zlacker

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+(OP)
> 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+qk
Call it what you will, this activity is hardly defensible.

>>JasonA+2m1
I simply don't agree with that, either. It just seems like journalism to me. No details were reported that would reasonably be expected to compromise anyone's safety. Why should it be disallowed to investigate the ownership of a website? People used to do this all the time when they were going to order products from a web store they'd never used before, to try to deduce if it was trustworthy. They'd look up the owner, verify that the store has a physical address, etc. Were they not supposed to be doing that? They're just supposed to never Google any of that and just pray instead, because, if they learn any of that information, they've done something morally reprehensible? That's absurd.

And, to that point, archive.is isn't so different from a store. They accept donations, so it seems perfectly reasonable to ask and answer questions about where the donations go IMO. Is it unreasonable to look at and report on Archive.org's nonprofit details?

>>protim+P92
What a bizarre take.

>It just seems like journalism to me.

What does that even mean? Are you trying to suggest that journalism is inherently okay? A piece of despicable journalism simply cannot exist?

>No details were reported that would reasonably be expected to compromise anyone's safety.

So it's okay because he failed at what he set out to do? I'd counter that regardless of whether or not the doxing was successful, publishing this information serves no other purpose but to aid future attempts.

>Why should it be disallowed to investigate the ownership of a website?

You have to be kidding, I feel like anyone with even just the most basic social skills would be able to understand that absolutely nobody gives a shit about what you do as long as it doesn't affect other people.

> And, to that point, archive.is isn't so different from a store. They accept donations, so it seems perfectly reasonable to ask and answer questions about where the donations go IMO.

Obviously it is very different from a store.

Besides, why would you spend time trying to identify the owner of a store who is obviously not interested in identifying themselves? Surely the right choice is to pass in approximately 100% of such cases.