Although doxxing is a long-standing menace, it has only recently been weaponized by anti-China forces. The malicious publication online of the personal information of individuals is a crude type of psychological intimidation, and has been used with telling effect by the ill-intentioned. Once the protest movement and its armed wing realized that the police force had their measure during the insurrection of 2019-20, they opened up a new front against its officers.
The doxxing campaign was designed to supplement the protest movement’s public violence, and it enjoyed some success. Just as their late-night attacks on the police married quarters were intended to terrorize officers’ families, and their false complaints were calculated to cause distractions, so it was hoped that doxxing would sap police morale. Since the movement was capable of killing, torturing and even incinerating those it disapproved of, its doxxing threats had to be taken seriously, and some officers suffered greatly. Although the force ultimately triumphed, it came at a cost, and the law must be strengthened to deter and prevent such activity for the future.
In January, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data disclosed that, among the 5,400 doxxing cases it had received since June 2019, 38 percent were linked to police officers and their families, while 30 percent involved people who supported the police force and the government. The information published included such things as names, identification card numbers and family members’ contacts. In consequence, officers and their families faced abuse, harassment and threats, and not even their children were spared.
Indeed, the information published included details of the schools and classes attended by the officers’ children, who were subjected to harassment and bullying, which some teachers, to their eternal shame, did little to control. Children and other family members even received sinister approaches at their schools and workplaces, intended to disconcert front-line officers. The officers themselves received intimidatory telephone calls, and their identities were used by strangers to apply for loans and make online purchases, all highly troubling for busy officers.
The government plans to submit its amendment bill later this year, and the Legislative Council must ensure that it receives a fair wind. The evils of doxxing are there for all to see, and the misery it unleashes on decent people must be tackled through a comprehensive tightening of the enforcement regime
Apart from the police force, other institutions responsible for maintaining the rule of law also found themselves in the firing line. In addition to firebombing various courts, including the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, the protest movement targeted individual judges. If a particular judge decided a case in a way it disapproved, it retaliated by, for example, posting his or her personal details online. Although the Department of Justice sought court injunctions to curb the doxxing of judges and police officers, these were repeatedly disregarded by people who were contemptuous of legal norms.
While the current legal framework is inadequate, this does not mean that the doxxers have always had everything their own way. On Nov 2, Chan King-hei, a former telecoms worker, received two years’ imprisonment for having unlawfully obtained and displayed personal data on computers of his former employer, Hong Kong Telecom. His immediate victim was the father of a police inspector, although, in total, he targeted 20 police officers and their families. After the case concluded, the PCPD commissioner, Ada Chung Lai-ling, commented that it was “saddening that doxxing acts often lead to cyberbullying or even criminal intimidation of the victims and their family members”, something the police force understands only too well. It was also revealed that, whereas 17 suspected doxxers were arrested during the protests, only two were convicted in 2020, which seems extraordinary, given the prevalence of the offense in 2019-20.
Although the National Security Law for Hong Kong (Art.43) enables the police force to request the removal of online messages, this is confined to situations where the published information involves possible national security offenses, and is therefore limited in scope. However, the fightback has begun, and, in February, the chief executive, Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, vowed to take action against doxxing generally. On May 11, the government’s detailed proposals were unveiled in a position paper, and they were then discussed by legislative councilors on May 17. The Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance is to be amended to create an effective regime for tackling the malicious publication of private or identifying data. Although every effort had been made to enforce the existing law, it is deficient, said the government, as it was “not intended to address doxxing acts committed in recent years”.
In particular, the PCPD, with its limited powers, has faced great difficulty in tracing the sources of doxxing content, which is disseminated and repeatedly posted on online platforms. It has been unable to ascertain the identity of the data users concerned, and whether the personal data was obtained without the data user’s consent. This has hampered its ability to take follow-up action, as also has the absence of legal powers to enforce requests to remove doxxing material from websites.
As things stand, it is an offense under the ordinance (Sect.64) to disclose personal data without the data user’s consent if the intention is either to obtain money or other gain, or else to cause loss to the data user. It is also an offense if the unauthorized disclosure causes psychological harm to the data user. As these categories are limited, the government’s proposal will expand the offense’s scope, providing it with the cutting edge it currently lacks.
The proposals will criminalize the disclosure of personal information without consent when it occurs with an “intent to threaten, intimidate or harass” the data subject, or his or her immediate family, and recklessness alone will suffice to attract criminal liability. It will also be an offense to release data with “the intent to cause psychological harm”, even if such harm does not actually arise, which contrasts with the present law which is contingent on actual harm having occurred. As with the existing offenses under Sect.64, the proposed variants will also be punishable with up to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of HK$1 million (US$129,000), although a very strong case must exist for doubling the maximum term of imprisonment to 10 years.
When criminal offenses arise, the PCPD, given its limited mandate, invariably refers them to the police force for follow-up action. Between June 2019 and April 2021, it referred over 1,460 cases to the police for investigation. To expedite the processing of doxxing cases, the government is, therefore, now proposing that the PCPD should be empowered to institute its own prosecutions, and this will entail a beefing-up of its investigative capacity.
The PCPD will, accordingly, be empowered to request relevant information from individuals. Suspects, moreover, may also be required to submit themselves for questioning when there are reasonable grounds for believing that doxxing has occurred. If the PCPD considers it necessary, a court order may be sought, enabling it to enter premises and seize documents for investigative purposes. It will also be entitled to order service providers to “rectify” doxxing content online, and its notice must be complied with immediately, even if there is an appeal. If a provider declines to comply, it is also important, as legislative councilors hopefully realize, that the PCPD be empowered to close a website down.
The government plans to submit its amendment bill later this year, and the Legislative Council must ensure that it receives a fair wind. The evils of doxxing are there for all to see, and the misery it unleashes on decent people must be tackled through a comprehensive tightening of the enforcement regime. Although the police force will be a major beneficiary of the amendments, it will also benefit judges and those in government, together with other groups vulnerable to bullying, including schoolchildren. Once the ordinance is amended, the PCPD will finally be able to act decisively to curb this social menace, and the whole of society will be safer in consequence.
The author is a senior counsel, law professor and criminal justice analyst, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong SAR.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
