It is a truth universally acknowledged that once something is on the Internet, it’s there for good. Data collection is suddenly hitting the public’s awareness, but your Internet footprint is vaster than you know. And doxing is here to take advantage of that.
Doxing (also sometimes spelled doxxing) is the act of Internet researching someone and broadcasting information that could potentially be personally-identifying. It is frequently a bullying tactic, one that’s been used in things like #GamerGate, unmasking Reddit trolls, or Anonymous’ method of protecting those that “need it.”
Recently, Uber executive Emil Michael suggested the ridesharing company hire a team of opposition researchers and journalists to collect and publicize dirt on reporters who author pieces critical of the company. In describing the tactic, which he heard described firsthand at a private dinner with Michael, Buzzfeed’s Ben Smith writes “That team could, [Michael] said, help Uber fight back against the press — they’d look into ‘your personal lives, your families,’ and give the media a taste of its own medicine.”
As could be expected, doxing a strategy that’s generally frowned upon, but when it comes to those being doxxed (or threatened with it), where does the law fall? Well, it’s a bit unclear.
The act of doxing itself is not illegal; so long as the material is obtained and shared in a legal way there’s nothing wrong with doxing appropriately. Some would argue journalists do it all the time. As Christine Belisek writes for The Daily Beast, sometimes a simple Internet scour can give you all you need to know–and be legal to boot:
In many cases, it’s not even illegal.
“You can post it as long as there is nothing nefarious about it,” says LAPD cyber crimes detective Andrew Kleinick. “They are public figures and that kind of thing happens. It’s not right, [but] I know of no crime.”
…it doesn’t take a master hacker to pull off such a feat. Experts say that doxxing has become almost commonplace when it comes to major celebrities. After all, finding a person’s address or phone number is easy to do by searching the web or paying small fees to online search providers. For an extra fee, plenty of search engines will also hand out phone numbers and addresses of next-door neighbors as well as some criminal background information.
It’s when the information is used for illegal purposes (to defame, harass, or even annoy someone) or obtained illegally (hacking, etc.) that doxing comes into the scope of the law. And, as Whitney Gibson, a blogger with the Internet Defamation Removal Attorneys blog for Vorys, notes that doxing will likely stay legal–even if it’s sometimes used in an illegal way.
“It’s the methods you use to gather information and the things you do with the information; that’s how you have to evaluate those details to determine whether it’s right or wrong, whether it’s free speech or invasion of privacy,” said Gibson in an interview with LXBN. “We are so first amendment heavy in our country I’d be very surprised to see any broad prohibition on it.”
So, certainly the strategy Uber’s Michael is triumphing, similar to a large portion of the information on sites like Doxbin, which was shuttered by authorities recently, could be considered criminal, since the information they were going to use would probably be obtained illegally, and used illegally. The problem is, as of now, there’s no one-size-fits-all legal precedent set around doxing someone; it lives in a gray area between online harassment laws and preexisting standards.
“There’s a lot of tricks a lawyer can use…but none of them address the problem and wrap it up with a nice bow,” said Travis S. Crabtree, who blogs on eMedia Law Insider for Gray, Reed & McGraw, in speaking with LXBN. “Lawyers are kind of scrambling to write narrow enough statutes that they don’t violate first amendment rights, and use established causes of action to protect clients as well.”
Crabtree says that when lawyers are trying to defending the reputation of their clients in cases like these (which he admits often have to do with lewd photos) they can look to precedent set in past cases for ways in; such as the DMCA, copyright laws, or intentional infliction of emotional distress. But he and Gibson agree: it’s a bit of a wild west when it comes to the Internet.
“These laws were created before a lot of these new problems arose, and lawyers are left with doing the best they can to shoehorn new problems into preexisting laws or statues, and then arguing to judges on what’s fair,” says Gibson who practices Internet defamation law. “And a lot of it comes down to what the motive of the person [exposing the information] was.”
But each case comes with its own challenges. Whether it’s removing pictures, embarrassing facts, or defamatory information, the entire case could come down to how the judge interprets the motive and invasion of privacy. Pictures stolen by a malicious impersonator would undoubtedly be a violation, but a judge may not be as sympathetic to a “thief” who’s a friend of yours on Facebook.
“Depending on where you’re getting it and what the information is, there are ways you can fight it. But there is no bright line that says that ‘these four facts are legal to publish but this fifth one isn’t,'” said Crabtree.
And though that might not change anytime soon, there are calls for the U.S. to enact some sort of rules in the same vein as the U.K.’s “right to be forgotten,” though that legislation brings its own issues with regard to censorship. Between dirty photos and mug shots it’s clear that the Internet provides a whole new frontier for privacy laws. And it’s about time the law caught up.