Boobie Bomb
An Onion Among Onions
Pretty soon, Null will have no more mods left if they keep on quitting like flies. I'll be shocked if he finally closes down his website for good.
🧅Project Timeline🧅
Movie-House Project: projected completion- next week.
🧅Repair Orders🧅
Movie-House Project: projected completion- next week.
🧅Repair Orders🧅
🧅 Community Feature Submissions 🧅
KF Gossip 🗣️🦻🏼 KF General 2.0 / Green reddit / catboy ranch 2 Neko shota boogalo / cwcki forums autistic evolution
- Thread starter The Crimson Fucker
- Start date
These threads cover general gossip and interacting with Kiwifarms (openly calling them out).
I wouldn’t be surprised if this or something alot like it happens this decade.
sporker fork
Registered Member
Fyi she did this because someone called her work and now she thinks stepping down from her fake authority position on a website that has its own wikipedia page about how many people it's killed and stalked including children will sever the association. That rumored Ashkenazi IQ boost seems to have missed this one.
Don't worry lil Zionist you're 35 living with daddy and stock produce at Jewel-Osco, I'm pretty sure that kind of tard work is the only career you wouldn't be fired from for being Josh's pet pig.
Does anyone know if she quit or was fired?
Babiniku
Registered Member
Your understanding confuses valid observations about poor website design with incorrect legal conclusions and misses the point on intent and harm of the follow up actions.
The possibility of information leaks by exploiting a flawed system (like, as you say, a password reset flow that leaks confirmation of an email or username for example) does not make deliberately exploiting it automatically lawful. Poor website design is not blanket permission to use a system for purposes far outside its intended function, especially when the goal is to obtain private information for doxing or harassment.
Laws like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) are sometimes brought up in this context because they deal with intentional access to a protected computer (including its systems) without authorization or exceeding authorized access to obtain information. It is not a stretch to argue that submitting someone else's username that does not belong to you into a "forgot password" or similar account recovery flow to elicit information that does not belong to you is not passive observation of public data. It is an active probe of systems in ways that go beyond ordinary user intent, which may be characterized as unauthorized access depending on how “authorization” is interpreted in context. It is using a feature intended for account holders to extract or confirm non-public account associations (like an email address), not merely observing information that is already openly presented.
It is, again, not a stretch to argue that repeatedly using password reset or account lookup functions to probe for information about individuals who are not you is not passive observation of public data. It is active interaction with a system in a way that exceeds normal user purpose, and depending on implementation and surrounding conduct, it may be characterized as unauthorized access to information that was not intended to be obtained in that manner. At minimum, it is not equivalent to simply viewing public information; it is a form of querying designed to extract or confirm non-public account associations.
Poor website design or lazy coding does not create a "legal loophole" that makes it okay just because it wasn't some deep or sophisticated hack. Courts have not treated every interaction with a public-facing system as automatically unauthorized access, but neither have they established that “the door was unlocked” is a universal defense against liability. Courts distinguish between merely accessing publicly available information and using systems in ways that circumvent technical restrictions, intended access pathways, or privacy expectations. Flawed password reset flows can enable email or username enumeration, but deliberately exploiting them as part of identifying and targeting individuals, especially when combined with breach data, is not equivalent to harmless curiosity or legitimate security research.
When that intent is to, and on Kiwi Farms it almost always is, cross reference information never intended to be publicly disclosed with data from breaches that was itself obtained unlawfully, compile a dossier of those combined details, and then publicly post it to shame, harass, "socially blacklist", defame or otherwise cause harm to them, as again is effectively always the case on Kiwi Farms, this entire understanding you've built for yourself falls to pieces under lawful scrutiny.
This isn't "just boomers using a bad feature." It's using computer systems in ways never intended for the purpose of identifying and targeting individuals by aggregating information they have no legitimate basis to obtain in that combined form.
Data breaches themselves involve unlawful acquisition and distribution of private information. Using that material to further invade peoples privacy does not become acceptable in any form just because "corporations sell data anyway". Two wrongs don't make it legal, and the chain of conduct (probing, breach-derived data use, and publication for harassment) can strengthen exposure to civil liability and, in some circumstances, criminal liability depending on jurisdiction and specifics of conduct.
Yes, simply reposting truly public information can be protected speech in many cases like with Taylor Swift's private jet. But when you obtain non-public and specifically personal information through unlawful or privacy-invasive means and publish it with intent to harass, cause fear, or incite others to act against the person, it can violate anti-stalking/harassment/doxing statutes depending on jurisdiction and facts, and may also support civil claims for invasion of privacy, defamation if false claims are added, or intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Just because this issue has not been tried in court very strongly yet does not mean the pieces are not all there. A lack of definitive precedent does not mean something is legal. "It's just a website", "It's just boomer tricks" does not override that. The framing feels clever, but when scaled to systematic targeting and real world consequences including job loss, relocation, threats, swatting, false accusations or worse it stops being an expose of bad opsec and becomes predation.
Criticizing poor data handling is one thing, but then actively de-anonymizing private individuals for sport by weaponizing unlawfully or invasively obtained personal information against them is another. This isn't about 'persecution', it's about accountability for actions that invade privacy and cause irreparable harm to people because Kiwi Farms fancies themselves arbiters of morality, law be damned unless it does them favors.
I reiterate, just because the law is too encumbered in bureaucracy to do anything about it in recent memory does not mean that they have a free pass. The lack of a court order does not clear them. They are pretty and pathetic script kiddie grade criminals.
Full stop.
AI TLDR for people who cannot read through my evening autism:
Poor website design (like leaky password resets) doesn't make it legal or harmless to deliberately use someone else's username to probe for their private email, then cross-reference breach data and publish it to dox, harass, blacklist, or defame them.It's not "passive observation of public info" — it's active misuse of systems for a purpose they were never intended for. Intent and the full chain of conduct (probing + stolen breach data + targeted publication for harm) matter, and this crosses into potential CFAA, anti-harassment, and privacy violation territory."The system shouldn't allow it" is not a legal defense. Using unlawfully obtained or invasively acquired private info to enable systematic predation isn't "one simple trick" or free speech — it's accountability-dodging vigilantism, regardless of how rarely it's prosecuted.
Reason: Added a TLDR because after I posted it, I saw long.
Last edited:
Kiwi Pot Pie
Hellovan Onion
Stop. "Not a stretch to argue" =/= illegal. Show some actual proof that it is illegal like an actual court case.
Same thing with finding data publically accessible sites or using loopholes in government databases. None of that is a crime, and there have been a number of court cases that omit such behavior from the law. What is a crime, in some jurisdictions, is doxing, so at best you have conduct that is not inherently illegal but can be used to prove a crime.
Babiniku
Registered Member
No. You are disingenuous and I am calling you on your shit.
What gets missed in your "show me the statute/case" argument is that no one is claiming a password reset probe, database lookup, or a forum post is automatically criminal on its own. The point is the assembled pattern of conduct and what it is being used to accomplish, which you yourself just admitted is a crime.
Stop treating each step as isolated trivia ("just a lookup", "just public data", "just posting", "just a boomer trick") and start recognizing it as a small piece of a whole process- Doxing. Doxing is a combination of behavior in a completed form, and Kiwi Farms users are habitual offenders of it. You can argue that, at its face, IF isolated, it is not. But you miss the forest for the trees. WHY do they do it? To get someone's personal information. Why do they want that personal information? To dox them, shame them, humiliate them, harass them, or in some cases even threaten them.
You can break it down like this:
First, there is active identity probing, not passive viewing. Using account recovery flows, username/email checks, or similar mechanisms against third parties is not neutral observation, it is a deliberate attempt to extract non-public account associations. Even if each request uses a legitimate interface, the purpose is not account recovery for themselves, it is collection of other people's identifiable information for illegal and malicious purposes in this context.
Second, that output is then aggregated across sources. A single data point might be ambiguous, but cross-referencing breach datasets, leaked credentials, social media traces, and platform responses turns ambiguity into identification. This is where the behavior shifts from "public information gathering" into de-anonymization efforts.
Third, that de-anonymized identity is then enriched and weaponized maliciously. Dox-threads often have humiliation, accusations, and or mockery at the forefront. The key legal and factual distinction is not whether each dataset was "public somewhere", but whether the combined dataset reveals non-obvious personal information about a specific individual that they did not reasonably expose in that form. This is exactly what doxing statutes and harassment frameworks tend to target- not secrecy in the abstract, but contextual exposure that creates risk.
Fourth, the result is publication in a targeting environment, not neutral disclosure. Posting identifying details in spaces whose documented function is ridicule, tracking, or harassment is what converts journalistic "information handling" into "doxing conduct" in many legal frameworks. Intent matters here, but so does foreseeable effect: if the known downstream use is harassment, threats, job targeting, or real-world harm, that supports classification as abusive disclosure rather than innocent reporting.
It does not matter that each action is legal in isolation. For Kiwi Farms users, these actions are NEVER in isolation.
The core rebuttal to "show me a case" becomes this.
Courts don't need a case that says "password reset probing=illegal" in isolation, because that's not the unit of analysis. The unit is harassing identification and targeted disclosure of personal data, which is already covered under various privacy, stalking, and anti-doxing laws in multiple jurisdictions. The earlier steps matter because they are part of how the identifier was obtained and confirmed, not because each step is independently criminal. Nobody is saying they were.
This is also why the "it’s publicly accessible" argument is fundamentally incomplete. A phone-book is public. Reconstructing a person's identity by correlating multiple non-obvious data sources and then publishing it in a context designed to provoke harassment is materially different from passively viewing public listings. This is why they call it "phone-booking", because misrepresenting it is how their ILLEGAL behavior survives. The law generally tracks that distinction: availability=/=permissibility of systematic extraction and repackaging information for targeted harm.
Finally, even if you or the farms insist on staying narrow and precedent-obsessed, the winning argument is and always will be: you don’t need novelty in the individual techniques when the combination produces a recognized category of harm.
Doxing and harassment statutes exist specifically because "individually legal steps" can still form an unlawful pattern when assembled into targeted exposure. Just look at that faggot ass cop who used flock cameras to stalk his Ex. Technically not illegal, but he still got fucked for it.
Obscenity2022
Hellovan Onion
i love how so many users on green reddit are retarded. like people just fucking forget that you can see lolcows nude pics and sex tapes and stolen Onlyfans content
The Yoink Sploinker
Baby Onion
Wouldn't be surprised, he's constantly encouraging the retarded political shitflinging across threads due to his TDS.
Dude-Weed
Remarkable Onion
Obscenity2022
Hellovan Onion
this is what i hate about the user base, because they mostly care only about politics they don't seem to realize all the illegal shit kiwifarms has been a part of, like the animal torture or sex tape stuff still on the hard drives of the farms. these retards come up with this image of the site that anyone with a spine would call out but no one will because no one wants to admit how bad the site really is.
AnimeSucksCopeAndSneed
Baby Onion
how do you know this?