Councilwoman doxxes constituents who criticized her involvement in BLM protests.

[Endus]

So just for the sake of clarification, this is the feedback box: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/ward9/contact-ward9

As NineSpine said, the only required boxes are e-mail and name, so you don't need to put a phone number in. But to me, the key sentence is:

(Emphasis mine).

This doesn't say "all information here is public", it says "certain information". For one thing, a clarification on that would be ideal, but if I understand the data practices act, that shouldn't include personal information. It's hard to tell without a more in-depth privacy policy like most feedback forms have.

But with all that said, the main points to me are:
a: she published the e-mails on her personal twitter without censoring any private information. I basically always consider this a terrible thing to do, unless the person is either already a public figure or they've consented to having the private information released.
b: None of the messages she published were that inflammatory. They were basically "hey, I don't think you should be violating that judge's order".
c: Seriously, Minnesota, make a privacy policy on your forms.

Here's the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, in full; https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=13
13.04 seems most critical, particularly Subdivision 2;

Tennessen warning. An individual asked to supply private or confidential data concerning the individual shall be informed of: (a) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting government entity; (b) whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; (c) any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and (d) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data. This requirement shall not apply when an individual is asked to supply investigative data, pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 7, to a law enforcement officer.

If you weren't given such a warning (and I see nothing on that feedback box), then the information you provided wasn't expected to be private nor confidential, according to the GDPA in question.


Edit: Apologies, as I'm still browsing the statutes, but it appears there's an exception here that might hang the councilwoman over this, specifically. Section 13.356;

13.356 PERSONAL CONTACT AND ONLINE ACCOUNT INFORMATION.(a) The following data on an individual collected, maintained, or received by a government entity for notification purposes or as part of a subscription list for an entity's electronic periodic publications as requested by the individual are private data on individuals:
(1) telephone number;
(2) e-mail address; and
(3) Internet user name, password, Internet protocol address, and any other similar data related to the individual's online account or access procedures.
(b) Section 13.04, subdivision 2, does not apply to data classified under paragraph (a). Paragraph (a) does not apply to data submitted by an individual to the Campaign Finance Board to meet the legal requirements imposed by chapter 10A, to data submitted for purposes of making a public comment, or to data in a state agency's rulemaking e-mail list.
(c) Data provided under paragraph (a) may only be used for the specific purpose for which the individual provided the data.

Telephone numbers and e-mails are expected to be kept private, and only used for the specific purpose the user provided them for, and the prior section I cited doesn't apply (physical addresses aren't included, however, FWIW).

[Doctor Amadeus]

The question whether what she did was shitty or not is not the same as if it was illegal. It isn't she isn't a priest she is a politician and the people saying stupid shit to her doesn't mean they ever voted for her or that they are the only ones she represents.

These people were dumb enough to spew their ignorance to her and provided their information while doing it to a public official. It's their fault if their information got out there.

[nextormento]

Now, it's unprofessional, and shitty behavior as well. But not illegal.

And the contention is that while it's acknowledged it's fully legal, it's shitty behavior that people on this thread are defending as not wrong at all.

[Rhine101]

I think the disconnect is that no one says "it's their duty".

They're just pointing out that it's not doxxing, or even illegal; a public record is available for anyone to view, or post somewhere.

Now, it's unprofessional, and shitty behavior as well. But not illegal.

I am not arguing its legality. When talking ethics and morals, law isn't required.

All that is required is that someone knows that what they are doing is wrong. You could get into a deep debate about it, but you don't have to with this. Just ask one question.

Would you want this to happen to you? If the answer is no, but you defend this woman as if she did no wrong, you are 100% a hypocrite and there is no arguing that. That is what these posters do not understand.

-Sure, changing your mind about picking up a friend from the airport and not telling him is 100% legal. But that doesn't make it okay.
-Sharing the fact that your friend pissed the bed up to age 15 is 100% legal, but it's not okay.
-Posting on Twitter that your best friend just came out to you and you alone under the hashtag "Outthegays" is 100% legal, but it's not okay.
-Posting email addresses, numbers and out of context excerpts from your constituents on Twitter is 100% legal, but it's not okay.

Anyone arguing that this shit is A okay and nothing wrong was done is morally bankrupt and a hypocrite. That is why I asked for that same info to be posted. You notice no one has posted this supposed harmless public info? Cause they are a damn hypocrite.

[NineSpine]

The link says pigs in a blanket fry em like bacon video.



Here's your 'what do we want? dead cops! when do we want it? now!' video.

Except that isn't a BLM protest. That is a protest by a different fringe organization, the TMOC.

[Mistame]

It's a public record, which means anyone, whether it's her or anyone else, can post it places.

While it's certainly not "doxxing" and definitely shitty behavior, there's a huge difference between being publicly available and publicly publishing it for all to see. Someone posting my personal information somewhere like twitter is liable to find their ass tucked cozily between their shoulders.

[NineSpine]

They kinda had to post their personal information. It's a form on the government site. They weren't sending the comments to her. They were sending them to the government. She got a hold of them and posted them on her personal twitter account and to a hashtag that is known to have members who are violent.

She didn't get ahold of them. They were sent to her personally. The form was for delivering messages TO HER. Read the messages. They are addressing her in the first person.

[Vanyali]

While it's certainly not "doxxing" and definitely shitty behavior, there's a huge difference between being publicly available and publicly publishing it for all to see. Someone posting my personal information somewhere like twitter is liable to find their ass tucked cozily between their shoulders.

If you gave it to someone as a public record, you'd have zero case for anything. If you did not, then you'd have a right to kick their ass.

Still not a legal right, I feel obligated to add. Because other people have a tendency to quote-mine

[Doctor Amadeus]

No, she did not.

It's a public record, which means anyone, whether it's her or anyoen else, can post it places.

The fact that it's shitty behavior doesn't make it "doxxing" or illegal, because it's public record.

That said, she SHOULD be removed from office for unprofessional behaviors.

No she shouldn't be removed she is an elected official and hasn't broken any laws just hurt some people's feelings.

[s_bushido]

They're just pointing out that it's not doxxing, or even illegal; a public record is available for anyone to view, or post somewhere.

Then literally nothing short of posting someone's SSN could be considered doxxing... Do you think that's true?

[Rhine101]

No she shouldn't be removed she is an elected official and hasn't broken any laws just hurt some people's feelings.

Now say that about Trump

[Vanyali]

No she shouldn't be removed she is an elected official and hasn't broken any laws just hurt some people's feelings.

Fuck off if you can't read, please.

"unprofessional behavior" != illegal, and you can be removed for being an unprofessional twat without breaking any laws.

[Endus]

I edited this into my last post, but I'm going to re-post it here for those who might not glance back;

I'm still browsing the statutes, but it appears there's an exception here that might hang the councilwoman over this, specifically. Section 13.356;

13.356 PERSONAL CONTACT AND ONLINE ACCOUNT INFORMATION.(a) The following data on an individual collected, maintained, or received by a government entity for notification purposes or as part of a subscription list for an entity's electronic periodic publications as requested by the individual are private data on individuals:
(1) telephone number;
(2) e-mail address; and
(3) Internet user name, password, Internet protocol address, and any other similar data related to the individual's online account or access procedures.
(b) Section 13.04, subdivision 2, does not apply to data classified under paragraph (a). Paragraph (a) does not apply to data submitted by an individual to the Campaign Finance Board to meet the legal requirements imposed by chapter 10A, to data submitted for purposes of making a public comment, or to data in a state agency's rulemaking e-mail list.
(c) Data provided under paragraph (a) may only be used for the specific purpose for which the individual provided the data.

Telephone numbers and e-mails are expected to be kept private, and only used for the specific purpose the user provided them for, and the prior section I cited doesn't apply (physical addresses aren't included, however, FWIW). Really depends on the fine legal details of what counts as "notification purposes", here, which is the only way this would apply.


Still not "doxxing", though, IMO.

[Saucexorzski]

I find this whole thing proof that she is not a public servant but rather a public servant to only a select few of those she is suppose to represent. She did nothing illegal as far as I read, but she did engage in an action that could bring harm to those she shared the personal information. Rather tacky of her.

Added due to endus's above post.

Oh my.

[Vanyali]

Then literally nothing short of posting someone's SSN could be considered doxxing... Do you think that's true?

If I email you my number as a private communication, and you post it, along with my address and full name you got from it.. that could be a form of "doxxing". A weird, stupid one on my part

If I did so as a matter of public record, then no, that's not doxxing.

That's the distinction; public record is just that. It doesn't matter what it contains. If I, as a special idiot, posted my SSN as part of a public record, I can't cry that I was doxxed when people quote it to me, because I put that in the public.

[Mistame]

If you gave it to someone as a public record, you'd have zero case for anything. If you did not, then you'd have a right to kick their ass.

Still not a legal right, I feel obligated to add. Because other people have a tendency to quote-mine

I get that. But again, there's a difference between someone in the same town taking the time to open a phone book and look up my address, and someone posting it on Twitter for millions across the world to see. If identity theft, etc, weren't a thing, it wouldn't be that big a deal, but they are so...

<snip>Telephone numbers and e-mails are expected to be kept private, and only used for the specific purpose the user provided them for, and the prior section I cited doesn't apply (physical addresses aren't included, however, FWIW). Really depends on the fine legal details of what counts as "notification purposes", here, which is the only way this would apply.

That's the thing. No one gives information out with the assumption that it's going to be published. As someone who doesn't own property or have a land line, my address, to me, is "private" and I would be pissed if, for example, the city published a list of all residents and their addresses. I think there needs to be some level of compromise in this regard. No business or public entity/figure should be allowed to publish personal information.

[Deleted]

If I email you my number as a private communication, and you post it, along with my address and full name you got from it.. that could be a form of "doxxing". A weird, stupid one on my part

If I did so as a matter of public record, then no, that's not doxxing.

That's the distinction; public record is just that. It doesn't matter what it contains. If I, as a special idiot, posted my SSN as part of a public record, I can't cry that I was doxxed when people quote it to me, because I put that in the public.

If blizzard makes your ingame communication public with name, adress , email phone number on twitter and claims you are racist?

Doxxing or not?

If yes why would you want less from your local government?

[Doctor Amadeus]

I'm disputing that there's any "victim" at all, so no. Disseminating public information that you were publicly provided is not an invasion of privacy.



There would be, but pretty much entirely because we, as volunteers with the website, are expected to keep communications with users private. I wouldn't be guilty of any crime, but I'd lose my mod status pretty quickly. Which is why I wouldn't do anything like that.

If you sent it to me privately, not as a moderator, then that wouldn't apply, but I'd respect your privacy. But that doesn't apply to the councilwoman, since she was sent comments publicly. They weren't private, and she was not a private citizen, nor were they sent to her privately as an individual, but in her role as a public official.

People on this forum quote and place what others say that can be googled on MMO-C which is the same thing as what happened here. It isn't any more of on issue OT than it is anywhere else.

[Vanyali]

I get that. But again, there's a difference between someone in the same town taking the time to open a phone book and look up my address, and someone posting it on Twitter for millions across the world to see. If identity theft, etc, weren't a thing, it wouldn't be that big a deal, but they are so...

/shrug

Not really; if an identity thief wants your very specific identity, it's right there in the public record anyway. You can't post to public record, then complain that you're in the public record - you either accept that it's public, or you don't put the identifying information out there. It's not hard to spoof them, especially since the only "required" is the email address.

[Doctor Amadeus]

If blizzard makes your ingame communication public with name, adress , email phone number on twitter and claims you are racist?

Doxxing or not?

Nope naming and shamming. Which happens all the time online.