That is NOT the line for doxxing at all, I don't know why you hang your argument on that aspect. Even institutions that care about secrecy like governments state that documents that aggregate ostensibly public information can raise the classification level of a document above being non-classified. The reasons for this are obvious, essentially aggregated information can lead one to draw conclusions that otherwise are not obvious. That is akin to what the original article by Gyrovague does.
Again, did you read my comment? I know what it means now. My point is about highlighting the change in meaning, not about obstinately denying what the word means.
>Even institutions that care about secrecy like governments state [...]
A given organization can have whatever policy it wants with regards to which documents it wants to allow to be made public. It could make all documents printed on non-yellow paper classified. That has nothing to do with the ethics of doxing.
>The reasons for this are obvious, essentially aggregated information can lead one to draw conclusions that otherwise are not obvious.
A secret is not something that's not obvious, it's a datum that's strictly controlled by the people who know it. If I can find some information about your real identity just by searching for it online then it's not a secret; you don't control that piece of information. You've given up that control by divulging the information in a public space where information often remains indefinitely.
That is NOT the line for doxxing at all, I don't know why you hang your argument on that aspect. Even institutions that care about secrecy like governments state that documents that aggregate ostensibly public information can raise the classification level of a document above being non-classified. The reasons for this are obvious, essentially aggregated information can lead one to draw conclusions that otherwise are not obvious. That is akin to what the original article by Gyrovague does.
>That is NOT the line for doxxing
Again, did you read my comment? I know what it means now. My point is about highlighting the change in meaning, not about obstinately denying what the word means.
>Even institutions that care about secrecy like governments state [...]
A given organization can have whatever policy it wants with regards to which documents it wants to allow to be made public. It could make all documents printed on non-yellow paper classified. That has nothing to do with the ethics of doxing.
>The reasons for this are obvious, essentially aggregated information can lead one to draw conclusions that otherwise are not obvious.
A secret is not something that's not obvious, it's a datum that's strictly controlled by the people who know it. If I can find some information about your real identity just by searching for it online then it's not a secret; you don't control that piece of information. You've given up that control by divulging the information in a public space where information often remains indefinitely.