.

TopazFusion:

The_Kodu:
-

The funny thing about the "he had it coming" argument, is that it's the very same argument you see pop up in gun control threads on this forum. Threads with comments from people who seem to think that it's okay to gun down someone breaking into your home.

"If he hadn't have been breaking into my house, he would still be alive!" they say.
And yes, there are plenty of people on this forum who do truly believe this.

But when it's an internet troll whose trolling came back to bite them in the ass, suddenly everyone feels sorry for the troll.

I. Do. Not. Understand. This. Forum. At. All.

That comparison doesnt even make sense to begin with.

If someone breaks into your house he becomes a real physioal thread to your and your families health... most of these people are not known to break in, scream insults at you and then disapear into the nightn ever to be seen again.

You are in a really dangerous situation here and have the right to defend your home and family from anyone that might harm them.

What we have here are two tasteless idiots spouting insults, thats a douchebag thing to do but it hardly comes even close to the aforementioned case of breaking into someones house.

I. Do. Not. Understand. Your. Silly. Comparison.

You compared a live threatening situation to some internet drama.. bravo... only in America...

Lalo Lomeli:
So, you're getting angry because being an asshole on the internet could have repercussions?

Anita, just like moviebob, jim, and a lot of people on the internet give their opinions, and show their faces, and they get a lot of shit, you can comment in their videos, you van email them, and a lot of those mails are hateful; and while I don't like the idea of doxxing, the effect is that they are putting them in the spotlight.

And they also get paid for it... I doubt Mr X. gets paid for writing shitty mails. Both situations aren't comparable at all.

TopazFusion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&hideliu=1&hideanons=0

Uh oh, look at this, guys. Wikipedia is doxing people.

Better call the police on them.

You're trying way too hard. Better stop now. Unless off course FF has a warning like this one:

"Be aware:

Any content you add or any change that you make to a Wikimedia Site will be publicly and permanently available.

If you add content or make a change to a Wikimedia Site without logging in, that content or change will be publicly and permanently attributed to the IP address used at the time rather than a username.
"

Than both cases aren't comparable. Wiki warns you your IP will be visible. Therefor adding content = consenting to showing IP.

generals3:

IceForce:
Similar in the sense that YOU CAN PUT ANY EMAIL ADDRESS YOU LIKE IN THERE. It'll probably accept anything you put in there.

I wonder if people would be as irate about this, if they knew that the email addresses were fake, and the IPs linked to some library or internet cafe or something.

Maybe someone with computer skills can test this theory? Not for malicious purposes of course, but just so we can be sure of all the details.

Let's assume he put a fake e-mail address and posted it from an internet cafe... So what? How does she know that? Indeed she doesn't.

How do you know she doesn't? How do you know she didn't get someone to check the validity of the details before she posted it?

She has a person who films and processes her videos for her, is it really that much of a stretch to consider that she might have someone with enough computer knowledge to check the validity of an email address and IP? Assuming she doesn't have the know-how to do that herself, of course.

If she checked out the details, and found them to be fake, then there's no harm in posting them. Is it possible that this might be the case?

As I said earlier, we really need someone here with the relevant computer know-how, to do the necessary checks on those details. Otherwise we're going around in circles here.

Hesus, this is still going on.

NO, as far as I could research what she did is not illegal. And it should not be in my opinion. When you make a public statement you either conceal your identity and get called for it or do it openly and OWN YOUR SHIT.

On the other hand what she did is considered uncool by what goes as internet standard. Which means nothing to be honest. As usual those who follow rules are good people and good people get screwed over while those who weasel out of it usually profit.

On the other hand if this is considered abuse on internet every internet persona is valid for social services. This is just about as tame as it gets. As I said I got more abuse for saying that I dislike Metalica's music from album Load on. This reeks of cry for attention and nothing more. It's far from worth of attention.

Fame has it's price. In real world its lack of privacy, on internet its juicy comments. If you are unwilling to face it step down as nothing comes free.

IceForce:
Otherwise we're going around in circles here.

It's a thread involving Anita - that was always going to happen.

I'm starting to wish that discussion of her gets banned on the escapist. There's no point - no one is here to learn anything - not as far as I can see anyway. It's just a shouting match where the one with the most amount of "stamina" is going to "win".

I can't even be bothered trying to make an on topic point in a thread like this because A. almost no one will read it and B. there's more common sense in the apple I just ate than in this thread. I mean 8 pages? And the amount of fucking stupid I've read up to this point is insane.

I am btw aware that I'm in a really bad fucking mood this morning but this thread is . . . . unbelievable.

Dragonbums:

And what was the intent exactly? Because her intent just seemed to be showing people a shitty message she received.

Well she was either stupid, to leave the information in or malicious to leave it in.
Either way it still happened and she isn't willing to accept the mistake, and is claiming people are faking these posts to get at her, the posts clearly visible on her own twitter feed.

Dragonbums:

Which means it shouldn't be brushed under the rug even so.

And yet in previous posts you said it wasn't your problem it was the person in questions. So which is it? Do you actually care? Or is it up to the "victim" to care?

I'm saying I cannot take direct action against it. However that doesn't mean I can't call said actions bad, nor does it mean I should ignore them and forget about it.

Dragonbums:

Who knows if they even actually know about this yet ?

Um, if your going to take the time to go on someone's Twitter/site and send them a lengthy email with nothing but shit, than it can be assumed that the person keeps minimal tabs on Anita's social media outlets. And considering how big this was blown up, I'm finding a hard time believing that they are "unaware" of this incident.

It's on what 2 forums and tumblr, it's not blown up that much.

Dragonbums:

Anita is now acting on behalf of her charity, not merely herself. so no this is not simple two people falling out this is a registered charity doing this now.

I'm still waiting for evidence that it was a dox unless you can find proof that she somehow hacked this person or phised him for information, Anita did not dox. Therefore she nor Feminist Frequency break any UN laws.

It was dropping documents that contain personal information that Anita obtained through the submission system on her site.

Even if you want to argue this isn't a dox then she failed to maintain privacy and security of data under her care and given to her. She shared this information without consent and potentially exposed said information to use and abuse by criminal elements. Even if you want to claim she didn't Dox she broke the laws relating to the data protection act, and was acting on behalf of her company not herself in this case so it's not simply a rogue individual now.

Dragonbums:

No but they might go after her as a tax entity, not a person. She did this representing her charity not merely herself now.

And what are they going to do? Fine the organization? If that's really it, than what? She has more than enough money to cover any costs. And that is still debateable if they will even bother to do anything.

Considering fines start at about $8,000 per item of data minimum and a serious breach could go up to $842,000. Now the $8,000 is per items so the in one there's potentially $16,000 minimum and $24,000 minimum in the second one. I'd say $40,000 + is a fair kick to potentially take for her organisation. Thats what nearly 1/3rd of the kickstarter funding gone at least.

Dragonbums:

And you don't have them clogging up your inbox and don't have to deal with them. If you go out of your way to be offended then you surely will be.

How does one go about "looking to be offended" when the messages she's receiving sole intention is to be as offensive, vitriolic, and toxic as possible? Filters are not fail safe and shit gets through. I wonder if you were ever on the receiving end of endless hate mail.

You set up a filter. Then go looking in the messages you filtered out because of offensive content.
Stuff does get through filters but that's no reason to not bother with them.

Was I ever on the reverencing end of endless hate mail ?
No

But I have had periods where I've had consistent hate mail I apologise that I can't link to the specific article I wrote about it right now but the computer I'm using has less power than most smart phones while my normal laptop is being repaired.

But the words "I will come to your house and burn it down with your family inside" was one of the rather nice messages. Oh and FYI the guy lived 15 miles from me and due to various reasons relating to people I knew he knew my home address thanks to someone with a grudge against me.

Dragonbums:

Exactly why this could take time. What Anita did is illegal

Based on what? Your own assumption? Once again, nothing of what she did was doxxing in the slightest.

Again it was a breach of data protection and release of data without consent. Even if you want to argue it's not doxing it is an illegal data breach

Dragonbums:

Well she revealed information given privately without consent, thats a breach of her organisations requirement to protect data. So yeh it was illegal.

Protect data from what exactly? From what I understand that only covers things such as third parties like say Mozilla getting access to your stuff. Not exactly her screencapping unsubstantial emails on her Twitter account. And let's remember that's still not doxxing.

Except the email was private information as was the IP she gave out.
Releasing the data potentially exposes the information by use by criminal elements, even if it's not her fans exposing the data in this way is illegal and use of it without consent is also illegal.

Dragonbums:

Unless the person simply isn't talking.

unlikely.

Still possible they could have just moved on from the Anita thing. Or as some have in the past be facing blackmail of some kind not to talk.

Dragonbums:

On social media sites I mean.

Examples. Because I have yet to see it there either.

The links you claimed to have read.

Dragonbums:

The links you claimed to have looked at that I've mentioned about 5 times now.

Don't put words in my mouth, and most certainly do not lie. You never replied to me with links to anything, and I have certainly never claimed to of looked at said links.

I never said I replied to you I said another poster here.

Dragonbums:

I've seen plenty appear in threads declare everyone who opposes her sexist and their arguments baseless then leave. I've seen a couple of bans given to people due to it to.

Threads where? A single post in a thread of dozens of Anita bashing? Of course they got a ban. They breached rules. But guess what, just as many Anita bashers were met the the banhammer as well.

Just as many...........
So you're saying it's about equal and not some phantom minority now ?

Dragonbums:

The links you claimed to have looked at. The ones I posted in a reply to another person.

First off I never said I looked at any links. Secondly it's extremely dishonest of you to claim that you "gave me links" and in that same sentence admit that you sent those links in reply to another user on this thread that possibly has nothing to do with what I am talking about and not only expect me to look at them as if that was addressed to me, but then put words in my mouth and claim that I made the statement that I looked at them. Don't even try to pull that shit with me.

The ones I posted in a reply to another person

Does that say I gave the links to you ?
Does that say you at all ?

it would be pretty easy for you to look back in this thread and find them.

Dragonbums:

Except that would mean tracing the IP and email address myself.

Which is something you are doing. Not Anita.

So you're telling me I should trace these IPs. get the personal information and contact these people to get consent to peruse Anita in the court system and this is how I prove I'm not some fanatic hater ?
Really is that what you're saying that I need to spend countless hours on this to have Anita in court and that's not being a fanatic hater ?

Dragonbums:

Except in the US there are a number of similar laws including the requirement to safe harbour data.
Anita broke this law.

In relation to what? Most of that is in regards to "selling" private info to other companies or corporations so they can see if your data is worth it or not.

The information was given to feminist frequency as an organisation. Anita distributed it to the public without consent. She failed to protect data provided to her and ask no consent before distributing it.

Dragonbums:

Opening someone up to criminal acts in such a way and the act itself being criminal doesn't mean everythings fine as no-one got hurt.

Except that everything is fine and no one got hurt.

So if a sniper tries to shoot people on the street and misses , it's fine because no-one got hurt ?
Sorry but the act still occurred and it's lucky no-one was hurt but that doesn't diminish the act occurring.

Dragonbums:

Anita is claiming she's done nothing wrong here. Just because someone fails to kill doesn't mean they get let off,they get charged with attempted murder. Anita did release people information in this instance so just because luckily no-one has yet ended up suffering for it doesn't mean these actions are fine.

Another extreme example to blow this way out of proportion.

Yes I had to give an extreme example because it's clear your seem to believe. No-one injured = no crime occured.
Are you really going to say just because we haven't heard that someone has been injured from this that Anita is fine to claim she did nothing wrong ?

Dragonbums:

It might surprise you to know mostly until someone else broaches the subject I don't bother with Anita short of seeing her work when a new video is released. I only tend to look into things when I'm either writing an article of a C-blog or in a thread like this. But I do make sure I'm pretty through in the information I collect such as knowing about her private twitter account.

Yeah, It's amazing that if Anita detractors actually stopped talking about her than *gasp* people will stop giving a shit about her.

Well I'm not making these threads simply talking in them when they appear.

Dragonbums:

Also I bet you are very thorough. That's why half of your claims are based on hypotheticals of things that will more than likely never happen.

Again trends and probability. Everything to come is a hypothetical, the weather forecast is just the same. However it depends how much evidence is backing up the hypothetical becoming reality, what trends are behind it.

Its not Hypothetical that Anita does have a private twitter account separate from femenist frequency.

Dragonbums:

You read the links didn't you ?
You claimed you looked at them yet here you are accusing me of making things up.
Are you sure you read the links ?

I don't know. Like I said before, you never actually replied to me with links and expected me to look at links you gave to some other user I have no relation to in the conversation and tried to put words in my mouth saying that I claimed to have looked at links you never actually gave to me.

Like I said I didn't reply to you with links I replied to another poster, about 2 posts before you started asking for evidence of trends of harassment.

Dragonbums:

Point still stands that it was illegal

She didn't dox anyone. So no. It wasn't illegal.

Even if she didn't dox she breach data privacy which is illegal as a corporate entity.

Dragonbums:

Yes it was one

Who ruled it as such? Internet court?

The EU court rules are pretty clear. Unless your eyes don't wish you to see how her actions breach said rules.

Dragonbums:

Doxxing is making that material public.

And also gaining that material through hacking. It's a term for a particular type of hacking.

Somebody using Microsoft snip to paste shit on Twitter is not hacking.

It's like the people who cry "Mah Facebook was hacked!" because they left themselves logged in and their sister changed their password.

Both of misuses of personal data and improper handling of it though.

This person didn't leave themselves logged in though they provided data which has been released publicly without consent and not protected.

Dragonbums:

Funny you defend Anita posting and mishandling someone's data because she felt it hurt her feelins yet denounce the NSA for trying to stop people being killed.

Oh please. The NSA has info on millions of people who don't have a fucking bit of relation to terrorism in any way shape or form. "Protection from terrorists" was a blank slate catch all excuse to let them do whatever the fuck they want under the smokescreen of "national security" against terrorists who still do baseline tricks like putting bombs in their dicks and vaginas.

The fact that you seriously believed that crap says a lot.

Not saying the NSA was right just that is seems very hypocritical to object to data storage by the NSA to prevent deaths when you're defending the public release of data because some-one has their feelings hurt.

Dragonbums:

Are you really saying people being offended is more of an issue that should be dealt with than people being killed ?

Christ almighty. Now shit talking email sender could get killed. Next you'll be saying that his grand ma and pops could get bombed with Amazon drone planes.

Strange that followed on from the NSA example, I thought you'd have seen the obvious connection. However I feel I should explain it again as you don't seem to have realised the connection. NSA data collection = trying to prevent people being killed in attacks. I didn't mean the email sender being killed,

Dragonbums:

The_Kodu:

Sorry but the intent was present still.

And what was the intent exactly? Because her intent just seemed to be showing people a shitty message she received.

Either
a) she's as stupid as people say and did this purely by accident and then stupid enough to deny it while keeping the information up
or
b) malicious enough to know what she's doing and do it intentionally

TopazFusion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&hideliu=1&hideanons=0

Uh oh, look at this, guys. Wikipedia is doxing people.

Better call the police on them.

Read the terms and conditions. You already gave Wikipedia consent to release that data when you created an account.

TopazFusion:

How do you know she doesn't? How do you know she didn't get someone to check the validity of the details before she posted it?

She has a person who films and processes her videos for her, is it really that much of a stretch to consider that she might have someone with enough computer knowledge to check the validity of an email address and IP? Assuming she doesn't have the know-how to do that herself, of course.

If she checked out the details, and found them to be fake, then there's no harm in posting them. Is it possible that this might be the case?

As I said earlier, we really need someone here with the relevant computer know-how, to do the necessary checks on those details. Otherwise we're going around in circles here.

Then why not just say this. Shut all the detractors down in one easy shot.

Either

A) She wants this controversy to claim it's again another reason and validation for her existence and prominence

or

B) she can't because she didn't do this.

IceForce:

How do you know she doesn't? How do you know she didn't get someone to check the validity of the details before she posted it?

She has a person who films and processes her videos for her, is it really that much of a stretch to consider that she might have someone with enough computer knowledge to check the validity of an email address and IP? Assuming she doesn't have the know-how to do that herself, of course.

If she checked out the details, and found them to be fake, then there's no harm in posting them. Is it possible that this might be the case?

As I said earlier, we really need someone here with the relevant computer know-how, to do the necessary checks on those details. Otherwise we're going around in circles here.

You must have a really low esteem of Anita. So she's that stupid she would go through the trouble of checking whether it's fake or not to see if there is harm into posting it instead of just... you know, covering up the IP and E-mail (which can be done in 5 seconds with a program like paint)?

carnex:
Hesus, this is still going on.

NO, as far as I could research what she did is not illegal. And it should not be in my opinion. When you make a public statement you either conceal your identity and get called for it or do it openly and OWN YOUR SHIT.

Those people did not make a public statement though. They sent a private message through a contact sheet. Big difference. When doing the latter nobody expects to end up on front of a social media like twitter with your info showing.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked