The complex issue of privacy when on the internet
Provided by KISCH IP
With an entrenched history in Africa, KISCH IP has, for the last 145 years, assisted clients from small to large businesses in all sectors, in safeguarding their intellectual property rights. While acknowledging our establish... more
By Mercia Fynn
03 May 2019
The Oxford Dictionary defines doxing as “Searching for and publishing private or identifying information about a particular individual on the Internet, typically with malicious intent.” The term, which was apparently coined by hackers, is derived from the abbreviation of the word “documents”, i.e. “docs”, due to the fact that the type of information published is often found in private documents.
Doxing is often undertaken in the name of vigilantism, being used as a means of enacting a form of justice against an enemy online. Other than having their privacy invaded, the person who is doxed is exposed to harassment by other online users; in fact, oftentimes the person doing the doxing encourages or incites the public to harass his or her target.
Leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), Julius Malema, recently committed an act of doxing in response to a message mistakenly posted by journalist Karima Brown to an EFF media WhatsApp group. Malema perceived Brown’s message as indicating that Brown was attempting to send “moles” to a meeting that the EFF was hosting the following day, and he retaliated by sharing Brown’s cell phone number on Twitter.
The legality of doxing is a contentious issue. Where the doxing involves information that was deliberately made public (for instance, by publishing it on various social media platforms) by the person being doxed, the collation and republishing of such information would not constitute a breach of privacy in terms of South African law.
If the information disclosed was not publicly available prior to the doxing, the publishing thereof could be considered a breach of privacy. For instance, if the information was only disclosed to a limited group of people, it would not be considered publicly available. Furthermore, if the information was obtained unlawfully, for example, by intercepting or accessing the information without the legal right to do so, by hacking or other means, the publication thereof would likewise be unlawful.
Irrespective of whether the information being published was previously in the public domain, it is a criminal offence to intimidate a person by publishing words that have the effect, or that might reasonably be expected to have the effect, that the person perceiving the publication of the information fears for his/her own safety. In the doxing example provided earlier, following Malema’s tweet, Brown was bombarded with messages on her cell phone which contained threats of violence and death, racial slurs, and other insults. Malema has since expressed his disapproval of the messages; however, Brown has laid a complaint of intimidation and violation of privacy against Malema and the EFF, the outcome of which is awaited.
One can protect oneself from doxing by enabling functions on social media accounts such as Facebook and Twitter to protect content, and by disabling ways to search for an account, such as searching using a cell phone number. Conducting oneself on the internet is fraught with legal risks, therefore it is important to seek the advice of a suitably experienced attorney to assist with understanding and complying with the various laws that are applicable in this space.
- Data protection and security as it relates to the Internet of Things
- Will privacy laws like GDPR and POPI kill the direct marketer?
- Data breaches: What is required?
- Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) – Are they legal?
Mercia Fynn is a Director and Head of KISCH IP's Commercial Department. Mercia has many years of experience in Commercial Law, particularly in the negotiation and structuring of a variety...