If it's just to prove that he did work there, blur out the phone numbers, addresses, etc.
If it's just to prove that he did work there, blur out the phone numbers, addresses, etc.
Was it publicly published with the consent of its owner?
Was it publicly published with the consent of its owner?
Not to my knowledge. The ToS only applying to doxxing Poal users looked like a potential oversight, so I figured I should ask for clarification first.
No doxing. Users agree not to post sensitive information relating to other user's real world identities without their express consent.
If that's intended to apply to non-users of Poal as well, I'll break out some censor bars first to keep some wingnut from calling this guy.
Not to my knowledge. The ToS only applying to doxxing *Poal users* looked like a potential oversight, so I figured I should ask for clarification first.
>No doxing. Users agree not to post sensitive information relating to other user's real world identities without their express consent.
If that's intended to apply to non-users of Poal as well, I'll break out some censor bars first to keep some wingnut from calling this guy.
You are correct. The ToS only applies to registered poal users.
You are correct. The ToS only applies to registered poal users.
Why would you be worried about someone calling the faggot? You wouldn't be in trouble, poal wouldn't, nobody would except the caller if they kept it up to harassment levels but then only them.
Why would you be worried about someone calling the faggot? You wouldn't be in trouble, poal wouldn't, nobody would except the caller if they kept it up to harassment levels but then only them.
The moment it's edited, censored, modified in any way is the moment it loses 100% credibility. Phone numbers aren't "doxing", emails aren't "doxing", addresses aren't "doxing". Welcome to the firs 270 years of the US when phone books existed. But maybe AOU changed his view on this. I've posted "doxes" of politicians on poal and not a peep.
The moment it's edited, censored, modified in any way is the moment it loses 100% credibility.
Phone numbers aren't "doxing", emails aren't "doxing", addresses aren't "doxing". Welcome to the firs 270 years of the US when phone books existed.
But maybe AOU changed his view on this. I've posted "doxes" of politicians on poal and not a peep.
If it’s his resume from a site like LinkedIn, where anyone could potentially see it, then it’s considered the same as being “out in public”. He might as well be standing on a street corner holding a big sign with his contact and other information on it. If you took a picture of that sign and then published it on the internet, that would be completely legal.
So post the full and unedited version of this. We should know who this asshole is and he should get what’s coming to him.
For that matter, we should dig up information on every Pfizer employee we can find.
If it’s his resume from a site like LinkedIn, where anyone could potentially see it, then it’s considered the same as being “out in public”. He might as well be standing on a street corner holding a big sign with his contact and other information on it. If you took a picture of that sign and then published it on the internet, that would be completely legal.
So post the full and unedited version of this. We should know who this asshole is and he should get what’s coming to him.
For that matter, we should dig up information on every Pfizer employee we can find.
And every IRS agent.
And every IRS agent.
(post is archived)