Tackling Cyberbullying: A Comparative and an Interdisciplinary Symposium
In-depth Case Study of Doxing in Hong Kong
Dr. Ruby Lo Tsz Fung
Chief Executive Officer, Social Policy Research
Mr. Michael Cheung
Assistant Research Officer, Law and Technology Centre, Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong
4 Sep 2018 Background
Method
Case Descriptions Content Emerging Themes
Legal Liabilities Discussion and Future Work 01
Background Background
Defining “Doxing”
“Search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent” (Oxford Dictionaries, 2015) It comes from a spelling alteration of the abbreviation “docs” or the phrase “dropping documents” on someone that involved compiling, uncovering and releasing personal information about an individual or groups of people on the Internet (Honan, 2014).
4 Background
What information? Personal identifiable information e.g. name, photos, home and work addresses, home and mobile numbers, emails…
Who can be doxed? Doxing can occur to anyone, from celebrities who are naturally the biggest targets to obscure ordinary people.
Why dox? The motives or rationales for doxing someone vary across the groups. Some motives may include curiosity, revenge, extortion, embarrassment and for fun. 5 Background
2.6% of students (F.2 to F.5) ever conducted doxing (searching and posting others’ personal information on the Internet) (School survey, 2018)
28.8% of students 1.5% of students (F.2 or F.5) ever seen (F.2 to F.5) ever joined other people’s the uncover teams information posted by online groups or forums the uncover teams online (School survey, 2018) groups or forums (School survey, 2018) 6 02
Method Method
A qualitative case study approach to explore the doxing behaviors on the Internet in Hong Kong. A thoroughly desktop research on the incidents of doxing are conducted.
Two major groups of victims: (1) students studying primary schools, secondary schools and tertiary institutions; (2) all age groups apart from students.
The victims cover different ages, sexes, educational levels, socio-economic backgrounds and marital status.
To explore the particulars of more recent cases, the updated comments or reactions related to doxing in 2018 have been looked into.
8 Method
All the celebrities who have their fame and public attention accorded by the mass media or the Internet are excluded in this study.
For the victim groups of all ages apart from students, doxing cases of broad coverage on different online platforms or social networking sites, significant and high volume of comments and forward messages and/or reporting by mass media are selected.
The cases for students were selected if at least 100 comments were provided by netizen or at least 2 platforms/mass media were reported.
The cases for all groups apart from students were selected if at least 1,000 comments were provided by netizen or at least 3 platforms/mass media were reported.
9 03
Case Descriptions Case Descriptions
Profiles of 11 doxing cases of students:
No. of Case No. Court case Nature Form of cyberbullying Sex of victim/s Age of victim/s victim/s 6 N Commercial disputes Disclosure of personal information 2 M & F University students Sex scandal / Love affairs, Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information, 14 Y 3 F 12-15 Violence Disclosure of identities of victim’s relatives and friends Secondary one 15 N Public affairs Insulting comments 2 F students Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information, Post-secondary 20 N Improper behaviors Disclosure of identities of victim’s relatives and friends, 4 M & F students photo manipulation Peer verbal disputes (being A primary 6 students Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information, 25 N doxed after a public trial on the 2 M and a 16-year-old Disclosure of identities of victim’s relatives and friends internet) teenager 30 Y Sex scandals / Love affairs Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information 1 F University student 31 N Making fun by netizens Disclosure of personal information 1 F 15
32 N Sex scandals / Love affairs Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information 1 M University student
37 N Sex scandals / Love affairs Disclosure of personal information 1 F University student Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information, 39 N Peer verbal disputes 2 F & M 17-19 Disclosure of identities of victim’s relatives and friends Secondary three 40 N Making fun by netizens Disclosure of personal information 2 F & M student & Secondary five student 11 Case Descriptions
Profiles of 29 doxing cases of all ages (non-students):
Case No. of Sex of Court case Nature Form of cyberbullying Age of victim/s No. victim/s victim/s Insulting comments (sexual harassment), Disclosure of personal 1 N Making fun by netizens 1 F Around twenties information Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information, Disclosure 2 N Public affairs 1 M - of identities of victim’s relatives and friends Sex scandals / Love affairs (being 3 N doxed after a public trial on the Insulting comments 1 F - internet) Verbal disputes (being doxed after a Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information, Disclosure 4 N 1 M - public trial on the internet) of identities of victim’s relatives and friends, Photo manipulation Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information, Photo 5 N Sex scandals / Love affairs 1 M 24 manipulation Commercial disputes (being doxed Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information, Disclosure 7 N 1 F - after a public trial on the internet) of identities of victim’s relatives and friends Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information, Disclosure 8 N Commercial disputes 2 F - of identities of victim’s relatives and friends, Photo manipulation 9 Y Sex scandals / Love affairs, Violence Disclosure of personal information 1 M 19 Verbal disputes (being doxed after a Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information, Photo 10 N 4 F & M - public trial on the internet) manipulation Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information, Photo 11 Y Public affairs 1 M 28 manipulation Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information, Disclosure 12 N Sex scandals / Love affairs 2 F & M 37 & 27 of identities of victim’s relatives and friends, Photo manipulation Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information, 13 N Sex scandals / Love affairs Disclosure of identities of victim’s relatives and friends, Photo 2 F & M 23 & 22 manipulation (making posters) Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information, 16 N Sex scandals / Love affairs Disclosure of identities of victim’s relatives and friends, Photo 3 M & F - manipulation 12 Case Descriptions
Profiles of 29 doxing cases of all ages (non-students):
Case No. of Sex of Court case Nature Form of cyberbullying Age of victim/s No. victim/s victim/s 17 N Public affairs, Sex scandals / Love affairs Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information 1 F 28
18 N Public affairs, Sex scandals / Love affairs Disclosure of personal information 1 F - Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information, Photo 19 N Verbal disputes 1 M - manipulation Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information, Verbal disputes (being doxed after a public Middle-aged 21 N Disclosure of identities of victim’s relatives and friends, Photo 1 F trial on the internet) woman manipulation Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information, Photo 22 N Verbal disputes 2 F & M Youngster manipulation 23 Y Improper behaviors Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information 1 M - 24 N Verbal disputes Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information 2 F & M - Verbal disputes (being doxed after a public Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information, 26 N 1 F - trial on the internet) Disclosure of identities of victim’s relatives and friends Verbal disputes (being doxed after a public 27 N Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information 1 F 70 trial on the internet) 28 N Sex scandals / Love affairs Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information 1 F 20 Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information, Photo Middle-aged 29 N Improper behaviors 1 F manipulation woman Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information, Photo 33 N Sex scandals / Love affairs 1 M - manipulation 34 N Verbal disputes Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information 1 F - Sex scandals / Love affairs, Verbal 35 N Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information 1 F - disputes 36 N Fraud Disclosure of personal information 3 F & M 26 38 N Making fun by netizens Disclosure of personal information 1 F - 13 Significant players
In existing literature, the three significant players most highlighted in doxing are perpetrators, victims and bystanders (Li, 2007).
Perpetrators are taking actions in acquiring information about an individual or a group of people by researching publicly available databases and social media websites and sometimes hacking, and broadcasting these private or identifiable information.
Victims are whom their personal and sensitive information have been disclosed through different platforms (social media, discussion groups, web pages, etc.) of the internet.
Bystanders are those who see what is happening between the perpetrators and the victims but do not get involved in the doxing.
14 Significant players
Apart from three significant players, two other “actors” with connection in doxing behaviors are observed.
The instigators and the supporters of doxing are a group of people who liked to provoke doxing by initiating the aggravation and motivate others to do the harassment and cyberbullying acts on the victims and who liked to support the perpetrators’ remarks. From the case studies, it is observed that the instigators and the supporters of doxing have successfully triggered the incidents.
The UPstanders are taking actions by posting words of support for the victims, encouraging the victims to seek help and reporting to the authorities directly.
15 Significant players
Instigators and the supporters provoke doxing and who post words for supporting the perpetrators
Perpetrator(s) UPstanders Bystanders see what is happening search and broadcast others’ post words for between the perpetrators and sensitive information supporting the victims the victims but do not get involved in the doxing
Victim(s) their sensitive information have been disclosed 16 04
Emerging Themes (1) Cycle of doxing
Key antecedents • Personal contacts: conflicts, disagreements, disputes between the perpetrators and victims • Daily life experiences and observations: disagreements with some behaviors or reactions or arrangements • Online platforms: comments (agreements or disagreements) with some sharing posts or incidents
Comments and feedbacks Perpetrators • Some instigators provoke doxing by initiating the • Search the personal identifiable aggravation and motivate others to do the information of victim(s) and reveal these harassment and cyberbullying acts on the information to the public purposefully and victims. without the consent of victims. • Some supporters like the posts and creates a • Some perpetrators motivate other netizen snowball effect. to conduct doxing of the victims. • Sometimes, not a must, UPstanders take actions to protect the victims.
Doxing of person who Responses interacts with the victims by victims and/or every social relation the victims have Reporting by mass media Handled by other parties 18 (1) Cycle of doxing
Case no. 8
Spark of the incident: Personal conflicts
A makeup artist posted on Facebook to claim that she was deferred an amount of overtime pay of HK$1,300 and insulted by a couple after working for them for 18 hours in a wedding banquet. This post was soon circulated around the Facebook groups and discuss forums. Some netizens criticized the improper behavior of the couple and appealed that the markup artist should even the score. An alleged friend of the couple wrote a post to rebut that the attitude of the makeup artist was bad and asked for an undue amount of travelling expense, hoping that the netizens did not believe what the makeup artist had said.
Start of doxing and insulting comments (actions of perpetrators and supporters)
This incident soon became the hot topic among netizens. Some netizens conducted doxing on the couple and posted insulting online comments on them. The photos of the couple and their friends were broadcasted on the internet and this incident was widely covered by the newspapers and mass media.
Responses by the victims
Then, the groom of the couple responded that this incident had tarnished the reputations of him and his family and adversely affected his work. He explained that he did not intend to defer the payment to the makeup artist but she held bad attitude towards them and increased the makeup charge without telling him. The groom claimed that the makeup artist “intended to fraud with bad attitudes and had no professional conduct”. He also clarified that he did not insult the makeup artist and this was only her say-so.
Feedback of the netizens
Many netizens did not accept the explanation of the groom and continued to attack and ridicule him. For example, a netizen did not believe the groom and insisted that the couple were wrong; he/she commented that it was not a matter of attitude, the full payment should be issued to the markup artist.
One year after the incident, a number of netizens posted on Facebook and said that the incident should be retold. 19 (2) Victims’ responses as catalysts of doxing process
Responses by victims
Disagree with the views of 01 netizen and defend themselves without reasonable evidence Those with relationship with Doxing 02 victims clarify the incidents or Catalysts provide more details, but not process accept by the netizen
Apologize but not accept by 03 the netizen
20 (2) Victims’ responses as catalysts of doxing process
Case no. 39
A netizen posted a picture of a girl in her Instagram story in the LIHKG Forum. The girl stated in her Instagram that her boyfriend did not bear his responsibility to wake her up such that she was late for the group presentation and marks were deducted. Many netizens criticized the behavior of the girl and expressed that the girl should not blame her boyfriend on the Internet as she had the responsibility to manage her duties, not his boyfriend.
Afterwards, the girl responded to the comments of netizens. However, some netizens thought that the remarks made by the girl were very scornful and impolite, they continued to criticize her and extended the scope of the doxing including disclosure of her previous dating relationship, her friends’ personal information, etc.
This case demonstrated that though the victim clarified the truth of the incident, the netizens may not accept the clarifications and accelerate the doxing process.
21 (3) Netizens are barking up the wrong tree after victims’ responses
Responses by victims Stop: no further comments from netizens Provide reasonable 01 explanations Doxing Cooling process
Role changing: conduct 02 Apologize and accept doxing on the by the netizen perpetrators
22 (3) Netizens are barking up the wrong tree after victims’ responses
Case no. 15
One political party in Hong Kong posted a video on her official Facebook. The video showed interviews with secondary students on the street. A reporter showed some movie stills and asked the interviewed secondary students to state the actors of the photos. In between the movie stills, the reported showed the photos of Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 and asked whether they agree with that the protests were forcibly suppressed. Two interviewed secondary students answered that they felt okay!
After broadcasting the video, many netizens attacked two interviewed secondary students and stated that they were lack of historical knowledge and conscience. The netizens started the doxing process.
A senior reporter contacted two interviewed secondary students and asked for the details of the interviews. It was found that the reporter misled them for providing the answer and some of their responses were removed. This edited video would let the audience to interpret out of context. After clarification by the senior reported, the netizens stopped doxing on two interviewed secondary students and the political party deleted al the related video and posts and apologized for the faults. Therefore, the doxing process was cooling down.
23 (4) Role changing – revealing perpetrators’ personal information
The roles of these significant players may be 01 swapped.
Some cases demonstrate that the perpetrators’ personal and private information were doxed and 02 disclosed after they had disclosed victims’ private or identifiable information.
Some instigators and the supporters of doxing do not agree with the points of views or the statements of 03 the perpetrators and sometimes comment that the perpetrators’ behaviors are not proper or odd.
04 Another doxing process begins. 24 (4) Role changing – revealing perpetrators’ personal information
Case no. 26
A woman posted on the Facebook page “Tai Po Tai Po” to accuse a man of not giving up his seat to an elderly on the MTR, attached with a photo of the mentioned man. Soon, the man posted a reply on LIHKG Forum to illustrate what had happened on that day. He explained he had elucidated to the woman that he was exhausted with a backache after work. Additionally, he was not taking a priority seat so he refused to give up his seat. He did not know why the woman put him in the spotlight on the internet.
The incident triggered heated discussion on the internet. Many netizens agreed with the man and accused the woman of being “Justice Monster” and hypocritical. Some of the netizens even conducted doxing on the women and sent private message to her to criticize her motive for posting other’s picture on the internet. Although the woman posted an apology in response, her action was not accepted by the netizens. Finally, the woman deleted her posts and shut down the Facebook accounts of her and her husband.
25 (5) Guilty by association: Disclosure of identities of victim’s relatives and friends
The perpetrators may further post personal 01 information of person who interacts with the victims and/or every social relation the victims have.
Some cases: disclosure of victims’ family members 02 (e.g. partners, parents, children, etc.), friends, classmates and colleagues
03 Some cases: disclosure of victims’ ex-partners
04 Another doxing process begins.
26 (5) Guilty by association: Disclosure of identities of victim’s relatives and friends
Case no. 16
A single mother posted on a Facebook group to tell her relationship with ex-husband and her life with a child. She claimed that her ex-husband had affairs and multiple sex partners and she was vilified by the mother of ex-husband.
At the same time, some netizens happened to find that a web writer had publicly disclosed his “divorced” status on the internet and investigated into the photos of his ex-wife on Instagram. They discovered that the tattoo of her ex-wife resembled those of the single mother (based on her profile picture). Hence, those netizens inferred that the web writer was the ex-husband of the single mother.
Soon, the WhatsApp conversations between the web writer and his ex-wife were disclosed on the internet. Some netizens criticized that the web writer was hypocritical as he claimed that he was a good father publicly but threatened his ex-wife and only gave $5,000 of maintenance for the child in private. Hence, the netizens conducted doxing on the web writer by opening an anonymous group with a purpose to collect his personal information.
Afterwards, the web writer posted response on his Facebook page but the single mother explained that his response was not true. This interaction between the two parties further escalated netizen’s anger towards the web writer. Besides, the mother of the web writer also became the target of doxing for her defense of her son’s deeds. As a result, the photos of the web writer’s mother were posted on the internet.
Finally, the web writer was fired by his employer and he had shut down his Facebook page. 27 (6) Broader coverage by traditional mass media
At last, not essential, while more discussions and comments on some 01 doxing cases, journalists of mass media would report the details through their platforms such as magazines, newspaper, radio, television, etc. mass
This makes the Disclosure of the doxing media cases from the Internet world to the 02 traditional mass media platforms and the personal identifiable information of the victims would be revealed to more audience by mass communication.
28 (6) Broader coverage by traditional mass media
Case no. 7
A women uploaded a number of her pre-wedding photos on the “Brother Sister Facebook Club” and complained that those low-quality photos were taken by a pre-wedding company. Those out-focused photos sparked heated discussions on the internet and attracted the coverage of multiple newspapers.
Two weeks later, the involved pre-wedding company posted a solemn declaration. In the declaration, the company claimed that the post of the woman was a revenge for the company’s refusal to her request of rescheduling the pre-wedding service one day before the photo-taking event. The company also criticized her for intentionally posting the unprocessed and unused photos on the internet that they would reserve the right to pursue legal actions.
After the declaration of the pre-wedding company, some netizens indicated on the Facebook page that she had once been doxed in the Golden Forum. It was disclosed that she had run an online shop on Instagram and she was infamous for offering low-quality products and service. Hence, she was in turn doxed and criticized by the netizens. This case was broadcasted by several newspapers.
29 05
Legal Liabilities Legal Liabilities
Collection and Disclosure of Copyright Publication of Indecent and Case No. Harassment Defamation Personal Data Infringement Obscene Articles 1 ✓ ✓ ? ✓ ✓ 2 ✓ ? ✓ 3 ✓ ? ✓ 4 ✓ ? ✓ 5 ✓ ? ✓ 7 ✓ ? ? ✓ 8 ✓ ? ✓ 9 ✓ ✓ ? ✓ 10 ✓ ? ✓ ✓ 11 ✓ ? ? ✓ 12 ✓ ? ✓ 13 ✓ ? ? ✓ 14 ✓ ? ✓ 15 ✓ ? 16 ✓ ? ? ✓ 17 ✓ ? ? ✓ 18 ✓ ? ✓ 19 ✓ ? ✓ 20 ✓ ? ✓ ✓ 21 ✓ ? ✓ 22 ✓ ? ✓ ✓ 23 ✓ ? ? ✓ 24 ✓ ? ✓ ✓ 25 ✓ ? ✓ 26 ✓ ? ✓ 31 Legal Liabilities
Collection and Disclosure of Copyright Publication of Indecent and Case No. Harassment Defamation Personal Data Infringement Obscene Articles
27 ✓ ? ✓
28 ✓ ? ? ✓
29 ✓ ? ✓
30 ✓ ? ? ✓
31 ✓ ? ? ✓
32 ✓ ? ? ✓
33 ✓ ? ✓ ✓
34 ✓ ? ✓
35 ✓ ? ? ✓ ✓
36 ✓ ? ? ✓
37 ✓ ? ? ✓
38 ✓ ? ✓
39 ✓ ? ? ✓
40 ✓ ? ✓ Total no. of 40 40 19 39 4 cases 32 Legal Liabilities
1. Collection and Disclosure of Personal Data
Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486) DPP1: collect only the personal data for a purpose directly related to its function or activity; collect data as necessary and not excessively; and collect data by means which are lawful and fair; inform data subject of the purpose of the use of the data DPP3: personal data shall not be used for a new purpose without the prescribed consent of the data subject s. 64: offences for disclosing personal data obtained without consent from data users Examples: names, age, dates of births, addresses, phone numbers, photos, education history, job titles 33 Legal Liabilities
2. Harassment
A course of conduct by a person, whether by words or action, directly or through third parties, sufficiently repetitive in nature as would cause, and which he ought reasonably to know would cause worry, emotional distress or annoyance to another person Example: uttering insulting words and posting posters containing victim's personal data and details of incident in public places
3. Defamation
Publication of a defamatory statement about a person to a third person without lawful justification or excuse Example: alleging that male victims are “dog men” (“women hunters”) and female victims are “stinky chickens” (“prostitutes”) 34 Legal Liabilities
4. Copyright Infringement
Copyright Ordinance (Cap. 528) Copy (s.23), distribute (s.24), or making available (s.26) of copyrighted material Example: modification or alteration of victims’ photos in a humiliating way
5. Publication of Obscene and Indecent Articles
Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance (Cap. 390) s. 21: offence for publishing obscene articles s. 22: offence for publishing an indecent article to a juvenile s. 23: offence for display of indecent matter Example: nude and oral sex photos
35 06
Discussion and Future Work Discussion
The present in-depth study present the cases studies of doxing in Hong Kong.
The results demonstrate emerging trends of doxing cases in Hong Kong: (1) Cycle of doxing (2) Victims’ responses as catalysts of doxing process (3) Netizens are barking up the wrong tree after victims’ responses (4) Role changing – revealing perpetrators’ personal information (5) Disclosure of identities of victim’s relatives and friends (6) Broader coverage by traditional mass media
The results provide an important first step in the development of framework for understanding the process of doxing cases.
The need for further research.
37 Limitations
Findings were highly dependent on information being disclosed or ready to be disclosed on the Internet.
The impacts on the significant players are not explored.
Views on victims could not be collected if the victims did not provide their responses.
The results may not be generalizable.
38 Future Work
A multi-disciplinary collaboration for cyberbullying prevention
Legal Home 01 02 Laws against cyberbullying Parental guidelines and monitoring
04 Organizations School Guidelines or policies to address the Anti-bullying programmes, early 03 issues of cyberbullying intervention and support 06 05 Curriculum Government Raising students’ awareness and Devote more resources on anti- existing norms concerning bullying programmes cyberbullying, behavioral control by providing helping strategies for oneself and others, when confronted with cyberbullying, etc. 39 Thanks