Did Jim Sterling Dox People In His Latest Video?

[Drathnoxis]

Umm, Jim did edit out their email addresses:

I did see one in Barney's message, though. I don't know why Jim left that in. Maybe because it looks like part of a boiler plate message? I donno.

 

[Kyrian007]

I work at a radio station, and I see this like our call in policy. Basically, if I call someone for an interview... I am obligated to identify myself and anyone in the studio they may talk to, identify the station by call letters and city of origin, inform them that they are live on the air and/or may be recorded. And I have to have verbal consent after all of those conditions are listed. Then I can put them on the air.

However, If I receive a call on one of our request lines... fair game. For whatever I want to use it for. I can put it straight on the air, I can record it and mix it up to play comments out of context... whatever I want. We have a tendency to not read a caller's phone number or use the name on caller ID on the air... but that's just a courtesy. We could "dox" someone on the air if we chose. Again they called us, we're legally in he clear and its fair game.

I don't see this as any different. Someone calls our radio station's call in line. That audio... that phone call is my "property" to do with as I please. These people sent Jim unsolicited email. Those emails are now Jim's "property." If he chooses to dox someone with the contents (and I agree that these are probably email addresses specifically for spamming content creators and not personal or actual business email addresses) then call it doxxing if you wish, but he's in the clear to do so with those emails as far as I'm concerned.

And our station and corporation makes our policies based upon legal and fcc/ftc rulings made in the past. Broadcasting and email and Youtube aren't the same. I'm just making a comparison based on experience here, I'm not saying what laws actually cover a situation like this. That's why I'm framing it as "as far as I'm concerned." It is just my opinion.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

Snip

That's total abdication of any responsibility, which I cannot abide by. Jim made their information widespread, which can easily mean they will get harassed more than if he didn't. Under that circumstance, Jim's actions did have consequences.

The emails may have been unsolicited and they may be Jim's property and subject to courtesy, but I nonetheless see it as a responsibility to do what you can to prevent the circumstance above from coming true. You come from the perspective that anyone on the internet shouldn't have any information available. I come from a similar position that anyone on the internet should be aware of how their actions will influence what happens from then on for themselves and others. For example, sites linked on reddit, ostensibly to be promoted, regularly crash due to overload because it was linked on reddit and got popular. I don't see how it's possible Jim of all people doesn't know that and I can't let him say he isn't responsible.