information imbalance - The Rise of Plitical Doxing [ bonus points for contrast with AP! :]

oshwm oshwm at
Sun Nov 1 11:43:01 PST 2015

On 01/11/15 19:33, intelemetry wrote:
> It proves peoplesoft is a piece of shit.

ha ha, I'm not sure government uses any corps that actually know what
they're doing :D

> oshwm:
>> On 01/11/15 18:17, intelemetry wrote:
>>> Where is the OPM link in .7z format?
>> Didn't Barrett Brown end up in Solitary Confinement for giving out
>> links to data?
>> As for the real question, my ethical argument still stands:-
>> Those people in the OPM leak who were using personal resources to 
>> conduct government business got what they deserved (leaked).
>> Those who were being honest and kept business dealing to the
>> appropriate and democratically accountable systems did not deserve
>> their details to be leaked.
>> Then there is another group who work to deceive the public and
>> preserve the state at any cost, those also deserve to be leaked
>> (NSA, CIA, FBI etc etc).
>> The hack on OPM also proves another thing that Governments (or
>> indeed anyone) should not create large databases of personal
>> information because they become huge and irresistable targets for
>> crackers.
>>> - intelemetry
>>> oshwm:
>>>> On 01/11/15 03:53, coderman wrote:
> Last week, CIA director John O. Brennan became the latest victim
>>>>> of what's become a popular way to embarrass and harass people
>>>>> on the internet. A hacker allegedly broke into his AOL
>>>>> account and published emails and documents found inside, many
>>>>> of them personal and sensitive.
>>>>> It's called doxing—sometimes doxxing—from the word
>>>>> "documents." It emerged in the 1990s as a hacker revenge
>>>>> tactic, and has since been as a tool to harass and intimidate
>>>>> people on the internet. Someone would threaten a woman with
>>>>> physical harm, or try to incite others to harm her, and
>>>>> publish her personal information as a way of saying "I know a
>>>>> lot about you—like where you live and work." Victims of
>>>>> doxing talk about the fear that this tactic instills. It's
>>>>> very effective, by which I mean that it's horrible.
>>>>> Brennan's doxing was slightly different. Here, the attacker
>>>>> had a more political motive. He wasn't out to intimidate
>>>>> Brennan; he simply wanted to embarrass him. His personal
>>>>> papers were dumped indiscriminately, fodder for an eager
>>>>> press. This doxing was a political act, and we're seeing this
>>>>> kind of thing more and more.
>>>>> Lots of people will have to face the publication of personal
>>>>>  correspondence, documents, and information they would rather
>>>>> be private
>>>>> Last year, the government of North Korea allegedly did this
>>>>> to Sony. Hackers the FBI believes were working for North
>>>>> Korea broke into the company's networks, stole a huge amount
>>>>> of corporate data, and published it. This included unreleased
>>>>> movies, financial information, company plans, and personal
>>>>> emails. The reputational damage to the company was enormous;
>>>>> the company estimated the cost at $41 million.
>>>>> In July, hackers stole and published sensitive documents
>>>>> from the cyberweapons arms manufacturer Hacking Team. That
>>>>> same month, different hackers did the same thing to the
>>>>> infidelity website Ashley Madison. In 2014, hackers broke
>>>>> into the iCloud accounts of over 100 celebrities and
>>>>> published personal photographs, most containing some nudity.
>>>>> In 2013, Edward Snowden doxed the NSA.
>>>>> These aren't the first instances of politically motivated
>>>>> doxing, but there's a clear trend. As people realize what an
>>>>> effective attack this can be, and how an individual can use
>>>>> the tactic to do considerable damage to powerful people and
>>>>> institutions, we're going to see a lot more of it.
>>>>> On the internet, attack is easier than defense. We're living
>>>>> in a world where a sufficiently skilled and motivated
>>>>> attacker will circumvent network security. Even worse, most
>>>>> internet security assumes it needs to defend against an
>>>>> opportunistic attacker who will attack the weakest network in
>>>>> order to get—for example—a pile of credit card numbers. The
>>>>> notion of a targeted attacker, who wants Sony or Ashley
>>>>> Madison or John Brennan because of what they stand for, is
>>>>> still new. And it's even harder to defend against.
>>>>> What this means is that we're going to see more political
>>>>> doxing in the future, against both people and institutions.
>>>>> It's going to be a factor in elections. It's going to be a
>>>>> factor in anti-corporate activism. More people will find
>>>>> their personal information exposed to the world: politicians,
>>>>> corporate executives, celebrities, divisive and outspoken
>>>>> individuals.
>>>>> Of course they won't all be doxed, but some of them will.
>>>>> Some of them will be doxed directly, like Brennan. Some of
>>>>> them will be inadvertent victims of a doxing attack aimed at
>>>>> a company where their information is stored, like those
>>>>> celebrities with iPhone accounts and every customer of Ashley
>>>>> Madison. Regardless of the method, lots of people will have
>>>>> to face the publication of personal correspondence,
>>>>> documents, and information they would rather be private.
>>>>> In the end, doxing is a tactic that the powerless can
>>>>> effectively use against the powerful. It can be used for
>>>>> whistleblowing. It can be used as a vehicle for social
>>>>> change. And it can be used to embarrass, harass, and
>>>>> intimidate. Its popularity will rise and fall on this
>>>>> effectiveness, especially in a world where prosecuting the
>>>>> doxers is so difficult.
>>>>> There's no good solution for this right now. We all have the 
>>>>> right to privacy, and we should be free from doxing. But
>>>>> we're not, and those of us who are in the public eye have no
>>>>> choice but to rethink our online data shadows.
>>>> Political figures in most countries have been using their
>>>> personal email accounts to conduct business 'under the radar'
>>>> in order to avoid information being subject to oversight, most
>>>> probably because its illegal, unconstitutional or at the very
>>>> least not good for the image of governments.
>>>> When they started to do this, they threw the book on ethics in
>>>> the bin and opened themselves up to any abuse of their personal
>>>> life that may happen.
>>>> If people in power act properly in their professional dealings 
>>>> then their is an argument against d0xing their personal
>>>> information but once they start to try to hide information then
>>>> it's open season on every aspect of their life.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list