Did Jim Sterling Dox People In His Latest Video?
- Thread starter Smoketrail
- Start date
There is a large presumption that those would be real, concrete people. A lot of firms use "personal" accounts used by multiple people in shifts. Sometimes they are named after previous employees and not being deemed necessary to be renamed, or alter the signature if the contact information is correct. It presents a humanized version of the company to potential collaborators, opposed to getting a proposal from [email protected].DoPo said:
Oh no, that may be the case. Those people likely aren't employed inside the company hierarchy and work on some contractual basis getting a commission pay. Like many work at home schemes. If they use their personal mail for this... well, you shouldn't.erttheking said:
So he gives names and work emails that are freely sent out to websites as representatives of an advertising company? Can't say I really consider that doxxing anymore than I'd consider saying Total Biscuits name is John Bain and telling people about his Youtube channel is doxxing him.
Is it potentially opening these individuals up to harassment/doxxing later on? Arguably, yes, but that's the case whenever you name individuals/organisations. The only solution to that would be to never name specific people.
As a sidenote, I'm embarrassed just how long it took me to catch on to shamelessness/laziness of the name "Onisac".
Is it potentially opening these individuals up to harassment/doxxing later on? Arguably, yes, but that's the case whenever you name individuals/organisations. The only solution to that would be to never name specific people.
As a sidenote, I'm embarrassed just how long it took me to catch on to shamelessness/laziness of the name "Onisac".
I think the entire problem is trying to compare it lolSmoketrail said:
In this case these people are using these e-mails for business and shady business at that. If those happen to be their personal e-mails that's kind of on them for using their personal e-mails for business shit and shady business shit at that.
Playing the devil's advocate: mainstream media usually blurs names and email addresses when presenting them on their reports, protecting the privacy of the involved individuals from what may as well be a mistake in the reports (like rushing in making accusations or all being a big misunderstanding).
That can't be right. People complained about thunderf00t doxing LaughingWitch despite his just showing a clip of one of her own videos where she is talking about starting a writing campaign to try to destroy his career and hands out her info herself, claiming there's nothing he or his fans could do to her in response anyways (then she got to play victim on her local news because her husband's company got a ton of bad Yelp reviews because she dared to be a woman who said things on the internet and for no other reason at all). People also complained about Zoe Quinn being doxed, even though the info that was distributed was literally the info you go if you looked up the contact info for her websites (read: publicly available and distributed by the DNS system itself using what is called WHOIS).Silentpony said:
At the same time, Margaret Pless tracked down Mike Cernovich's info (not sure from where, offhand) and posted it along with the necessary info to make an anonymous police complaint against him (with an example that paints him as a heavily armed, possibly unstable drug dealer) to Twitter and Twitter never seemed to care (considering it neither doxing nor coordinating harassment since they didn't pull it down or suspend her account when posted). That same info was in turn linked by Zoe Quinn to spread it to her 40k followers along with a picture of his home and map to get there, and her organization was put on Twitter's trust and safety council from said council's start.
So *clearly* it's not just whether that info is freely available online or not, there's more to it than that. Something about how you construct the victim narrative or what your connections are? I'd almost say it was strictly a matter of gender, but people trying to dox Hannah Wallen seem not to get punished for it either.
Then again, Rebecca Watson, formerly of Skeptic's Guide to the Universe and of Elevatorgate fame actually wrote an article in support of doxing, so long as you dox the "right" people, so that's probably what's going on there.
Short answer No.
I fail to understand how people have forgotten what this was. Did Jim give their addresses? Phone Numbers? Home Addresses? No he gave their name. That they gave in E-mail to him. Their e-mail addresses would be part of a corporate address list.
Billy Bob, (Real name Bill Robert) Who lives at 135 TangerRoad Road, some state, numbers here. his work number is 0000000000 his home number is 00000000000.
That is a made up example of doxxing.
These guys made no effort to mask their names (Or maybe, they are fake names we don't even know if they are real people, THAT IS HOW MUCH THIS IS NOT DOXXING THIS IS). All jim gave what their names, who they worked for, and why they contacted him.
Also the implication of intent would be very important, both in your reasoning to post this and Jims reasoning to provide this. I think Jim is on a bit of a powerbuzz at the moment. He has made moves in being a "shaker" in the gaming world (Namely greenlight), so I see this as him throwing his weight around. Albeit understandably. I would wager his intent in providing this information was to point out that these people with this organization are something he finds objectionable.
Your intent on making this post to query this as well as the quoted above is also subject to intent. So until I have a greater understanding on what you deem doxxing is, and how specially this was doxxing.
I fail to understand how people have forgotten what this was. Did Jim give their addresses? Phone Numbers? Home Addresses? No he gave their name. That they gave in E-mail to him. Their e-mail addresses would be part of a corporate address list.
Could you explain this? Exactly how is this Doxxing? Forgetting who these people work for and the actions in which there are involved in. The Answer is still no. Billy Bob who works for Acme as their Janitor is not doxxing someone.Smoketrail said:
Billy Bob, (Real name Bill Robert) Who lives at 135 TangerRoad Road, some state, numbers here. his work number is 0000000000 his home number is 00000000000.
That is a made up example of doxxing.
These guys made no effort to mask their names (Or maybe, they are fake names we don't even know if they are real people, THAT IS HOW MUCH THIS IS NOT DOXXING THIS IS). All jim gave what their names, who they worked for, and why they contacted him.
Also the implication of intent would be very important, both in your reasoning to post this and Jims reasoning to provide this. I think Jim is on a bit of a powerbuzz at the moment. He has made moves in being a "shaker" in the gaming world (Namely greenlight), so I see this as him throwing his weight around. Albeit understandably. I would wager his intent in providing this information was to point out that these people with this organization are something he finds objectionable.
Your intent on making this post to query this as well as the quoted above is also subject to intent. So until I have a greater understanding on what you deem doxxing is, and how specially this was doxxing.
Its a buisness email and theres zero evidence to suggest that the email is actually named after the person running the email.
And believe me when i say /pol/ isnt interested in tracking theese people down and trying to get them nailed by the FTC. Theyre too busy doxxing Antifa rioters, and honestly id they kept doing that instead of going after just one of the inumerable shitty internet buisnesses.
And believe me when i say /pol/ isnt interested in tracking theese people down and trying to get them nailed by the FTC. Theyre too busy doxxing Antifa rioters, and honestly id they kept doing that instead of going after just one of the inumerable shitty internet buisnesses.
For legal purposes, it depends on what your definition of "public figure" is. Murdoch is a celebrity and by definition under U.S. libel/defamation law a "public figure." Tamara Rynne and Barney Conall almost certainly do NOT fit that definition. From what I can tell, they are not even listed by name on Media Top's website. Calling them public figures is a bit of the stretch.Dr. McD said:
I'll also disagree with your point about "their shady business" practices," assuming "their" refers to Rynne and Conall. I don't see this is as "shady business." This is what marketing and advertising firms try to do. They try to buy and influence content. And they do it ALL THE TIME. That's what they get paid for. It's the media outlets that are supposed object to and abstain from this sort of horseshit. And when they don't? THAT is shady business.
That said, I don't believe what Sterling did is doxxing. It's hard to make out the email addresses from the screenshots in the video, but are they clearly visible to anyone? And are they corporate addresses or personal?
Are we... are we supposed to know or care who any of these people are? Because this reads like a standard GG conspiracy post that you've transported from the GID forum. Irrelevant nonsense is irrelevant. I understand that maybe you have a weird fascination with these people in your post, but you could literally replace their names with "Person A" and "Person B" and have the same effect on the rest of us; that is other than showing that you felt the need to bring identity politics into an unrelated thread and unethically make unsubstantiated claims about some random other internet people.Schadrach said:
pounding itCaramel Frappe said:
pounding it
pounding it....
OT: Honestly, I have doubts that these guys are using their real names for this business 'transaction' in these emails. Even if they are, them bringing a case against Jim Fucking Sterling Son would be a mistake both because (A he's got a lawyer's number these days and (B it would just bring even more attention to their game and maybe even get Google to quietly ruin their game in the background.
How astute of you to notice that my examples were all internet personalities. As for "unsubstantiated", we both know that digging up archive links of people doxing other people, aside from being time consuming, is something I can't post here anyways, as that would break the rules. I figured if they were notable enough to have a wikipedia page, they were notable enough to bother naming, and all the incidents in question were fairly public and at least moderately well known, but you're right.Avnger said:
You don't really need to know who they are. Just which events happened and how people responded to them (which was rather the point -- people don't behave like doxing is merely "where you release personal information that isn't freely available online" as there are plenty of cases where the information was freely available but it still counts as doxing to most people/organizations, and others where the opposite is true).
Essentially, as far as the reaction is concerned, who is being doxed/doing the doxing is at least as important to far too many people as the doxing itself or even whether or not what happened would qualify as "doxing."
Or to put it another way, if I do WHOIS on your website domain and post the results, am I doxing you? The person I replied to would seemingly argue no, but depending on who you and I are people's answers would be different. Twitter seems to think that does count, but only for certain targets.
What if I looked up your address, and posted a picture of your home, your address, and where to place an anonymous tip to law enforcement against you? That sounds a fair bit worse, yeah (I mean, that's literally coordinating an attempt to SWAT someone, isn't it?)? Twitter didn't seem to think so.
What if I were to see the previous item, and retweet it because they only have a few followers but I have tens of thousands? And so on, and so on.
Long story short, what Sterling did won't be perceived as doxing because of the perception of the target.
Just because some people use the wrong definition doesn't mean their isn't a definition. Doxxing is distributing not publicly available personal information.Schadrach said:
Yeah some people are stupid and think that being a dick to someone is OK just because you don't like them or what they do. That doesn't mean that in this specific case that's what is going on. Weather or not you like Jim what he did was not "distributing not publicly available personal information" therefore it is not doxxing.
Given how the internet works, I'd say yeah. Even giving names of people is a bad idea because additional information can easily be tracked should someone out there know how and just feel like doing it. There are tens of thousands watching his videos, many of which desire people to get angry about something. That's a situation where I'd say any information on an individual is a bad idea at the very least.
Right, I am going to disagree with you for this reason. If your information is freely available online that is the owner of the information fault. (Or should be)PainInTheAssInternet said:
If I include on my facebook my location, my address, my phone number, my mothers maiden name. Pictures of how I look etc. The only way for any of this to be online is if I provide it. Companies (mostly) cannot hand out your personal details. So if you do not want your information out there do not provide it within the public sphere.
Jim, Myself, or Yourself are NOT responsible for the actions of others.
This is Internet safety 101 and quite frankly from personal experience I have leart NOT to give out any information publicly and I even provide false information to many websites, and again Jim only gave a name and company. He did not provide a personal address or personal phone number. This isn't a matter of opinion either this is fact. Unless you are stating that we should not say someone elses name. The guy in question is not hiding behind a Psudoname (we think it can be a false name)
This kind of thing crops up all the time with Employeers checking Facebook profiles of people and the like, and there is public photos available of someone doing silly things which may cause someone not to get a job offer. While I am of the opinion of who cares what someone does on their personal time. A persons method of not allowing this to happen are to Not have Facebook. Not post such images. Not have public images and the like.
So the question should be, who is responsible for keeping your "Dox" safe. The answer, and many don't like this. Is YOU. If you do not want anything on the internet that you don't want. You don't put it there. If someone you know provides this information then, that is a different matter and if it's leaked due to a company that requires it that is another matter again.
It seems people don't want accountability anymore some are quick to jump on Jim just because one or more of his fans may look this guy up. Thats not Jims responsiblity.
Unless the emails were explicitly stated 'confidential' or some such, then Jim isn't doing anything wrong by sharing the information present in them.
