Data Cancer found....

[alebrewer]

See post 138.

Is your point that calling someone a 'Karen' is the same as calling someone an idiot and a liar? If so, two thoughts: (1) guilty as charged, and (2) ya may want to check on that 'thick skin' you think you have...

 

[Mejappz]

Is your point that calling someone a 'Karen' is the same as calling someone an idiot and a liar? If so, two thoughts: (1) guilty as charged, and (2) ya may want to check on that 'thick skin' you think you have..

What are you talking about? LOL. I just posted the forum rules. My point is that some people are allowed to break them while others aren't. As for you calling me "Karen," it doesn't bother me at all. In fact, I find it kind of ironic and funny.

 

[alebrewer]

What are you talking about? LOL. I just posted the forum rules. My point is that some people are allowed to break them while others aren't. As for you calling me "Karen," it doesn't bother me at all. In fact, I find it kind of ironic and funny.

I MUCH prefer some level of decorum - and really do try to not be mean. Hopefully Karen isn't too harsh a word. I disapprove of what GH did as well - I agree that is taking trolling a bit too far. That said, I'd also submit that his contributions far outweigh his faux pas'. From Phil's response, though, it seems he's a big boy and can take (and dish) it out.

 

[George Hatch]

What are you talking about? LOL. I just posted the forum rules. My point is that some people are allowed to break them while others aren't. As for you calling me "Karen," it doesn't bother me at all. In fact, I find it kind of ironic and funny.

I realize you're emotionally involved with these themes, but if you want to get militant about the rules of this place, the posts I made to which you and he are objecting to were posted prior to him becoming a member of this forum. He wasn't a member when I commented about elements which I think are significant to his analysis.

I just told JGrant yesterday to stop lying about what I say, and that wasn't the first time I've told her that. FTR, I consider lying to each other or lying about each other to be a far more serious breach of forum etiquette than telling the offender to stop lying. Don't start nothin' and there won't be nothin'.

 

[Mejappz]

I MUCH prefer some level of decorum - and really do try to not be mean. Hopefully Karen isn't too harsh a word. I disapprove of what GH did as well - I agree that is taking trolling a bit too far. That said, I'd also submit that his contributions far outweigh his faux pas'. From Phil's response, though, it seems he's a big boy and can take (and dish) it out.

Oh, I agree. However, when a new member joins and is automatically labeled as a liar and stupid, it must be addressed. I agree that Phil is a professional.

 

[George Hatch]

Asked and answered. He wasn't a member at the time, nor did I doxx him or his home. I didn't post one address and we still have no way of knowing which property on that map may/may not be his. And he still did omit information which, when disclosed, has been of effect on people's opinions of his work. So saying so cannot be misconstrued as a personal attack. Nor was there anything automatic or arbitrary about it when I said it.

As far as I'm concerned you and Mr Crawford should be thanking me for bringing the additional factoids to your attention prior to him completing and posting his Part II. Better to clear these problems up sooner rather than later. After all, he's one those who are trying to win the minds of other appraisers on this issue. Right?

 

[Mejappz]

Something tells me Phil will be discussing this on his publically aired show. As the saying goes what's good for the goose....

 

[George Hatch]

There's no such thing as too much information on the problem. Maybe you can help him out by rpviding some of those 15%-25% overvalued transactions you were talking about. I'm sure all 1500 of his viewers will become highly enlightened. That'll just provide us with more opportunities for discussion here.

I'd much rather be corrected for my errors than to leave something stupid up as if the facts don't matter.

 

[Mejappz]

Do a google search using Phil Crawford Appraiser (Even though Phil is not his first name or the name on his license) and look at the top of the second page of results.

Let's see what Claude has to say on the issue.

Whether doxing someone's house is legal if it's accidental or publicly known depends on a few key factors, and the laws vary depending on the jurisdiction. However, in general:

1.​

• Unintentional Harm: If you accidentally share someone's home address (or other private information) without intending harm, it may not be treated as malicious doxing, but that doesn't mean it’s automatically legal. Even if the disclosure was unintentional, if it leads to harassment, harm, or threats, the person affected may still have legal grounds to pursue action.
• Civil Liability: The victim might have grounds to sue for invasion of privacy, emotional distress, or negligence, depending on the circumstances and the laws in your jurisdiction. Even in the case of an accident, if the information leads to harm, there could still be civil consequences.
• Platform Policies: If the information is shared on social media or a public platform, you may be subject to the platform's terms of service, which could include penalties like content removal, suspension, or banning. Many platforms have rules against sharing personal information that could put someone at risk, regardless of whether the disclosure was intentional.

2.​

• Public Availability Does Not Equal Permission: If someone's address is publicly available (for instance, listed in a public directory, on a business website, or otherwise accessible through a search engine), that doesn't mean it's necessarily "okay" to share it widely, especially in a context that could lead to harassment, harm, or threats.
• Expectation of Privacy: Even if an address is publicly accessible, people still have an expectation of privacy in certain contexts. For instance, publishing someone's home address in a way that could lead to harm (such as directing an audience to it for malicious purposes) could still be considered harmful or negligent.
• Legal Protections: Some jurisdictions have specific laws about sharing personal information—even if it is publicly known—especially when it comes to preventing harassment, stalking, or endangerment. In the U.S., for example, several states have laws against "doxing," which may include sharing someone's publicly known address in a way that could harm them or incite others to do so.

3.​

• If publishing someone's address (even if it's publicly available) results in harassment, threats, or actual harm, it could trigger criminal charges related to stalking, harassment, or even assault, depending on the circumstances. The key consideration is the potential risk of harm caused by sharing the information.

4.​

• Intent: If you accidentally disclose someone's address but have no malicious intent, that could mitigate your responsibility. However, the law is often more concerned with the outcome (harm caused) than the intent. If the disclosure results in harm, legal action may still be taken.
• Context: The context in which the information is shared matters. For example, if you post someone's home address on a public forum with no ill intent but it leads to unwanted attention, it could still be considered unlawful under harassment or privacy laws.

5.​

• United States: Some states have specific laws against doxing. For example, California's "Revenge ****" law (California Civil Code § 1798.90) extends to other private information, and sharing someone's personal data without consent could be subject to civil or criminal penalties. Many states also have cyberstalking or harassment laws that would cover the malicious sharing of personal information.
• United Kingdom: The UK has strict privacy laws under the Data Protection Act 2018, and sharing private information without consent can be considered a violation, even if the information is publicly available in certain contexts.
• Other Countries: Many other countries, like Australia and Canada, have similar laws governing privacy, harassment, and online conduct, with doxing potentially violating these protections even if the address is public.

Conclusion:​

While accidentally doxing someone's home address may not carry the same penalties as deliberate doxing, it can still have legal consequences if it results in harm, harassment, or threats. Even publicly available information can be misused in a way that is legally problematic. If harm results—whether physical, emotional, or reputational—you could still face civil or criminal liability.


If you find yourself in a situation where you’ve accidentally shared private information or if you're concerned about the legality of sharing publicly available information, it's wise to review the laws in your jurisdiction or consult with a legal professional to avoid unintended legal repercussions.

 

[George Hatch]

The internet is forever. What you're doing right now only ensures that these results will come up more often whenever someone does a search.