Paper:
Douglas, D. M. (2016). Doxing: a conceptual analysis (Links to an external site.). Ethics and Information Technology, 18(3), 199–210.
Discussion leader: Md Momen Bhuiyan
Summary:
In this paper the author discusses doxing, intentional release of someone’s personal information onto the Internet by a third party usually with the intention to harm, from a conceptual point by categorizing it into three types: deanonymizing, targeting and delegitimizing. Although doxing is a fairly old concept, recent “Gamergate” incident has stirred public interest in this. Author also discusses how this practice is different from other privacy violation activities. Finally the author tries to justify some deanonymizing and delegitimizing doxing where it is necessary to release personal information for revealing wrongdoing.
From Marx’s point of view, revealing any personal information removes some degree of anonymity of the subject. Here Author uses Marx’s seven types of identity knowledge as a reference for types of personal information that can be used for doxing. He distinguishes doxing from blackmail, defamation and gossip as first one requires a demand to the subject, the second one requires the information to be damaging to the subject and the third one is usually some hearsay. He then uses Marx’s rationale for anonymity to discuss the value of anonymity.
Deanonymizing doxing is revealing someone’s identity who was previously anonymous. Author uses two example to illustrate this. One is “Satoshi Nakamoto”, the creator of Bitcoin. And the other is “Violentacrez”, a Reddit moderator. Targeting doxing, usually followed by deanonymizing doxing, is revealing specific information about someone that can be used to physically locate that person. Targeting doxing makes the subject vulnerable to a wide range of harassment, from pranks to assault. Delegitimizing doxing is releasing private information about someone with the intent to undermine subject’s credibility. Sexuality is commonly used in this context. Delegitmizing doxing has the potential to create “virtual captivity”. Delegimizing doxing goes hand-in-hand with targeting doxing where the first one provides the motive for harassment and the second one provides means. This combination is illustrated in the “Gamergate” incident where a former boyfriend of the subject posted her personal detail which resulted in prolonged harassment.
To justify doxing author interprets Bok’s two claims about public interest that the public has a legitimate interest in all information about matters that might affect its welfare. He puts the burden of proof on the individual who attempts doxing and claims that only the specific information relevant to revealing a wrongdoing is justified. While in case of “Satoshi Nakamoto” public interest doesn’t seem to justify doxing, in case of “Violentacrez” doxing was justified as it held him accountable and he stopped participating in hate speech. Author also comes to the conclusion that doxing doesn’t have to be accurate to be harmful.
Author then describes the objections of these justification. The first objection is that deanonymizing doxing promotes other forms of doxing. So this should be rejected on the same ground that targeting doxing is rejected. Another objection is that cost and harms of deanonymizing outweigh social benefit. For example deanonymizing doxing can be used as a tool to intimidate dissenting views. So other forms of justice should be considered. In case of “Violentacrez”, there was an alternative like deleting his comments by Reddit. Although this conflicts with freedom of expression, it is justified if freedom of expression is not considered an absolute right that can’t be limited by other rights. Another response is that accountability should go both ways in deanonymizing someone. But this accountability in itself doesn’t justify doxing as those revealing information might be able to afford other protection like costly legal battle.
Reflection:
The first thing that is noticable in the paper is that the author tries to qualify doxing to an individual. Furthermore he usually refers the victim as female which might seem appropriate for the recent doxing trend. But it ignores one of the top contributor of doxing, Anonymous. Author doesn’t note that delegitimizing doxing can be categorized as defamation. Also he discusses gossip in a similar context while by definition is doesn’t involve publicly releasing information on Internet. He could have mentioned “Boston bombing” as an example for harm of misinformed doxing.
This paper did a good job categorizing doxing using motive as the prime factor. Although author visited all of the categories with enough depth he didn’t cover many examples for them. He mentions that the burden of justification falls on the doxxer but doesn’t provide any detail from them when discussing the examples. Finally the author explanation of his justification and its critic was insightful.
Questions:
1. Is whistleblowing justified?
2. Is doxing in journalism justified?
3. How do you establish public interest in justification of doxing?
4. To what extent can crowdsourcing be used for doxing?
5. How do we prevent doxing?
