Thesis: By his own description, this is a face-matching → legal identity → phone number workflow. That is a surveillance-style de-anonymization pipeline, not standard reporting practice for non-public figures.[1]
“try to do some like facial recognition stuff to find them… then find their legal name… then find their phone number.”
Interview quote (***—***—***)[1]
Facial recognition is not reporting. It is an intrusive identification method that can put non-public people at risk.
In this article
- The admission that anchors the case
- Why facial recognition + persistent outreach conflict with journalism ethics
- Face search tools and documented misuse risk
- Independence problem: coordination and outcome-first framing
- The record on proof: what’s asserted vs what’s verified
- Doxx-adjacent linkage risk
- What standards-compliant reporting would look like
- Conclusion
- Sources
The admission that anchors the case
In a recorded interview, Mulholland describes the workflow: find a subject using “facial recognition stuff,” then locate legal identity, then locate a phone number.[1]
“I often have to look for other scenes in which they are in, or try to do some like facial recognition stuff to find them… and then, once you find them, now you have to find their legal name, and then you have to find their phone number.”
Interview quote (timestamp)[1]
On its face, that is biometric de-anonymization followed by direct contact tracing. If targets used stage names, left the industry, or do not want contact, the foreseeable risks include doxxing, harassment, and secondary harms from exposure.
Record excerpts cited in this post
- Persistent contact despite reluctance (reported): “I know she does not like to hear from me, but I still insist on contacting her.” (1:13:51)[1]
- Declared outcome (reported): “I am not taking any stories outside of porn until Facial Abuse is shut down, until at least a few of them are in prison.” (1:20:34)[1]
- Ideological alignment (reported): “A lot of my allies are anti porn to varying degrees.” (48:19)[1]
- Evidence limits (reported): “I have no direct evidence…” (25:37) and “I do not have a legal opinion…” (1:08:10)[1]
Taken together, these describe method, persistence, and a pre-declared outcome. That combination is difficult to reconcile with independent, minimize-harm reporting norms when the targets are not public figures.
Why facial recognition + persistent outreach conflict with journalism ethics
Mainstream journalism ethics frameworks emphasize minimizing harm, acting independently, and accountability/verification. High-intrusion identity methods demand necessity, proportionality, and robust corroboration.[2]
- Privacy and dignity: Face matching can pierce pseudonymity and expose people to stigma harms and targeted harassment.
- Autonomy and trauma: Persistence after discomfort/refusal increases harassment and re-traumatization risk.
- Proportionality: Intrusion requires a compelling, specific public-interest justification and strong evidence—not conjecture.
Biometric unmasking plus persistence is an intrusion method. If it’s routine, it’s not “reporting practice”—it’s a campaign workflow.
Face search tools and documented misuse risk
The “facial recognition stuff” described in the cited interview resembles consumer reverse face search tooling. These services are commonly discussed in reporting and regulatory contexts because they enable rapid biometric matching against large image datasets, raising well-documented misuse risks when applied to non-public individuals. The concern here is not a specific product, but the class of tools and the foreseeable harms associated with their use outside strict necessity and proportionality constraints.[3]
When such tooling is paired with persistent outreach or outcome-driven campaigns, the risk profile changes materially. Journalism ethics frameworks generally require heightened justification, expert corroboration, and documented public-interest necessity before employing high-intrusion identification methods—particularly where subjects are not public figures and have not consented to contact.[2]
Independence problem: coordination and outcome-first framing
- Outcome-first language (reported): “…until Facial Abuse is shut down… until at least a few of them are in prison.” (1:20:34)[1]
- Allies framing (reported): “A lot of my allies are anti porn…” (48:19)[1]
- Coordination evidence (reported): If you’re citing “compare notes” / payment processor pressure, treat it as its own primary source entry with timestamp(s).[4]
Independence is not a vibe. If the reporter is coordinating an enforcement/de-platforming strategy while covering the same targets, the work reads as campaign activity unless transparently disclosed and structurally separated.
The record on proof: what’s asserted vs what’s verified
This section should stay strict: quote → timestamp → what it proves → what it does not prove → what evidence would be required to responsibly claim more.
- “No direct evidence” (reported): quote + timestamp.[1]
- “No legal opinion” (reported): quote + timestamp.[1]
- Scope estimate (reported): “five to ten percent” (1:30:26) + timestamp context.[1]
Doxx-adjacent linkage risk
Linkage risk is when individually “non-identifying” details combine into identification. Publishing scene brands, geography, unique traits, or health details—while also using face matching—raises the probability of reverse identification, even without posting a home address.
What standards-compliant reporting would look like
Journalism ethics exist in part to prevent foreseeable, disproportionate harm—especially where past participation in stigmatized work is concerned. Many people leave adult industries, change careers, form families, and rely on pseudonymity to move forward. Re-surfacing sensitive past work through de-anonymization and direct outreach can unintentionally involve spouses, children, roommates, or new employers, triggering reputational, economic, and personal harms that quickly snowball beyond the original reporting aim.
This is why standards emphasize necessity, proportionality, and restraint. Outing is not neutral context-setting; it is a high-impact act that requires a compelling public-interest justification, strong verification, and safeguards that minimize collateral exposure. Absent those conditions, the ethical default is to avoid identification and to respect refusals—particularly when subjects are not public figures and have clearly moved on.
- Minimize harm: Anticipate downstream effects on families and workplaces; avoid actions that predictably expand the blast radius.
- Respect autonomy: Use opt-in, trauma-informed outreach; stop after a clear “no.”
- Proportionality: Match intrusion to demonstrated public interest, not conjecture or campaign goals.
- Verification first: Separate allegation from verified fact; do not rely on implication to carry severe claims.
- Disclosure and accountability: Publish methods, conflicts, and a corrections/right-of-reply pathway.
- Necessity + proportionality: intrusive ID methods only with compelling justification and no safer alternative.
- Trauma-informed outreach: opt-in contact; honor refusals; stop after “no.”
- Corroboration: documents, independent witnesses, qualified experts; separate allegation from verified fact.
- Independence: avoid campaign coordination while reporting; disclose conflicts and methods.
- Right of reply: fair chance to respond; publish methodology + corrections policy.
- Pre-publication review: legal/privacy review when intrusion risk is elevated.
Conclusion
By the cited record, the workflow described includes face matching, legal identity tracing, and phone number tracing. Without strict necessity and strong verification safeguards, that is an intrusive surveillance-style method—hard to reconcile with minimize-harm, independent reporting norms for non-public subjects.[1]
Bottom line: intrusive identification pipelines are not a substitute for standards-compliant reporting.
Primary Source Excerpt (Video)
The following clip is included for primary-source verification. It contains the statements cited above and is presented so readers can evaluate the methodology, framing, and admissions in the speaker’s own words.
Primary-source excerpt. Included for documentation and analysis. No endorsement implied.
Sources
- Primary audio/video: [Exact link + episode title + timestamps used above]
- Ethics framework: [SPJ Code of Ethics (or equivalent)]
- Face search tool reporting / filings: [Primary reporting + court filing/regulator statement links supporting each claim]
- Coordination evidence: [Exact clip/link + timestamps for “compare notes / processor pressure” claim]