Previous  1  2  3  Next

Crown is top left, indicating that it is a personalized plate from 1982 to present.

The entire bottom is behind the vanity bezel, so unknown.

Red registration tag...March? I believe.

7 characters, and no tail on the R, most likely issued between 1986 and 1994, but that would be pure conjecture, as they may, or may not, have had legacy blanks that still meet current criteria.

   

So it was. How did I miss that?! God, I move to Alberta for 14 years and suddenly I miss a bunch of shit.

   

Your knowledge of license plates is staggering.

   

License plates for dummies...

   

Scary, almost.

   

I consider vehicles, and every single component used in them, as some of humanity's finest art.

10,000 parts +, all working in perfect harmony, directed by the maestro at the wheel. Sings to my soul.

That, and google is a wonderful tool.

   

Obviously you have never driven my truck

   

That's a bit incorrect. Doxing is the practice of sharing or broadcasting that information, regardless of how that information is obtained. A fair number of instances of doxing occur using information that is found by simply going through someone's social media or publicly available databases. Providing identifying information in the context of placing her as the source of this letter, contesting it's origins, implying she created it, and then posting further information about her is definitely questionable in my books, and certainly falls under the definition of doxing.

It doesn't matter what your intent is, as both bootlegga and Tricks have pointed out the practice itself is pretty improper. Whether or not someone's address is public, further publicizing it without that person's express consent is definitely questionable in my opinion. I'm sure you'd recognize that having your address available in a database and having your identifying information broadcasted on a politics-oriented forum as someone who has committed a wrong of some sort (however minor) are very different in scope and potential concern for someone.

   

The point was to identify that the original poster of this story lives in Ontario.

Also, this may be doxxing and correct me if I'm wrong, Donald Trump currently lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC!!!

   

Bart, you could easily have said she lived in Ontario without providing her home address and a picture of her vehicle and licence plate. Doxing someone certainly was not necessary, regardless of what your aims were.

This woman is not a public figure, nor is the location of her home common knowledge to the majority of the world. The two are obviously different situations and have differing reasonable expectations of privacy.

   

Actually, go back a page and see what Coach said. Unless I hunt down and post every last fucking detail about any kind of trivia the goddamned peanut gallery here is bound to give me shit about it. So I do that and now the goddamned peanut gallery gives me shit about THAT.

In any case, she posted this story on the CNN site to attract attention and it did.

She also posted her license plate on Facebook with a PUBLIC view. She made it public. That's her choice.

She also made her address searchable from the link for her business. She WANTS people to know her address.

She made the choice to make this info public and I'm not doing one damned thing wrong in reposting what SHE made public.

   

   

There is a clear difference in my view between those situations versus this one. In most situations when you are asked to provide evidence, people are asking for you to provide information that will be available on the public record (for example, did Trudeau ever really say something negative about Trump prior to his election as President?). Making claims based on what should be publicly available information often leads to these kinds of requests. It's not being a member of a peanut gallery when someone asks you to back up what you said.

This thread was begun with the idea that it was a good read, regardless of who wrote this. There is no definitive evidence this person wrote it, first of all. Lots of people have shared it across numerous mediums and forums. You could easily have pointed out much of the evidence that the circuit judge did not write it, that was pretty easy to find out as you have yourself shown and as bootlegga also indicated in his posts. You could also have pointed to only finding references to Canadians sharing it, which would have been true as well.

Someone having some personal information publicly available is common, but that does not mean they consent to having those dots connected and highlighted in a public forum in relation to some act they may or may not have done, whatever your intention was in doing so. You've even pointed out yourself in the past how the slow waning of this mindset is a bad thing, and I believe you were right to do so.

How do you think that person would feel if they had come across this thread? Her car and licence plate are still visible, as is her name. Clearly other identifying information has been removed. I'd feel violated and bullied if I was her. This person deserves respect and privacy where possible as is, as does everyone. Tying this all together for public internet consumption in a thread with 264 views is the opposite of that.

   

She posted this on a CNN page so if she didn't want attention then she didn't have to do that. If she'd simply posted it on her own page it would not be such a big deal, would it?

Seriously, Khar, once a person becomes a public figure they don't get to claim privacy. Case in point the woman accusing Judge Kavanaugh of sexual assault 36 years ago. She no longer has the same right to privacy she had before this.

I've now contacted a couple of Florida news outlets following the court election to ask them for comment on the letter. I've also provided them the same trail of evidence that I posted here.

   

This woman is not a public figure in either the legal or logical sense of the phrase. She is a private person who posted something she found online on a website, and is not more a public person than you or I are who do the same thing on Canadaka or any news website. The difference in scope and importance between Ford's highly public and personal allegations against a potential future supreme court justice and a woman posting little more than a chain letter in CNN's comment section shouldn't need highlighting. Just because she has not been as scrupulous or thorough (or perhaps lacks the ability to be so) as many members here in hiding her personal information does not mean she is a public figure or open her up to such actions.

That you are continuing to spread this woman's personal information for purposes that certainly will not benefit her (especially without even evidence of her being the originator of something so minor) is definitely improper, in my view.

   

Previous  1  2  3  Next