Next time try staying with the context of the original tweet
-
-
Replying to @EmilyGorcenski @LadyLarunai and
The article you linked seemed to suggest he gathered public data without permission, not digging up info on specific people to harm them
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NoBuddyNow @LadyLarunai and
He then posted all their PII on an open data repo, unmasked, linked to their private responses
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @EmilyGorcenski @NoBuddyNow and
Information normally gated behind controlled access
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @EmilyGorcenski @NoBuddyNow and
So the data weren't public and the exposure was intentional.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @EmilyGorcenski @LadyLarunai and
However not malicious. Doxxing has an implication of facilitating harm to the subject
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @EmilyGorcenski @NoBuddyNow and
But keep going on about pedantic distinctions which add nothing to the debate.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @EmilyGorcenski @NoBuddyNow and
Actually, don't because it's annoying and you should find better ways to feel superior.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @EmilyGorcenski @LadyLarunai and
I don't consider researching 70,000 people and releasing the findings the same as digging up everything you can on a specific private person
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Dumping private and identifiable info is still doxing, there's no requirement for exhaustiveness
-
-
Replying to @EmilyGorcenski @NoBuddyNow and
But you're again, definition lawyering to no clear point aside from a desperate need to be right.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.