In recent years, social media platforms have become a stage for gathering support from like-minded individuals from the security of one’s home. The hundreds of divisive opinions on world events, media, and fiction get organised and globalised in the digital age. Information has emerged as a tool more powerful than ever before. It has reached the point where it threatens people’s lives. The need for privacy in an increasingly transparent world demands the full attention of governments around the globe. Yet, many regulations around the world are yet to recognise various forms of online harassment as a “crime”, even though their repercussions are apparent. One such form is doxxing.

Definition of Doxxing

Doxxing is an act of publishing someone’s personally identifiable information with the intent to harm or harass. The name originates from the term “dropping documents.” Dropping documents is a tactic used by hackers to share identifiable information of a person to remove the anonymity the Internet provides. These crimes are often disproportionally committed against women and minority communities, often due to the prejudicial biases of the perpetrators. Researchers have classified doxxing into three types: deanonymisation, targeting, and delegitimisation. We will explore these types subsequently in this article.

In 2017, the creator of the famous show Rick and Morty decided to include female writers in their hitherto mail panel. Soon after the new season aired, the perpetrators targeted two of their writers by publishing their personal information (home addresses and phone numbers) with the intent of severe harassment. In the same year, a young man was shot and killed in his home after someone falsely reported a crime at his house. Most countries have no direct laws to prosecute culprits in such cases.

However, on the other side is “Cyber Activism”, where certain groups use internet-based tools to seek civilian justice. There is a thin difference between the two since one’s opinion or ideology influences it. The extremist nature of cyber activism emerges from society’s need for accountability from those in power. Due to structural power imbalances, our law enforcement institutions have often been ineffective in dealing with various crimes. The rise in the power of the masses is a direct result of this situation, usually resulting in the practice of doxxing.

Targeted Doxxing: A Direct Threat to Privacy

Targeted doxxing refers to revealing a person’s physical location for purposes ranging from pranks to social justice. This puts the individual and their family at risk of physical danger or harassment. The first objection here is the well-recognised right to privacy that every individual possesses. The public and private no longer remain binary today, with almost all our activities leading to a digital trial forever stored in the Internet’s extended memory. In several cases, perpetrators have released lists with people’s private information based on their standing on some social cause. Their primary defence against doxxing is simple: the information was already available online, and they only borrowed it.

The Nuremberg Files Case: A Precedent for Accountability

To illustrate, take the case of the “Nuremberg Files” website created in 1997. This website became a public hitlist of abortion doctors. It included over 200 names, their driver’s licenses, photos, schools where their children were studying, and so on. This website resulted in at least three recorded deaths and a bombing incident. Ultimately, the court decided that the website contained threats of violence. However, the main question remains: was this a mere act of creation? Or does the perceived ground of “public interest” in this organised manner stand to be criminalised?

While several forms of online harassment possess legal remedies, doxxing is yet to be seen as a standard rule that allows the authorities to take definitive action against it. Doxxing enables the perpetrator to shift the violence from the digital space to the physical space. While the doxxed information may be available in the public domain, it differs between actively skimming through data records to find a contact and clicking on a link to access it. Doxxing allows the offender to weaponise the information of an individual against them. Even advocates of free speech must pay heed to the disastrous consequences of doxxing, which has cost the lives of innocent people.

Cyber Activism or Doxxing: The Thin Line of Intent

All parties in a social discussion consider themselves righteous citizens and participate in shaming or distressing those they consider immoral. These movements or waves tend to transform quickly as they change hands on the Internet. Various studies have shown that the narrow difference between doxxing and cyber activism comes down to the user’s intent. If the intention is to target a person or group and cause harassment by exploiting their data, their activity would fall under the ambit of doxxing.

While several forms of online harassment possess legal remedies, doxxing is yet to be seen as a standard rule that allows the authorities to take definitive action against it. Doxxing enables the perpetrator to shift the violence from the digital space to the physical space. While the doxxed information may be available in the public domain, it differs between actively skimming through data records to find a contact and clicking on a link to access it. Doxxing allows the offender to weaponise the information of an individual against them. Even advocates of free speech must pay heed to the disastrous consequences of doxxing, which has cost the lives of innocent people.

Deanonymisation Doxxing: The Clash of Rights

Deanonymisation doxxing refers to revealing one’s identity, which might have been previously anonymous. This type of doxxing is most morally divisive. Various media channels are investigating social media accounts to reveal the identities of people propagating controversial ideas. This remains the central point of the clash between accountability and privacy.

Recently, a reporter from the renowned media outlet The Washington Post revealed the owner of a TikTok account holder who posted anti-LGBTQ content. The account, “Libs of TikTok”, frequently targeted and caused harassment to teachers engaged in educating children about the changing gender narrative. Such incidents sharply brought into focus the divide between privacy and accountability. Here, it is essential to remember that in a genuinely democratic society, we cannot be selective about granting rights. Dworkin, a renowned jurist, said, “If someone has a right to something, then it is wrong for the government to deny it to him though it would be in the general interest to do so.” Advocating for an individual’s right to remain anonymous does not qualify as only being sympathetic to that person alone. Rights, taken seriously, cannot be taken away even in the public interest.

The Law on Doxxing

Further, applying the “Harm Principle” of JS Mill, an individual’s sovereignty can only be respected to the extent that it does not cause harm to another. Political doxxing prominently harms the dissenting culture of any state. To avoid its weaponisation, there is a dire need to regulate this menace. Yet, we see barely any jurisdictions criminalising the practice of doxxing. Singapore has officially introduced a law recognising and criminalising all forms of doxxing. This law came into effect on January 01, 2022. At the same time, certain states have utilised their existing criminal laws to combat specific instances of doxxing effectively.

However, as mentioned above, doxxed information does not necessarily fulfil existing criminal tests without overarching law and might not be taken seriously. Another issue is the lack of police training and awareness on this subject matter. As the perpetrators do not have a physical location, nor can the threat be accurately assessed, the police often dismiss such complaints or refuse to file a complaint altogether. Introducing the required laws demands that the system evolves in times of technological innovation. One must respond to the citizens’ concerns as and when they threaten their safety. Drafting would lead to training programs, much-needed research and policy actions that would create an effective control mechanism. Even if the elusive perpetrator may not be completely stopped, the threat of legal action would allow the spread of leaked information that has become the response to every form of disagreement.

Conclusion

While several forms of online harassment possess legal remedies, doxxing is yet to be seen as a standard rule that allows the authorities to take definitive action against it. Doxxing enables the perpetrator to shift the violence from the digital space to the physical space. While the doxxed information may be available in the public domain, it differs between actively skimming through data records to find a contact and clicking on a link to access it. Doxxing allows the offender to weaponise the information of an individual against them. Even advocates of free speech must pay heed to the disastrous consequences of doxxing, which has cost the lives of innocent people.

As doxxing continues to permeate our digital lives, its impact becomes increasingly insidious, particularly among young generations who navigate the Internet’s paradox of anonymity and peer validation. Once considered a realm of limitless expression, the Internet has given rise to a darker side, fueled by a lack of accountability. We may not expect our online opinions to invade our home’s sanctity, but the digital onlooker’s threat looms large. Privacy is not a luxury reserved for the virtuous. It is a fundamental right deserving of unwavering protection. The urgent need to criminalise doxxing cannot be overstated. Every violation of privacy chips away at the very fabric of our freedom. As we grapple with the challenges of this digital age, the question remains:

How long can we afford to let our right to privacy be compromised before taking a decisive action?