Supreme Court - When is doxing bad? No need for politeness in public discourse

[Jan]

Victory for freedom of speech in South Africa — with huge privacy implications

The Supreme Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of animal rights activist Bool Smuts, who publicly posted another man’s name, address, telephone numbers, workplace, and picture on Facebook.

Smuts posted the particulars of Herman Botha online — a practise referred to as “doxing” — after being sent photos of a baboon and porcupine that had been trapped on his farm and left to die of dehydration.

 

[w1z4rd]

I dont see how it would be a privacy issue if most of the data is available publicly online (ie, you spread it). I could get the private whatsapp messages, but not the rest.

Also, why do some people have to be such terrible human beings?

 

[Kawak]

Test of the case is really whether anything was private to start off with, in this case, the only thing that was private was the actual act of cruelty, the very act that needed to be exposed.

This ruling must also apply to gov and all its dirty secrets. Classified or not.

 

[Jan]

I dont see how it would be a privacy issue if most of the data is available publicly online (ie, you spread it). I could get the private whatsapp messages, but not the rest.

How I've been thinking about this, philosophically speaking, is let's change the power dynamics and see what happens to the scenario.

Let's say the target of the doxxing was a single mother with a six-month-old daughter.

After the doxxing, she receives all kinds of hateful comments and phone calls, several threatening to rape and kill her and her child.

How would the court rule on this then?

Yes her information might be public, but when it's published in a context like this where is the line between public interest and incitement?

Are you in the clear so long as you tell your followers not harass them? If you didn't want your followers to harass them, why did you publish their contact details and place of work?

It's a very interesting case...

Also, why do some people have to be such terrible human beings?

Indeed

If you're going to kill "vermin", have the humanity to at least do it quick.

 

[rvZA]

If its on the Internet, if its on Google or other search engines, if its on social media, it is public information. No rights to privacy. Not claims for privacy. Easy as that.

 

[w1z4rd]

How I've been thinking about this, philosophically speaking, is let's change the power dynamics and see what happens to the scenario.

Let's say the target of the doxxing was a single mother with a six-month-old daughter.

After the doxxing, she receives all kinds of hateful comments and phone calls, several threatening to rape and kill her and her child.

How would the court rule on this then?

Yes her information might be public, but when it's published in a context like this where is the line between public interest and incitement?

Are you in the clear so long as you tell your followers not harass them? If you didn't want your followers to harass them, why did you publish their contact details and place of work?

It's a very interesting case...


Indeed

If you're going to kill "vermin", have the humanity to at least do it quick.

Yeah, in that context it does give room to think about this issue some more. I guess its not a black and white issue as I was first thinking.

 

[Willie Trombone]

I dont see how it would be a privacy issue if most of the data is available publicly online (ie, you spread it). I could get the private whatsapp messages, but not the rest.

Also, why do some people have to be such terrible human beings?

Test of the case is really whether anything was private to start off with, in this case, the only thing that was private was the actual act of cruelty, the very act that needed to be exposed.

This ruling must also apply to gov and all its dirty secrets. Classified or not.

If its on the Internet, if its on Google or other search engines, if its on social media, it is public information. No rights to privacy. Not claims for privacy. Easy as that.

Was it on the internet? I didn't read that, all I read was "Smuts posted the particulars of Herman Botha online"

 

[Willie Trombone]

Yeah, in that context it does give room to think about this issue some more. I guess its not a black and white issue as I was first thinking.

Add to that... at what point do you, as an animal activist, draw the line. Is it OK to expose the details of anyone who uses a pest control service? What about the owners of these services? How big does an animal have to be for you to care about it?
You can see where this is going.
There is law... if what he did was illegal, the law should be applied. If what he did was not but it was cruel, then the law needs to change.

 

[rvZA]

Was it on the internet? I didn't read that, all I read was "Smuts posted the particulars of Herman Botha online"

Yes. This is a quote from the judge...

Mathopo said: “The identity of Mr Botha and his farm are matters that he permitted to be placed in the public domain. So too are his practices of animal trapping; he openly admitted his use of animal traps.

“His discomfort that these practices formed the subject of Mr Smuts’ critical posts did not render the information he had made public, now private.

Once the information is in public domain, it can no longer be made private. Your right to privacy is gone the moment the information is online.

Be careful what you find on Google, be careful about what you post on social media.

 

[Willie Trombone]

Once the information is in public domain, it can no longer be made private. Your right to privacy is gone the moment the information is online.

I doubt his phone number and address were on Facebook.
Now we're opening a new can of worms...
It can be argued that truecaller makes your details available publicly... even if you don't use it, others who do and who have you in their address book do. Is that now public? Can I dox you with those details and get away with it?
Is that the premise here - it's already online therefore doxing is OK?

 

[TheMightyQuin]

How I've been thinking about this, philosophically speaking, is let's change the power dynamics and see what happens to the scenario.

Let's say the target of the doxxing was a single mother with a six-month-old daughter.

After the doxxing, she receives all kinds of hateful comments and phone calls, several threatening to rape and kill her and her child.

How would the court rule on this then?

Yes her information might be public, but when it's published in a context like this where is the line between public interest and incitement?

Are you in the clear so long as you tell your followers not harass them? If you didn't want your followers to harass them, why did you publish their contact details and place of work?

It's a very interesting case...


Indeed

If you're going to kill "vermin", have the humanity to at least do it quick.

I agree 100%

For me doxxing = incitement

 

[rvZA]

I doubt his phone number and address were on Facebook.
Now we're opening a new can of worms...
It can be argued that truecaller makes your details available publicly... even if you don't use it, others who do and who have you in their address book do. Is that now public? Can I dox you with those details and get away with it?
Is that the premise here - it's already online therefore doxing is OK?

Then there would not have been this ruling.

 

[Willie Trombone]

Then there would not have been this ruling.

Are you saying the law in SA is perfect and the last authority on anything? Or are you OK with questioning it?
Just because the law ruled a certain way doesn't make it right or OK, otherwise why provide appeals processes?

 

[Willie Trombone]

I agree 100%

For me doxxing = incitement

The trouble is I suspect there's a lot of emotion involved - this case aside. If he had been murdered by a conservation fanatic... would it have been considered incitement?

 

[_TrXtR_]

How I've been thinking about this, philosophically speaking, is let's change the power dynamics and see what happens to the scenario.

Let's say the target of the doxxing was a single mother with a six-month-old daughter.

After the doxxing, she receives all kinds of hateful comments and phone calls, several threatening to rape and kill her and her child.

How would the court rule on this then?

Yes her information might be public, but when it's published in a context like this where is the line between public interest and incitement?

Are you in the clear so long as you tell your followers not harass them? If you didn't want your followers to harass them, why did you publish their contact details and place of work?

It's a very interesting case...


Indeed

If you're going to kill "vermin", have the humanity to at least do it quick.

Maybe it's that in his case, the court found that he was allowed to be harassed?

 

[stefan9]

Good. Let the animal abusers rot

 

[TheMightyQuin]

The trouble is I suspect there's a lot of emotion involved - this case aside. If he had been murdered by a conservation fanatic... would it have been considered incitement?

The ONLY reason to doxx someone is to get them into some sort of kak. There is NO other reason for that term to be used.

 

[w1z4rd]

I doubt his phone number and address were on Facebook.
Now we're opening a new can of worms...
It can be argued that truecaller makes your details available publicly... even if you don't use it, others who do and who have you in their address book do. Is that now public? Can I dox you with those details and get away with it?
Is that the premise here - it's already online therefore doxing is OK?

People often put their phone numbers and addresses on things like Google maps or business listings.

 

[PsyWulf]

People often put their phone numbers and addresses on things like Google maps or business listings.

Gumtree is(was?) a great source for reverse number searches too,as other similar ad platforms

 

[Fulcrum29]

Mathopo, Zondi, Plasket, Mbatha, and Unterhalter also stated that freedom of expression does not require politeness.

Noted.