• Maalus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Off of wikipedia - it is an act of publically providing personally identifiable information about an individual without their consent

    1. There is their face - personally identifiable
    2. There is “these are the parents of a murderer” which is the additional information.

    And if you read up on the article you will know that “aggregation from public databases and social media” counts too.

    It may be carried out for reasons such as online shaming (…)

    So yeah, this is 100% doxxing, so save me your “oh you don’t know what it means” spiel.

    • extremeboredom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Wow, some folks really do have trouble with the concept of cause and effect, don’t they? They gave consent when they publicly posted the pics online.

      • Maalus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        17 hours ago

        No, they didn’t give consent to have their names and faces shown publicly to people like you who would shame them for the crime of having a kid that grew up and commited murder.

        • extremeboredom@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          15 hours ago

          Actually they did when they posted their names and photos publicly to the internet. “Public” doesn’t mean only the people that you like.

          Edit: Additionally, I find your “people like you” statement hilarious. You know nothing about me, you’re upset that these parents were publicly identified, and you assume my motivations (completely incorrectly.) When something is PUBLICLY posted, that means there are NO restrictions on who sees it. Consent is not qualified by “oh I posted it publicly but not for this group of people I don’t like.” Public means everyone. Had they posted it PRIVATELY, you’d have an argument. But they did not, so you don’t have a valid argument, you’re just upset. There’s a difference between the two.

          • Maalus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            16 hours ago

            Read up on the wikipedia definition of doxxing. It states plainly - it can be done from public databases or from social media, and that the goal is often to shame someone. This fits 100%. Otherwise you could argue that “it’s not doxxing, I just went through this guys comments and he slipped up and said that he lives in X city, then posted a photo that let me triangulate his exact location in the city from landmarks”. It is doxxing and a criminal act.

            • extremeboredom@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              15 hours ago

              Please show me the law that was broken by referencing publicly available posts voluntarily shared by the people in question. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean it’s a “criminal act.”