I don't know if every state is like this, but in my state, all state employee salaries are public information that anyone can look up. Why should federal employees have their information hidden? They're supposed to work for us.
Same reason that FBI agents' identities are classified - so that people who disagree with what a democratically established agency is doing to uphold the law don't go out intimidating or killing them.
What's the difference? BCI is the state equivalent of the FBI. Do you think people are going to go out and kill them just because their identities are public? That's absurd.
Because of course it is sometimes, despite state level agencies typically dealing with somewhat lesser crimes and not-so-controversial topics, and don't attract neither as much organized crime attention nor a movement to dox and harass its members.
The current regime decided lawlessness was beneficial to them. Cuts both ways. I suppose people should consider carefully whether signing bonuses and the chance to abuse marginalised people with impunity is worth it. I'm fine with people making it riskier to throw in with corrupt authoritarians for personal benefit.
This whole concept of “doxxing” has spun way out of control.
Every house in the country used to get a giant paperback book every year with the name, address, and telephone number of everyone that lived in the community. This information has never been considered secret.
Doxxing specifically refers to unmasking a pseudonym. That’s it. If there’s no pseudonym, it’s not doxxing.
- The data companies collected about me was effectively non-existent, and wasn’t globally accessible
- My phone had no information about me, didn’t know my minute-by-minute whereabouts, and if somehow you organized a DDOS against it, I could just take it off the hook and walk away
- My employer didn’t have social media, and couldn’t be bombarded with accusations against me
- Swatting was less likely, because there weren’t 8 billion people with easy access to my data
I could probably go on for a while. None of the above is me “opening myself up” except by virtue of owning a smartphone, which is difficult to avoid.
> except by virtue of owning a smartphone, which is difficult to avoid
But carrying one with you at all times, and giving it all of your attention, giving attention to notifications and tags on multiple wide-open-to-public platforms - that’s not a spectrum of choices?!
C’mon.
We can just take it off the hook and walk away.
We succumb to pressures.
Don't think that I would be able to find information in the phone book whether given person is right leaning, or left; whether they said something racist or not, etc
32 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 45.2 ms ] threadhttps://govsalaries.com/salaries/ND/north-dakota-attorney-ge...
https://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2016/12/14/tbi-charges-mur...
https://fox59.com/news/indycrime/indy-man-charged-with-intim... - note the state won't disclose who the victim was
Also it seems like states tend to hush it down to not expose their agents further.
Balancing transparency with not exposing LEOs to another Operation Snow White seems like common sense to me.
Every house in the country used to get a giant paperback book every year with the name, address, and telephone number of everyone that lived in the community. This information has never been considered secret.
Doxxing specifically refers to unmasking a pseudonym. That’s it. If there’s no pseudonym, it’s not doxxing.
Society has really not adapted well to this.
The ways people have opened themselves to harassment and targeting have been increased significantly since phone books.
People were not hard to target and harass in those days.
When I used phone books:
- My banking accounts weren’t globally accessible
- The data companies collected about me was effectively non-existent, and wasn’t globally accessible
- My phone had no information about me, didn’t know my minute-by-minute whereabouts, and if somehow you organized a DDOS against it, I could just take it off the hook and walk away
- My employer didn’t have social media, and couldn’t be bombarded with accusations against me
- Swatting was less likely, because there weren’t 8 billion people with easy access to my data
I could probably go on for a while. None of the above is me “opening myself up” except by virtue of owning a smartphone, which is difficult to avoid.
But carrying one with you at all times, and giving it all of your attention, giving attention to notifications and tags on multiple wide-open-to-public platforms - that’s not a spectrum of choices?!
C’mon.
We can just take it off the hook and walk away. We succumb to pressures.
Yes, you could. They took a phone call or showing up instead, but you absolutely could be - both real and false.
Ah yes, my mom randomly gets swatted all the time!
(What are you talking about?, lol: this is again an intentionally-prominent-person’s problem, not a general societal shift.)
If you did that in Europe you'd get fined 4% of annual turnover.
Wild how much basic practices have changed in 2 decades.
(In fact, even a stiff fine, which is my point.)