Technology

37716 readers

306 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

Los@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

184

Illinois just made it possible to sue people for doxxing attacks (arstechnica.com)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by aranym@lemmy.name to c/technology@beehaw.org

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Civil Liability for Doxing Act, which takes effect on January 1, 2024, passed after a unanimous vote. It allows victims to recover damages and to request "a temporary restraining order, emergency order of protection, or preliminary or permanent injunction to restrain and prevent the disclosure or continued disclosure of a person's personally identifiable information or sensitive personal information."

It's the first law of its kind in the Midwest, the Daily Herald reported, and is part of a push by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to pass similar laws at the state and federal levels. ADL's Midwest regional director, David Goldenberg, told the Daily Herald that ADL has seen doxxing become "over the past few years" an effective way of "weaponizing" the Internet. ADL has helped similar laws pass in Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] fear@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Hmm, this makes me think of the tradition on certain parts of the internet where people publicly announce the name and crime of this convicted rapist. They'll explain where he's currently living, the name he's trying to go by, and bars he was seen at. This activity seems to stem from the outrage at the excessive leniency he was shown by the judge, although could also be protecting other potential victims.

I wonder if this kind of vigilante doxxing would fall under the scope of such a law, especially when his name is already in so many publications.

[–] evatronic@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The things you described are, under any interpretation, PII, and the ~~rest~~ reason they are being posted falls within the scope of the law.

Even for convicted rapist Brock Turner.

-- edit: mobile keyboards stink

[–] ArtZuron@beehaw.org 8 points 1 year ago

Since that information is supposed to be public knowledge and easily accessible, I don't think it would fall under the law.

That being said, I don't exactly expect certain parts of the US to actually apply laws correctly.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago

It's probably good that people know where that particular rapist is hanging out.

[–] magnetosphere@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

That was an interesting article. Thanks for sharing it.

That judge was trash. Although it turned out that recalling him had consequences, I don’t think those consequences are reason to tolerate unjust judges like him.