If someone wasn't previously known, only an alias or alter-ego, but you then link those together with a real-life identity, that's very much the definition of "doxxing", at least the original definition, maybe it's different today? Positive or negative doesn't really matter, just like "shooting" or "jumping" in itself isn't positive or negative, it's just a verb.

▲

landl0rd 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No, if I kidnap someone it's kidnapping. If the police based on probable cause receive and execute a warrant for someone's arrest, it's an arrest. This is how the state monopoly on violence works.

▲

mikkupikku 3 hours ago | parent [-]

And if the state kills somebody without the cover of a legal pretext, it's called an "extrajudicial killing" rather than a murder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_killing#United_S...

▲

a2800276 2 hours ago | parent [-]

More to the point, if the police or whoever shoot someone in self defence, that someone is "killed". If I, or the police shoot someone for fun, it's "murder". In both cases the victim is "killed"

	▲	mikkupikku an hour ago \| parent [-]
		True, self defense isn't called murder. But if the government drone strikes an American citizen without a trial or anything, that's "extrajudicial killing", not murder.

▲

usrusr 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And if the police actually catches the accused and puts them in jail, is that kidnapping? Most verbs have far more semantics than just the most basic before/after state diff.

▲

embedding-shape 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Well, no, kidnapping is unlawful abduction. But abduction is always abduction, regardless of who does it, police can abduct people too, but when criminals do so, we call it kidnapping, since it's illegal. Not sure what point you were trying to make, but I think it failed to land properly.

▲

mschild 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"Doxing" has negative connotations.

Its almost always associated with a private person (ie not police or anyone of a judicial system) releasing personal information with malicious intent.

As the person above you said, semantics are important. This is a judicial system specifically searching for a person they believe to have caused severe criminal harm.

	▲	mulmen 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		While I don’t think this case is accurately described as Doxxing I also reject the definition that the state can’t commit Doxxing. The reason this situation doesn’t count is because of due process, not simply state action. The state is not infallible, regardless of what immunity may try to establish.

▲

butlike an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The point is the outcome and magnitude of "kidnapping" and "abduction" are the same, so it's not fair people are treated differently if the terms are virtually synonymous. The impact is the same. If it was a truly just system, the people in power would subscribe to the same rules they codify into law.

▲

KPGv2 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I have, admittedly, only been on the Internet for thirty-five years or so, but I seem to recall that a long time ago reading about people "doxxing" guys who posted pictures of them torturing cats and dogs.

"Doxxing" certainly doesn't carry a negative connotation in that usage. Unless you live in a culture where torturing domesticated animals is a good thing.

ANd I recall that, before that, hackers would doxx other hackers in the 90s in order to get them arrested. Again, that seems like the exact same usage as here: tying a pseudonym to an IRL for purposes of law enforcement.

▲

strbean 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There is still an inherent negative aspect to the "Don't Fuck with Cats" doxxing. Vigilantes publicly revealing the identity of (suspected) perpetrators can enable further vigilante action, and this can cause harm to innocent people if the identification was incorrect, or unwittingly impede law enforcement. And that's before considering whether vigilantism is inherently good or bad.

See the canonical example of this going wrong: the Reddit 'investigation' of the Boston Bomber, where someone was misidentified, doxxed, and their family was harassed.

Of course, law enforcement is capable of making the same mistakes. But ideally they have better safeguards, and victims of their negligence have much better recourse.

▲

ptero 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> that seems like the exact same usage as here: tying a pseudonym to an IRL for purposes of law enforcement.

I disagree. Tying a pseudonym to an IRL persona for purposes of law enforcement is a part of an official investigation.

Doxxing is specifically non-government unmasking and dissemination of that tie for extrajudicial purposes, almost always for harassment. There is a world of difference between them and we should not fudge them together with terminology. My 2c.

	▲	mulmen 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What if the government reveals the name of a victim of sexual assault? Is that doxxing? What about a political rival in connection with a made up crime? What about a true but benign crime such as accessing reproductive healthcare?

▲

BurningFrog 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Doxxing a hostile act.

If it's negative depends on if you think they deserve the hostility.

	▲	mikkupikku 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Most people who dox for a reason they think is justified will nonetheless reject the label of doxing for what they did. They'll say "I didn't dox him, I just discovered publicly available but obscure information about him and posted it."

▲

rwmj 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you want an alias that's fine, just don't use it to do crimes.

▲

ffsm8 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]