Doxxing is the harmful practice of disclosing someone’s personal information to the public without permission. This can include residential address, contact details, health-related information, family, etc. Perpetrators get this information through various techniques, such as social engineering, hacking, and database searches. Usually, the goal of doxxing is to cause the victim harassment, fear, or damage. It puts the victim’s security and privacy in grave danger, opening them up to threats, harassment, and physical harm.

In today’s digital age, doxxing has become increasingly prevalent due to the widespread availability of personal information online. Easy accessibility to information has also contributed to this worsening problem. High-profile cases of doxxing, targeting public figures, activists, and ordinary individuals alike, have made headlines. These incidents show the growing urgency to address this issue. While the global legal response to this menace has been mixed, countries are increasingly criminalising this practice. However, for an activity whose contours are still a blur, we need to develop a strong understanding of the motivation behind its perpetuation.

Criminal Theories: The Psychology of Crime

Victim-Offender Theory

Firstly, the victim-offender theory in criminal law expresses that the victim is not passive in the transaction. Doxxing does not occur in a vacuum. It is often a response elicited from the live interactions that take place every day. The degree of punishment usually varies according to this relationship and the nature of these interactions. For example, societal reactions can differ significantly between high-profile cases of doxxing and those involving less prominent individuals. The actions and perceived behaviours of the “victim” in doxxing cases play a crucial role in interpreting a crime and its punishment by society.

Routine Activity Theory

The Routine Activity Theory (RAT) explains that to realise a crime, three factors are essential. First, a motivated offender; second, a potential victim; and third, the absence of a capable guardian or supervisory authority. Cyber space offers a unique environment where all these factors come together and act simultaneously. While the application of RAT to cyber crime is still disputed, it is the only theory that understands the speed at which cyber crime has accelerated. With reference to the Rick and Morty example I discussed in my last article, the perpetrators had clear access to the potential victims with a lack of supervisory authority on the internet. Hence, neither the victim nor the offender is a passive figure in doxxing. Their virtual or physical presence, access, opinions, and acts all count towards creating a victim or offender profile.

In this background, we can identify four types of offenders that indulge in doxxing.

1. Righteous Offender

This type of doxxing happens mainly on ideological lines where the offender believes that the victim is harming society through their ideas. The Nuremberg files incident serves as a good example. No such relationship can serve as a mitigating factor for the offender as it severely restricts an individual’s freedom of speech and expression. In some cases, it can lead to a virtual mob hunt. Another example of this type is the Trans Community in Bangladesh and their difficulties.

2. Activist Offender

This type of doxxing is often a response of the underprivileged communities to receive justice, which may be difficult or not have the force of an online storm. In recent years, many women have come forward to share their stories of violence or assault. Either they did not report the incident, or the authorities did not take any action for various reasons. A cognisable offence can be easily made out in these cases. The story of Monica Bayes, a Singaporean student who released the private information of her offender, falls in this category.

Here, the offender targets a victim due to their own purported criminal actions. While it creates a sense of justice in the individual and community, bypassing official institutions can become a dangerous routine. The safeguards in the criminal justice system are built on the principles of redemption and fairness. Doxxing takes away this twin balance and lets justice hang on the mercy of a capricious virtual audience.

3. Vigilante Offender

This type of doxxing involves individuals acting not based primarily on a private cause or motive but in society’s perceived interest. Typical targets include people from the upper strata or famous personalities. The Elon Musk controversy points to this behaviour. While the victim in these cases is way more resourceful, the danger, abuse of information, and the risk of danger associated with individuals remain the same.

4. Targeted Offender

This type of doxxing involves a person targeting the victim based on personal motive or revenge. Many cases involving school violence generally involve disclosing the victim’s personal information to target violence.

Hence, the traditional understanding of crime and its theories cannot be squarely applied to cyber crime. Cyber space offers unprecedented difficulties that must be studied accordingly.

Nature of Harm

What is the nature of the harm perpetuated by doxxing? As the French philosopher Deleuze puts it, “virtual harm can be termed as ‘real but not actual,’ to say that the harm can be realised in multiple ways or could remain dormant.” To criminalise doxxing, our approach must take into consideration the long-lasting psychological effect of the event. Even after the initial period of physical and mental harm, there is no end point as to how the leaked information might affect the individual in the future. The harms of doxxing are challenging to enumerate as often the effects do not become apparent. To criminalise doxxing effectively, we must consider both the immediate and long-lasting psychological impact on victims. Recent studies and statistics highlight the profound effect of doxxing on individuals.

1. Emotional Distress

Research indicates that 75% of doxxing victims report experiencing significant emotional distress, which can include symptoms such as anxiety, insomnia, and paranoia. Women, in particular, face heightened risks; 63% of female victims experience stalking or harassment following doxxing incidents. These efforts underscore the severe psychological toll that doxxing can inflict on individuals.

2. Victimisation

Approximately one in five people have faced doxxing. Of these victims, 40% have received death threats, demonstrating the extreme nature of threats that can accompany doxxing. The trauma resulting from such incidents often leads to a profound loss of trust in others, with nearly half of doxxing victims reporting this sentiment. This loss of trust and ongoing fear can severely impact victims’ mental health and social well-being.

3. Academic Research

Academicians have observed that there are two types of harm perpetuated by doxxing: objective and subjective. Objective harm is the “coerced use of personal information” against the person. While the anticipation of harm due to unwanted exposure, including fear and anxiety of being watched, is subjective harm. For example, in 2016, an explicit Craigslist ad used the personal information of a girl. This resulted in a series of threats of assault and a barrage of unwanted messages that continued for years. The victim also remained in fear of further harm and suffered from anxiety every time she entered a public space.

While the threats and messages are objective harm, the profound psychological effect is subjective harm. The objective and subjective harms remain with the victim even after such information is taken down. Thus, the degree of the effect on the victim must be an essential factor when fixing liability. From our discussions so far, we understand that neither the public demand for accountability nor the privacy of an individual can be undermined while criminalising doxxing. Similarly, criminalising the act of making the commission of a crime public may go against the intention of the criminal justice system. When an individual acts in a way that is against the law, they forfeit some of their rights in the interest of justice. Mere speculation or claims of crime are not covered under this, as has been a trend in recent times. However, additional information about the criminal or data factually unrelated to the crime may attract liability. While looking at the effect of doxxing, one can conclude that while objective harm may or may not occur in a case, the subjective harm suffered must be sufficient to attract criminal liability for doxxing.

Conclusion

In today’s digital landscape, where personal information is both abundant and vulnerable, doxxing emerges as a significant threat. This practice jeopardises individual safety and undermines trust and mental well-being. As privacy rights clash with the unregulated expanse of the internet, there is an urgent need for effective intervention to address the growing prevalence and impact of doxxing. To tackle this issue, we must take several crucial steps.

Strengthening legislation is essential; governments should establish clear laws with stringent penalties to deter offenders and provide victims with legal recourse. Enhancing online safety through enhanced privacy measures and regular audits will help protect personal data from misuse. Promoting digital literacy through public awareness campaigns and educational programmes can empower individuals to safeguard their information and recognise potential threats. Additionally, supporting victims by offering accessible resources and services will aid in their recovery and help them navigate the aftermath of doxxing.

Navigating the complexities of the digital age requires balancing free expression with responsible regulation. By fostering a culture of respect and privacy, we can mitigate the risks associated with doxxing and work towards a safer online environment. Our actions today will shape the future of our digital landscape, and it is our collective responsibility to ensure it remains secure, respectful, and just for all.