Proposed bill could make Doxxing illegal - The beginning of the end?

So, remember when we managed to put Nick Bate in Jail by posting his address on the site? Looks like we might have to find new ways to do it.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/29/online-safety-modernization-act-outlaws-doxxing-swatting/

"The legislation is a roadmap for Congress to address online safety and combat the rise in online crimes that disproportionately affect women and girls," says the press release for the bill. It specifically prohibits sextortion, swatting, doxxing and revenge porn, as well as provides training and resources for federal, state and local law enforcement to deal with these complex issues. The bill is supported by Facebook; it's not clear what other tech or social media companies are on board.

This isn't the first time Clark has proposed legislation concerning internet harassment crimes (she fell victim to swatting when she proposed an anti-swatting bill), but this new bill brings various different issues she's addressed under one umbrella. The bipartisan nature of the legislation makes it more likely that it will come to a full vote.

"The fact of the matter is, the laws governing sextortion, doxxing, and swatting were written when computers didn't fit in our pockets, phones were plugged into walls, and texting required a stamp," said Congresswoman Brooks. This bill would go a long way towards helping identify and prosecute crimes that our current laws just aren't currently equipped to deal with.
Click to expand...
 
  • Informative
  • Feels
Reactions: Mariposa Electrique, KraftEagle, Kiwi Jeff and 9 others
Click to expand...
It's Katherine Clark. She supports John Walker Flynt. She is a loony even by Massachusetts liberal standards.

The odds of anything proposed by this dimwit in a Republican Congress becoming law are somewhere between slim and none.

I think the writer of this piece is wildly optimistic about its chances.

Then there's always this thing called the First Amendment.

I'm also rather amused Facebook is on board with this since it literally doxes all its dumbass customers.
 
  • Agree
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Fuck you jewish cunt, KraftEagle, Anonymus Fluhre and 31 others
AnOminous said:
It's Katherine Clark. She supports John Walker Flynt. She is a loony even by Massachusetts liberal standards.

The odds of anything proposed by this dimwit in a Republican Congress becoming law are somewhere between slim and none.

I think the writer of this piece is wildly optimistic about its chances.

Then there's always this thing called the First Amendment.

I'm also rather amused Facebook is on board with this since it literally doxes all its dumbass customers.
Click to expand...

its also penned by two republicans
Susan Brooks (R-IN) and Patrick Meehan (R-PA)
 
CatParty said:
its also penned by two republicans
Susan Brooks (R-IN) and Patrick Meehan (R-PA)
Click to expand...

They're not quite no-names like Clark, but they're not exactly senior. Meehan is the most senior and he's been there since 2011.
 
Never mind that this would also basically outlaw the news media. So if the media reported that Anthony Weiner was Carlos Danger and posted his tweets, he could just have them all hauled off to prison for "doxing." Or "sextortion."
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Mesh Gear Fox, Splendid, Marvin and 2 others
NumberingYourState said:
I'm hardly qualified to talk about legal matters but I don't see a constitutional way to make it illegal unless the intent behind releasing information is proven malicious in the first place.
Click to expand...

The devil is in the detail. Doxing is technically illegal here and has been for years, but good luck prosecuting individuals for it unless you can establish a malicious motive. Current laws are already adequate for covering malice and privacy laws cover the rest.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Mesh Gear Fox
Publicly available information can't really be made illegal per se, but it can argued when the intent is obviously being used for intimidation. Usually that requires more than just the address being posted and would have to involve some manner of false information or threat attached to the information (i.e. Don't shop at this address/this person is a child molester/etc.)
Also there is the issue of not removing personal information when it is requested by the person being doxed. Saying, "It's publicly available so we're not taking it down nyeh-nyeh-nyeh" might be more the issue since businesses are typically required (phone books/search engines/telemarketers) to not publish/use that information on request.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Lawgiver and cuddle striker
AnOminous said:
Never mind that this would also basically outlaw the news media. So if the media reported that Anthony Weiner was Carlos Danger and posted his tweets, he could just have them all hauled off to prison for "doxing." Or "sextortion."
Click to expand...
Really though, would anyone miss the news media given the shit they've pulled?

But at the same time, people who post their real name/address/phone #/e-mail/whatever and have skeletons in the closet like pedophilia should have known better than to do that. It's their fault if they get doxxed for doxxing themselves.

Feline Darkmage said:
government get out reeeee
Click to expand...
I agree. We should dox the people responsible for the bill.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Daughter of Cernunnos
Jewelsmakerguy said:
Really though, would anyone miss the news media given the shit they've pulled?

But at the same time, people who post their real name/address/phone #/e-mail/whatever and have skeletons in the closet like pedophilia should have known better than to do that. It's their fault if they get doxxed for doxxing themselves.


I agree. We should dox the people responsible for the bill.
Click to expand...
@Sleep @Ride @entropyseekswork Time to pack it up fam :lol:
 
Jewelsmakerguy said:
See now, the article says it is, but it isn't strictly enforced.
Click to expand...

The overwhelming majority of the time there are jurisdictional complications (since the swatter usually resides in a totally different place than the victim; often even a different country) and cybercrime is very resource-heavy to investigate, so on balance it's a logistical nightmare to go after people for it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Mesh Gear Fox, Jewelsmakerguy and repentance
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back