Doxing: a conceptual analysis

Doxing is the intentional public release onto the Internet of personal information about an individual by a third party, often with the intent to humiliate, threaten, intimidate, or punish the identified individual. In this paper I present a conceptual analysis of the practice of doxing and how it differs from other forms of privacy violation. I distinguish between three types of doxing: deanonymizing doxing, where personal information establishing the identity of a formerly anonymous individual is released; targeting doxing, that discloses personal information that reveals specific details of an individual’s circumstances that are usually private, obscure, or obfuscated; and delegitimizing doxing, which reveals intimate personal information that damages the credibility of that individual. I also describe how doxing differs from blackmail and defamation. I argue that doxing may be justified in cases where it reveals wrongdoing (such as deception), but only if the information released is necessary to reveal that such wrongdoing has occurred and if it is in the public interest to reveal such wrongdoing. Revealing additional information, such as that which allows an individual to be targeted for harassment and intimidation, is unjustified. I illustrate my discussion with the examples of the alleged identification of the creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, by Newsweek magazine, the identification of the notorious Reddit user Violentacrez by the blog Gawker, and the harassment of game developer Zoe Quinn in the ‘GamerGate’ Internet campaign.

[1]  S. Chess,et al.  A Conspiracy of Fishes, or, How We Learned to Stop Worrying About #GamerGate and Embrace Hegemonic Masculinity , 2015 .

[2]  Saul Levmore,et al.  The Anonymity Tool , 1996 .

[3]  R. Gavison Privacy and the Limits of Law , 1980 .

[4]  J. Dilevko Hate Crimes in Cyberspace , 2017 .

[5]  D. Trottier Digital Vigilantism as Weaponisation of Visibility , 2017 .

[6]  P. Rochon,et al.  Haunted Manuscripts: Ghost Authorship in the Medical Literature , 2005, Accountability in research.

[7]  Gary T. Marx,et al.  What's in a Name? Some Reflections on the Sociology of Anonymity , 1999, Inf. Soc..

[8]  Lewis Mark Webb Shame transfigured: Slut-shaming from Rome to cyberspace , 2015, First Monday.

[9]  Lorraine Bowman-Grieve Anti-abortion Extremism Online , 2009, First Monday.

[10]  Emily Katherine Poole Hey Girls, Did You Know? Slut-Shaming on the Internet Needs to Stop , 2014 .

[11]  J. Stanyer,et al.  Hunting corrupt officials online: the human flesh search engine and the search for justice in China , 2014 .

[12]  Keith N. Hylton MARYLAND LAW REVIEW , 2007 .

[13]  Britney Summit-Gil,et al.  This is why we can’t have nice things: Mapping the relationship between online trolling and mainstream culture , 2016, New Media Soc..

[14]  Stacey L. Bowers Privacy and Library Records. , 2006 .

[15]  Mary Anne Franks,et al.  Sexual Harassment 2.0 , 2009 .

[16]  Thomas C. Rindfleisch,et al.  Privacy, information technology, and health care , 1997, CACM.

[17]  Daniel J. Solove The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet , 2007 .

[18]  Sissela Bok,et al.  Secrets: On the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation , 1982 .

[19]  Philip L. Reichel Dossier Building as a Social Problem Topic , 1977 .

[20]  Cr Sridhar,et al.  Bad Pharma: How drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients , 2013, Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics.

[21]  I. Reid Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients , 2013, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[22]  J. Waldron Dignity and Defamation: The Visibility of Hate , 2010 .