Skip to content

Say "No" to Doxxing

Say "No" to Doxxing

Law
  •  
    What is doxxing?
    Print
    • In general, doxxing refers to the gathering of the personal data of target person(s) or related person(s) (such as family members, relatives or friends) through online search engines, social platforms and discussion forums, public registers, anonymous reports, etc., and disclosure of the personal data on the Internet, social media or other open platforms (such as public places).
  •  
    The law
    Print
    Expand
    Collapse
    • - Personal Data (Privacy) (Amendment) Bill 2021
      • The Government gazetted the Personal Data (Privacy) (Amendment) Bill 2021 (the Bill) on 16 July 2021, and submitted the Legislative Council (LegCo) Brief on the Bill to the LegCo on 14 July 2021. 

        The Bill aims to combat doxxing acts that are intrusive to personal data privacy, through the criminalisation of doxxing acts, and conferring on the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (the Privacy Commissioner) statutory powers to issue cessation notices demanding the cessation or restriction of disclosure of doxxing content.  The Bill also confers on the Privacy Commissioner power to conduct criminal investigation and institute prosecution for doxxing cases, so as to strengthen enforcement against doxxing cases.
        • Please click here for the Bill.
        • Please click here for the media statement issued by the Government.
        • Please click here for the paper submitted to the LegCo by the Government.
           
      • The Bill was introduced into the LegCo for first and second reading on 21 July 2021.
        • Please click here for the speech by the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs. (Chinese version only)
           
      • Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs and the Privacy Commissioner attended the first meeting of the Bills Committee on Personal Data (Privacy) (Amendment) Bill 2021 on 6 August 2021.
        • Please click here for the opening remarks by the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs. (Chinese version only)
        • Please click here for the relevant papers of the meeting.
           
      • The resumption of the Second Reading debate and Third Reading of the Personal Data (Privacy) (Amendment) Bill 2021 took place at the Legislative Council (LegCo) on 29 September, and the Bill was passed by the LegCo. The Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, Mr Erick TSANG Kwok-wai, IDSM, JP, delivered speeches at the meeting of the LegCo.
        • Please click here for the speech by the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs at the resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Bill (in Chinese only).
        • Please click here for the speech by the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs at the Committee Stage Amendments of the legislative process (in Chinese only).
        • Please click here for the speech by the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs in adopting the report by the Legislative Council (in Chinese only).
        • Please click here for the speech by the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs at the setting down of the Third Reading of the Bill (in Chinese only).
    • - Doxxing may constitute contravention of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (PDPO).
      • Section 64 of the PDPO provides that a person commits an offence if the person discloses any personal data of a data subject which was obtained from a data user without the data user’s consent, with an intent to obtain gain, or if the disclosure causes loss in money or other property or psychological harm to the data subject.
      • Contravention of section 64 of the PDPO bears serious consequences. Once convicted, the maximum penalty is a fine of HK$1,000,000 and imprisonment for 5 years.
    • - Doxxing may involve other offences.
      • Breaching an injunction order may be liable for contempt of court and subject to an immediate custodial sentence on conviction.
        • The High Court granted an interim injunction order (HCA 1957/2019) in October 2019 to restrain persons from disclosing personal data of police officers and their family members without their consent, with intention to intimidate or harass police officers and their family members. The order also restrains persons from intimidating or harassing police officers and their family members. It further restrains persons from assisting, inciting or abetting others to commit any of the aforesaid acts. This interim injunction order is still in force at present.
        • The High Court issued an interim injunction order (HCA 2007/2019) in October 2019 restraining persons from wilfully disseminating or publishing on internet-based platform or medium any material or information for the purpose of promoting, encouraging or inciting the use or threat of violence, with intention to cause bodily injury to any person or damage to any property within Hong Kong. The order also restrains persons from wilfully assisting, inciting or abetting others to commit any of the aforesaid acts. This interim injunction order is still in force at present.
        • The High Court issued an interim injunction order (HCA 1847/2020) in October 2020 restraining persons from disclosing personal data of judicial officers and their family members without their consent, with intention to intimate or harass judicial officers and their family members. The order also restrains persons from intimidating or harassing judicial officers and their family members. It further restrains persons from assisting, inciting or abetting others to commit any of the aforesaid acts. This interim injunction order is still in force at present.
      • In addition, depending on the circumstances, doxxing may also involve criminal intimidation, the offence of “access to a computer with criminal or dishonest intent”, etc.
    • - Doxxing may incur civil liabilities.
      • Doxxing causes anxiety and psychological distress to the victims, which include immense emotional and psychological pressure, burden and even harm. The reputation of the victims is also often damaged. They may file civil lawsuits to seek compensation from the doxxers.
  •  
    Doxxing hurts both victims and doxxers video
    Don’t flout the law
  •  
    Examples of the victims’ difficult situations
    Print
    • - Case 1：In fear of family members being
      harassed and daily life severely affected.
      Case 1
        
      - Case 2： Nuisance phone calls received
      late at night, making it difficult to get asleep.
      Case 2
      - Case 3： Shop forced to cease operation,
      leading to loss of income.
      Case 3
  •  
    PCPD combats doxxing acts
    Print
    • - The PCPD received the first doxxing case on 14 June 2019. As of end of June 2021, the PCPD handled more than 5,800 doxxing cases.

      - Follow-up actions taken by the PCPD in respect of the doxxing cases include:
      • A hotline (3423 6666) has been set up to answer enquiries or complaints about doxxing behaviour.
      • As of end of June 2021, the PCPD has written more than 300 times to request the operators of a total of 18 websites, online social media platforms or discussion forums concerned to remove more than 6,300 web links involving doxxing.
      • The PCPD has pointed out to the operators of the online platforms concerned that they have a responsibility to avoid their platforms being misused as tools for intruding personal data privacy.
      • The PCPD has sought the cooperation of regulatory authorities locally and in different jurisdictions to combat doxxing on social media platforms.
      • If the cases involve criminal offence, the PCPD will refer them to the Police for follow-up actions, including criminal investigation and consideration of prosecution. As of end of June 2021, the PCPD has referred over 1,400 cases to the Police for follow-up actions.
      • Furthermore, the PCPD has referred 63 cases of possible violation of the interim injunction orders relating to doxxing to the Department of Justice for follow-up actions.
      • Through our publicity and education efforts, the PCPD has appealed to the general public to protect themselves from falling prey to doxxing activities by avoiding indiscriminate disclosure of personal data.
  •  
    Court decisions
    Print
    • Section 64(2) of the PDPO
      • November 2020: The defendant who obtained the personal data of a family member of a police officer for doxxing by using his office computer was charged with, among others, an offence under section 64(2) of the PDPO. The defendant, who was convicted after trial in October 2020, was sentenced in November to imprisonment for 18 months. Together with other convictions, he was sentenced to imprisonment for 24 months.
      Court’s Interim Injunction Orders
      • June 2020: The defendant was charged with contempt of court for sharing the personal data of a police officer and his family on her social media account, in violation of the interim injunction order (HCA 1957/2019) granted by the High Court in 2019 relating to doxxing. The defendant was found guilty in June 2020 and was sentenced to 28 days’ imprisonment, suspended for one year.
      • October 2020: The defendant was charged with contempt of court for posting the personal data of a police officer on her social media account, in violation of the interim injunction order (HCA 1957/2019) granted by the High Court in 2019 relating to doxxing. In October 2020, the defendant pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 28 days’ imprisonment, suspended for one year.
      • In this case, Mr Justice Russell Coleman stated in the judgment that the impact of doxxing on victims is “severe and long-lasting”. “Subject to mitigating factors, if any, the starting and primary penalty is imprisonment. The normal penalty for breaches of injunction orders is imprisonment measured in months.”
      • December 2020: The defendant was charged with contempt of court for posting the personal data of a police officer and his family members on a social media platform, in violation of the interim injunction order (HCA 1957/2019) granted by the High Court in 2019 relating to doxxing. In December 2020, the defendant was convicted of civil contempt of court and sentenced to 21 days’ immediate imprisonment.
      • In the judgment, Mr Justice Russell Coleman pointed out that “the impact of doxxing on victims is severe and long-lasting”. “Once personal data has been publicly revealed on the internet or social media, even if the original point of revelation is subsequently removed, that personal data will almost certainly forever remain publicly available”. The doxxing act is “wholly unforgivable” and “should not be tolerated”. As the Court considered that the contempt of this case would not properly be reflected in a suspended custodial sentence, the defendant was sentenced to immediate imprisonment
      • December 2020: The defendant was charged with contempt of court for posting the personal data of a police officer and his wife on a social media platform, in violation of the interim injunction order (HCA 1957/2019) granted by the High Court in 2019 relating to doxxing. In December 2020, the defendant was convicted of civil contempt of court and sentenced to 21 days’ imprisonment, suspended for one year. 
  •  
    Watch videos video
  •  
    Seek assistance
    Print