zlacker

>>gyrova+(OP)
Why were you trying to dox the archive owner?

>>xvokca+Zn6
This is misrepresentative of the situation, and an unloaded version of the question being asked here is answered within the article itself.

>>jdiff+WU6
How is it misrepresentative of the situation?

>>JasonA+Df8
Because none of the names are real and they were all already posted publicly previously. This is covered in the article.

>>protim+9J8
We don't know that none of the names are real. And even if they aren't, the article is still showcasing his failed attempt at doxing the owner of archive.today and providing a starting point for anyone else wanting to try.

> they were all already posted publicly previously

Doxing very often consists of nothing more than collecting data from a bunch of public sources

>>JasonA+LU8
> Doxing very often consists of nothing more than collecting data from a bunch of public sources

I simply don't agree that this looks like doxing. No addresses or even any private information were reported. It's just a Google using WhoIs data and, in one case, the person said, in a public forum, that archive.is is "my website." Why would they have said that if they were worried about people finding out who it belongs to?

If they'd have stumbled upon an address to a private residence and reported that, sure, that would look like doxing. I just don't see it here.

>>protim+bf9
Call it what you will, this activity is hardly defensible.