(called it!)

There are a number of ironies in your post. The first of which is I was all set to try (once again) to bring things back to the parts that matter but then you deleted your posts. So the substantive discussion we were going to have is now an ad-hominem hissy fit.

The next of which is the Chimpire you were raging against earlier is literally the circlejerkers. Those people you think are the worst people in the world? Literally the ones trying to dox me. Exact same people. So I could have gone on for quite a while about that - I made my peace with them and them with me. Not saying they're great folx - they're "shock racists" in that they care far more about getting a rise out of people than they do about any real racist agenda. They're consummate trolls. They use their anonymity as a weapon.

Much like you're doing - there's the third irony. You wouldn't have included my name in your throwaway handle if you didn't think I cared about my persona. By demonstrating you don't, you exercise the power of anonymity over me. This is the dynamic behind doxing, and why calling it a neologism seven times doesn't negate the fact that when anonymity is a spectrum, those with more can leverage those with less (much like you're doing). There have been books written about this - I'm fond of Sherry Turkle's - that draw attention to our new associations with identity as a society and what it means psychologically and socially. So huffing and puffing and talking about crime misses the point - someone with stakes in their identity is at an advantage socially over someone with no stakes because they have trust, affinity, notoriety, familiarity, what-have-you but at a disadvantage argumentatively because the anonymous can use slander and harassment unimpeded due to having literally nothing to lose.

That is the dynamic behind "doxing", which isn't actually nebulous. It's the act of destroying anonymity as a punitive measure. You're right - there's nothing new under the sun and anonymity mismatch has been used as a weapon dating back to Abrahamic times but the way we use it on the Internet is something that the criminal justice system (and society in general) has not yet caught up with.

Acting dismissive about it because you don't like the term does not advance our knowledge.

Unlike yours, my comments still stand. Nowhere did I suggest that you were pro-doxing. In fact, I stated four times that my only problem was with your victim-blaming. It seems to come from an ill-informed place of theory, rather than experience. And even now, you can't help but bring things back around to

a god awful lot of people who make a stink about "doxing" are people who should not only be doxed but should expect federal warrants for facilitating harassment and stalking.

In other words, bad people. Bad people who deserve what they get. Bad people without specifics, of course. Anecdotes are not data, but they're closer to the truth than baseless allegations. And since this is a subject where scientific data is essentially nonexistent, anecdotes are better than nothing.

IE, what you got.

The biggest irony is you chose to use two anonymous identities to throw a hissy fit about the undesirability of anonymity on a forum whose basis is interpersonal relationships and social connections. As such, I can't say you'll be missed.

Sorry Blue Cross didn't hash your data. They didn't hash mine either. Neither did Target, neither did Home Depot, neither did Visa. By my count I've got three different identity protection services right now and that's only because I declined two. Don't for a minute, however, think that insurance leaks have the first fucking thing to do with doxing. That you'd conflate the two illustrates the willfulness of your ignorance.

C-Ya.