> Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised to outlaw the practice after the details of a private WhatsApp group involving hundreds of Jewish Australians were published online in February.
Uploading "the details" of an online group is not doxxing. It is an unhelpfully broad superset of interpretations that include anything from inside jokes to someone's cellphone number. Doxxing means what it always has - posting someone's physical location or credentials that lead to that information. This is a perversion of the term.
Phone companies only included actual customers, and it was clear when signing up what would happen. Your doxxing website has no relationship with a random celebrity or such implied consent.
In the US at least, sort of but not really. It was definitely opt-out--for a fee.
There's a huge amount of information that is public as a matter of law. I'm sure that many people here don't like the degree of that information being public but nonetheless it is. See also recent discussion on salary information.
Not initially, phone’s have been around long enough it’s easy to forget ubiquity took time. At the beginning you just said the name and location of the person you wanted to call.
Publishing names addresses and phone numbers was a useful feature after phone numbers existed but before everyone had a pocket supercomputer. Callers avoid needing to talk to an operator and addresses distinguished between different John Smith’s. So being included was just part of the service.
Sure some people with unusual requests were charged more, but it’s inherently a different situation from doxxing. If you pay a carpenter to build you a deck you can’t exactly sue them for trespassing while they’re doing what you asked for.
Also, the world changes over time. Phone books do seem to have included a bit more info than it is currently prudent to share. It was before industrial-scale scamming.
Didn’t schools used to use social security numbers as student IDs. And then use them to post grades, or something like that? (I might be mixing up stories).
Names, images, professions, social media accounts at least. Not sure about phone numbers. But it was enough for some to be identified and threatened enough to make them hide away from their home.
> Doxxing means what it always has - posting someone's physical location
That's not really what it always meant. Publishing the real name of someone maintaining anonymity online is also doxing. Wikipedia uses "providing personally identifiable information" for example. There's lots of cases historically of social media users, streamers, creators getting doxed, as in their identity being revealed.
> Pro-Palestinian advocates who shared the transcript from the WhatsApp group have defended the move as being in the public interest and rejected the suggestion it was doxxing. They argue personal details beyond names were largely redacted.
(From [1].)
The immediate question is: Ok, what information was in those transcripts? Presumably it was something that would have supported the Palestinian cause, or else the activists wouldn't have released it. So what was it?
Those "targeted" would not have reacted so strongly if the contents had not, in fact, made them look very bad.
So we can make a decent guess about what the transcripts contained. To be specific, we can infer that the chat probably contained a lot of dehumanizing rhetoric about Palestinians coming from powerful Australians.
In fact, after looking around a little more, this appears to be part of a larger back-and-forth. It looks like there was a campaign, by a group of lawyers, to get fired a number of prominent people who had expressed pro-Palestinian views (to make an example of them, we must assume), e.g., Antoinette Lattouf of the ABC (she was indeed fired). If I'm understanding correctly, this document release came from the pro-Palestinian side, to show the workings of this group.
Some other sources like Matt Chun appear to be firing broadsides from the pro-Palestinian direction [2]. His sub stack is a little too long on left-cant and a little short on content, but there is some information there.
I am left unsure as to what exactly is going on between these various factions in Australia, but this gives some idea.
I have not read your links, but I can only assume from watching events unfold elsewhere that what is happening in Australia is a subset of the global situation.
Editorializing is defined (by one dictionary) as: “making comments or expressing opinions rather than just reporting the facts”.
By this definition, changing the title to “Austrialian Federal government…” doesn’t run afoul of the policy because there is not opinion involved. It’s just clarifying which federal government is the subject.
I know the guidelines ask not to modify the title. But just fyi editorializing is when you go beyond merely adding information:
editorialize
verb
ed· i· to· ri· al· ize ˌe-də-ˈtȯr-ē-ə-ˌlīz
editorialized; editorializing
Synonyms of editorialize
intransitive verb
1
: to express an opinion in the form of an editorial
2
: to introduce opinion into the reporting of facts
3
: to express an opinion (as on a controversial issue)
It’s somewhat contradictory for the guidelines to ask for no modifications then tell people not to editorialize. Those are two very different guidelines, separated by a semicolon as though they are closely related.
(To editorialize for a moment, I believe this is what happens when a STEM organization led by people fundamentally hostile to the press gets into the business of editing news, whose nuances they are basically just dismissive of. This isn’t directed at you but at the guidelines.)
Phone books were sanitized. City directories would list occupations and they would be by area/address, so you could find neighbors.
Also, newspapers would report on the doings of ordinary people, not just the society pages, e.g. "John Smith was in town today from Peoria, visiting friends for three days."
"malicious" is the key word here. It's a common distinction used in many Australian laws meaning if you are prosecuted they need to build a case that you were not doing so for a legitimate useful reason like a phone book and knew it would cause harm. A unsurprisingly difficult task. This also gives you a fairly robust method of defence against any frivolous prosecution.
They have de facto relationships so it doesn’t require marriage to apply.
I guess there is the pattern of abuse aspect that makes it rather discretionary.
Conditioning the relationship on sexual exclusivity sounds like a very normal thing to do. My gf knows that if she cheats then that is the automatic end of the relationship. Is that a pattern of behavior or is that one and done. She has the same rule, so who is abusing who?
My guess that the law was an overreach on the assumption that the courts can be reasonable - they’re certainly more reasonable than US family courts but that’s a low bar.
Quite funny that the headline omits which federal government it is referring to. As a non-Australian reader (we actually exist on the Internet!), it wasn't the federal government of my country.
Jordies hit the nail on the head here. This legislation is just another tool for people with money to use to silence any opposing voices. One only has to look at how our defamation laws are used to see the exact same thing happening here.
Leaking a private chat is doxxing? Grow up. The modus operandi of the Aus govt. is to warp these already fairly well-defined terms for their own use, removing their original meaning completely.
Certainly wouldn't have been classed as doxxing if it was a Palestinian group chat being leaked by Jewish Australians, the Jewish lobby would instead be screeching "hate crimes!!!!"
Governments generally seem relatively happy to restrict the rights of average citizens to share other people's personal information yet large corporations are pretty much able to collect, store, share, and sell our information with near impunity.
A lot of folks here are, willfully or out of ignorance, missing the point that the thing that makes doxxing a criminal activity is the malicious intent.
The only reason I used "very little" is because it is possible for an observer to witness the subject yelling "I intend to kill you!!!!" at the top of their lungs and in that case the observer could be useful at establishing intent.
The dimensions of these punishments have no reason other than pure intimidation. While I'm against the practice of releasing private data, years of prison without needing to even prove damage but only intention is absurd beyond all measure.
this isnt going to stop organised people from doxxing others, they'll just outsource the work to people in jurisdictions that have no extradition agreement with australia -- it will catch the unorganised though, so basically the ones no one cares about anyway. i.e. organised self interest groups with international reach (kek) will be unaffected by this law
Excellent so as an Australian when an Australian-based company I do business with, lets call them "Optus", leaks all my personal data right down to the 100 points of ID I was forced to provide them, the CEO will wind up in jail? If that's the case I 100% support this.
I find it fascinating that somewhere at sometime, someone used the word 'doxxed/doxxing' in this context for the very first time and now it is part of the vernacular.
And just as William Burroughs postulated that 'language is a virus' this 'virus' has now spread so far and wide it is the parlance of our times.
How did we get to the point where Experian can have trash security practices and leak the private information of millions but you can't out a sex predator online? Is this hanging entirely on motive?
57 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 115 ms ] threadUploading "the details" of an online group is not doxxing. It is an unhelpfully broad superset of interpretations that include anything from inside jokes to someone's cellphone number. Doxxing means what it always has - posting someone's physical location or credentials that lead to that information. This is a perversion of the term.
Phone companies only included actual customers, and it was clear when signing up what would happen. Your doxxing website has no relationship with a random celebrity or such implied consent.
There's a huge amount of information that is public as a matter of law. I'm sure that many people here don't like the degree of that information being public but nonetheless it is. See also recent discussion on salary information.
Publishing names addresses and phone numbers was a useful feature after phone numbers existed but before everyone had a pocket supercomputer. Callers avoid needing to talk to an operator and addresses distinguished between different John Smith’s. So being included was just part of the service.
Sure some people with unusual requests were charged more, but it’s inherently a different situation from doxxing. If you pay a carpenter to build you a deck you can’t exactly sue them for trespassing while they’re doing what you asked for.
Didn’t schools used to use social security numbers as student IDs. And then use them to post grades, or something like that? (I might be mixing up stories).
Including names and/or phone numbers. What exactly was leaked from the WhatsApp group? Did it include names and/or phone numbers?
That's not really what it always meant. Publishing the real name of someone maintaining anonymity online is also doxing. Wikipedia uses "providing personally identifiable information" for example. There's lots of cases historically of social media users, streamers, creators getting doxed, as in their identity being revealed.
> Pro-Palestinian advocates who shared the transcript from the WhatsApp group have defended the move as being in the public interest and rejected the suggestion it was doxxing. They argue personal details beyond names were largely redacted.
(From [1].)
The immediate question is: Ok, what information was in those transcripts? Presumably it was something that would have supported the Palestinian cause, or else the activists wouldn't have released it. So what was it?
Those "targeted" would not have reacted so strongly if the contents had not, in fact, made them look very bad.
So we can make a decent guess about what the transcripts contained. To be specific, we can infer that the chat probably contained a lot of dehumanizing rhetoric about Palestinians coming from powerful Australians.
In fact, after looking around a little more, this appears to be part of a larger back-and-forth. It looks like there was a campaign, by a group of lawyers, to get fired a number of prominent people who had expressed pro-Palestinian views (to make an example of them, we must assume), e.g., Antoinette Lattouf of the ABC (she was indeed fired). If I'm understanding correctly, this document release came from the pro-Palestinian side, to show the workings of this group.
Some other sources like Matt Chun appear to be firing broadsides from the pro-Palestinian direction [2]. His sub stack is a little too long on left-cant and a little short on content, but there is some information there.
I am left unsure as to what exactly is going on between these various factions in Australia, but this gives some idea.
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-13/federal-government-to...
[2] https://mattchun.substack.com/archive
By this definition, changing the title to “Austrialian Federal government…” doesn’t run afoul of the policy because there is not opinion involved. It’s just clarifying which federal government is the subject.
editorialize verb ed· i· to· ri· al· ize ˌe-də-ˈtȯr-ē-ə-ˌlīz editorialized; editorializing Synonyms of editorialize intransitive verb 1 : to express an opinion in the form of an editorial 2 : to introduce opinion into the reporting of facts 3 : to express an opinion (as on a controversial issue)
It’s somewhat contradictory for the guidelines to ask for no modifications then tell people not to editorialize. Those are two very different guidelines, separated by a semicolon as though they are closely related.
(To editorialize for a moment, I believe this is what happens when a STEM organization led by people fundamentally hostile to the press gets into the business of editing news, whose nuances they are basically just dismissive of. This isn’t directed at you but at the guidelines.)
Starting to feel I'm entering the life phase where you think the world has gone mad. Happens to most of us, why would I be immune?
Also, newspapers would report on the doings of ordinary people, not just the society pages, e.g. "John Smith was in town today from Peoria, visiting friends for three days."
Mr Smith of Agraria Road Guildford was today sentenced to 3 years in prison for...
There has to be an attached harm and apparent intent.
> require ID to use the internet
Strange times in Australia these days.
It's more of a codification of the government retaining for themselves the exclusive right to take such actions.
I mean, that's just kind of the world we live in. As a general rule, over time, governments are not going to legislate themselves less power.
Glad Australia is moving away from the marriage.
I guess there is the pattern of abuse aspect that makes it rather discretionary.
Conditioning the relationship on sexual exclusivity sounds like a very normal thing to do. My gf knows that if she cheats then that is the automatic end of the relationship. Is that a pattern of behavior or is that one and done. She has the same rule, so who is abusing who?
My guess that the law was an overreach on the assumption that the courts can be reasonable - they’re certainly more reasonable than US family courts but that’s a low bar.
Often we see "WA" news, which is just not the "Western Australia" of my country! Oh the indignation.
For clarity. I was referring to Washington.
Leaking a private chat is doxxing? Grow up. The modus operandi of the Aus govt. is to warp these already fairly well-defined terms for their own use, removing their original meaning completely.
Certainly wouldn't have been classed as doxxing if it was a Palestinian group chat being leaked by Jewish Australians, the Jewish lobby would instead be screeching "hate crimes!!!!"
Legally, no. The legal question of intent is exactly the question of what was going on in the mind of the person allegedly committing the crime.
We as a society definitely judge peoples intent without knowledge into peoples mind, assumptions are made ( correctly or incorrectly ).
I even looked up Australia's definition to make sure it was the same as everyone else's: https://www.ag.gov.au/crime/publications/commonwealth-crimin...
(it's the same)
The only reason I used "very little" is because it is possible for an observer to witness the subject yelling "I intend to kill you!!!!" at the top of their lungs and in that case the observer could be useful at establishing intent.
And just as William Burroughs postulated that 'language is a virus' this 'virus' has now spread so far and wide it is the parlance of our times.