Hi Remi

On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 11:31:26PM +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
> Le keskiviikkona 29. lokakuuta 2025, 22.38.17 Itä-Euroopan normaaliaika 
> Michael Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel a écrit :
> > > When did that happen?
> > 
> > Wed, 31 Jan 2024
> 
> I can't find it any match in the archives. Besides, that was during the
> previous CC and that CC (of which you were a member and I was not) found no 
> issues. I fail to see any sane reason to bring this up again now.
> 
> > > Doxxing is the publication of personal info against that person's will -
> > > not quoting some already public info. I seem to recall Kieran *asking*
> > > what actual business stood at a postal address published by NAB (or was
> > > it IBC?) under the name of "FFmpeg".
> > doxxing is about identifying a specific person and exposing or amplifying
> > info in a way that foreseeably invites harassment or harm.
> 
> No, that's not what doxxing is. At least according to the wiktionary it is 
> either one of:
> 
> - To publish personal information of a person without their consent.
> - To reveal the operator of an anonymous online account without their
>    consent.
> 
> Quoting an already already published public info is not publishing, and more 
> importantly, "FFmpeg" is not a person. Kieran did not doxx Thilo. This has 
> been explained to you several times.

You talk like you understand legal matters and are refering to wiktionary.
Thilo is in Germany, lets refer to german law:

§ 126a StGB - "Gefährdendes Verbreiten personenbezogener Daten."
The statute criminalizes publicly disseminating another person’s personal data in a manner suitable and intended to expose them (or relatives) to crimes; it covers publicly accessible data (basic offense, up to 2 years) and sets a higher penalty only when the data were not publicly accessible. In short: "public" != "free to blast at scale."

Official Bundestag analysis of § 126a (Wissenschaftliche Dienste).
Explains the law targets "Feindeslisten"/doxxing, explicitly noting that danger can arise even with freely researchable, publicly accessible data-hence criminalization. Also clarifies that publishing data of a single person suffices and what counts as "Verbreiten."
https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/867640/846f1ba0205ccdd640c5a8357e655771/strafrechtlicher-Schutz_Feindeslisten_-126a-StGB-data.pdf


> I don't need to remind you that
> continuing to spread those accusations could be construed as libel. At least, 
> they validate Vittorio's recent claims that you are carrying a personal 
> vendetta against Kieran.
> 

> > Even a public work address can fit this
> 
> Obviously not. If it is already public then by definition it cannot be doxxing. 

see above


> And again, the more important aspect here is that Kieran was *asking*, not 
> publishing, what *business*, not person, sits at a given already published 

The litteral text from kieran was

"Who does this address belong to?"
and "who" normally implies a person.

All above said, if the CC refuses to act on this, obviously that proofs my point
which was that "the CC is not acting on this". May that be, because the data was
there in form of a question, or it was a too long ago, or whatever.

While there seem to be action in other cases of doxxing.

[...]

thx

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Some Animals are More Equal Than Others. - George Orwell's book Animal Farm