It’s not normal or proper for the DHS to subpoena information about citizens who express an opinion to government officials. This is transparently an action undertaken to intimidate. The language used in the headline conveys the meaning much more clearly than a “neutral” (read: complicit) phrasing would.
Didn’t say it was normal. And, again, all for publicly shaming these dummys, but “Hunt Down” does not, in fact convey what actually happened. Words have meaning, and this headline is intentionally sensational.
And it’s apparently “complicit” to say otherwise. Noted.
But that is exactly what happened, and it’s what the article is about. “Hunt down” is an idiomatic phrase in English, and it would be not at all unusual for me to, say, hunt down a USB adapter in my office. Leaving that detail out of the headline would be burying the lede.
It is using “hunt” in the digital sense. They didn’t know who he was or where he lived. They had to force Google to give them his info, which they then used to find his physical address.
Do you think he signed his email with his full name and home address?
Do you think it takes anyone with any semblance of IT knowledge more than a few minutes to dox someone online? Much less someone using gmail? Much less a 67 year old whose email was probably John.Smith.Hometownname?
And that is called hunting. Using specialized skills and tools to locate and approach a target in its home environment is hunting.
You say you aren’t apologizing for DHS here, but you are fighting really hard against a VERY common use of the word hunt because it makes DHS look bad.
DHS
Hunts DownInterviews 67-Year-Old U.S. Citizen…I’m all for publicly shaming these dummys, but seriously, let’s use accurate language instead of sensationalism.
It’s not normal or proper for the DHS to subpoena information about citizens who express an opinion to government officials. This is transparently an action undertaken to intimidate. The language used in the headline conveys the meaning much more clearly than a “neutral” (read: complicit) phrasing would.
Didn’t say it was normal. And, again, all for publicly shaming these dummys, but “Hunt Down” does not, in fact convey what actually happened. Words have meaning, and this headline is intentionally sensational.
And it’s apparently “complicit” to say otherwise. Noted.
But that is exactly what happened, and it’s what the article is about. “Hunt down” is an idiomatic phrase in English, and it would be not at all unusual for me to, say, hunt down a USB adapter in my office. Leaving that detail out of the headline would be burying the lede.
Are you thinking his email included his home address and an invitation to come debate? Unless it did, seems like a pretty accurate headline to me.
Are you seriously simping for ICEatzgruppen?
I had no idea that’s what I was doing, but apparently we can only critique the nazis and not anyone else or we’re nazi simps. Noted. (also, fuck off)
It is using “hunt” in the digital sense. They didn’t know who he was or where he lived. They had to force Google to give them his info, which they then used to find his physical address.
Do you think he signed his email with his full name and home address?
Do you think it takes anyone with any semblance of IT knowledge more than a few minutes to dox someone online? Much less someone using gmail? Much less a 67 year old whose email was probably John.Smith.Hometownname?
And that is called hunting. Using specialized skills and tools to locate and approach a target in its home environment is hunting.
You say you aren’t apologizing for DHS here, but you are fighting really hard against a VERY common use of the word hunt because it makes DHS look bad.
look: ANY interaction with a gov is akin to being hunted. they have guns. and use them.
CALL IT WHAT IT IS: intimidation and bullying through hunting a guy down through keyword triggers in an email.
dummies