Doxing: personal data used to intimidate someone

Start with the precise conduct and legal purpose

Article 285d of the Criminal Code concerns the acquisition, distribution or otherwise making available of personal data for a specific purpose. The implementing law describes this purpose as causing fear, causing serious nuisance or seriously hindering the performance of an office or profession, even when others have to do so. So it is not just about whether there is a name or address somewhere. Have it determined what action you are accused of, what data is involved and what purpose was pursued according to the accusation. (Criminal Code · implementation law)

This distinction prevents two incorrect abbreviations. The first is that any sharing of personal data is automatically punishable under this provision. The second is that a suspect can only be left out of the picture if none of the information was personal. The concrete legal components must be assessed. A publication can also raise other legal questions, even if doxing is not proven. Therefore, discuss the entire suspicion and possible coincidence, rather than inferring a general exemption for any use of the data from a discussion of one component.

The specific criminal offense has been in effect since January 1, 2024

The current information from the central government confirms the entry into force on January 1, 2024. In the case of an older message, distinguish between the original publication and any subsequent actions. A re-shared file, a new availability or a later collection may require its own assessment. Do not assume that an old date includes all subsequent behavior. Conversely, a new law cannot simply be used as if it had always provided the same specific criminal offense. Have the applicable law and the specific period charged be checked. (current information from the National Government)

Therefore, put more than one screenshot date in the timeline. Note when the original message was posted, when it was forwarded and when you took which action. A download moment does not automatically tell you when the content appeared online. Keep the data that the platform or file shows about points in time, with known limitations. If a date is uncertain, leave that uncertainty. The file becomes more reliable by stating an open question than by making the chronology fit the desired legal conclusion.

Merging can also change the meaning of individual information

Personal data may concern information that makes a person directly or indirectly identifiable. Please describe exactly which data has been used and to whom it relates. A name next to a work address, a route or information about a family member can be given a different context than each individual piece of information. The implementing law also mentions data from a third party. The investigation must therefore look beyond the question of whether only the telephone number of the person directly addressed has been published. At the same time, the specific link must be evident from the file.

Our analysis is that the organization of data sometimes has meaning itself. A separate public referral can serve a different purpose in a bundle with a call for a visit. That does not make every collection punishable; it shows why content, coherence and distribution should be read together. In your own overview, list which information already existed, which you added and which link was made by someone else. Don't republish the bundle to show that everything was public. This could actually cause further spread and new nuisance.

A closed group is not an automatic exception

The parliamentary explanation of the purpose and dissemination makes it clear that further sharing of already published data also requires its own assessment. The size of the audience does not in itself determine whether criminalization may apply. A small closed group cannot therefore simply be seen as a safe exception. Identify what was accessible, who the message was addressed to, and what further context showed. A number of participants alone does not tell how the data could be used or what purpose was being pursued. (parliamentary explanation of the purpose and distribution)

Different actions within a group must be read per person. Receiving a message, responding to it and making the attachment available again are not automatically the same behavior. Therefore, avoid a shared story in which everyone would have been only a passive reader if the original data showed otherwise. Save your own account details and discuss which parts of the group context are relevant. Have a lawyer assess how the file links your action to the published data and the required purpose.

Anger, consequence and purpose are not the same

An angry tone can provide context, but the legal question of intent requires more than the loose label of argument. What do the accompanying text, the selected data, the conversation history and the concrete instructions say about the purpose of the action? An expected reaction from others may be relevant. Let this connection be investigated without drawing a general psychological conclusion about intentions. A suspect who says he only made a joke must also have the actual words and circumstances assessed; that label is not decisive.

In addition, distinguish between the goal and the consequences. Serious fear or nuisance may provide information about the case, but the absence of visible consequences does not automatically prove that the required intention was lacking. Conversely, a later unpleasant consequence may not fulfill every original purpose without further reasoning. The analysis depends on the time of the alleged act and the applicable law. Therefore, make a note of what was said or done at the time and what only became known later. An explanation given afterwards must remain recognisably a later explanation.

News gathering is a question of the actual publication purpose

The parliamentary explanation discusses news gathering and exposing abuses in relation to the specific intimidating purpose. That does not provide a general exemption by calling a message journalism. Have the actual purpose, form of publication and necessity of the data used assessed. A substantive criticism of public actions may raise different questions than a call to harass someone at home. The context must be evident from the existing pieces, not from a label applied later that makes the original message appear different.

The capacity of the persons involved may also be individually relevant. The implementing law has an increased maximum for certain public and professional functions mentioned. That is not a predicted punishment for a concrete message. This guide therefore does not contain fine amounts as an outcome table. The nature of the fact, the proven elements and personal circumstances require your own assessment. Also discuss whether other accusations, such as threats or stalking, are investigated in addition to or instead of doxing.

Preserving evidence does not require new public dissemination

Keep relevant original messages, attachments, links and available time data safe. The full context is usually more useful to a lawyer than a edited image showing only the least incriminating sentence. Create a reading guide with references and leave the original version intact. Do not share personal data with a large group of helpers to build a defense case. Ask which recipient needs which information and how it can be provided securely. This helps limit further damage and keeps the origin of the material verifiable.

Discuss with the lawyer how a removal request or limiting further visibility relates to the retention of relevant material and any imposed obligations. Do not delete files on your own initiative to make research impossible and do not ask others to do the same cleanup. A desire to stop nuisance may be legitimate, but the chosen step must be carried out carefully. Do not contact the person concerned with pressure to withdraw a report. A new message can cause its own problem in addition to the original publication.

Two fictional publications show why context is decisive

In a fictional situation, Inez shares a public contact address for an information evening in a neighborhood group. In a second situation, Bram shares a private telephone number in an argument group with the request to keep that person busy all night. In both cases the information can be found online, but the purpose and context are clearly different. This means that no complete legal judgment has yet been given. However, the difference does show why the argument found to be public alone does not sufficiently answer the question of intent and action.

A more complicated fictional variant arises when Bram forwards someone else's message with a short comment that is itself ambiguous. It must then be investigated what exactly he made available, what previous messages he knew and what context gives meaning to his own action. The example does not prescribe an explanation. On the contrary, it emphasizes that a suspect must bring the real conversation history, including unfavorable passages. A careful file helps determine where there is actual evidence and where a conclusion is still based on an assumption.

Make the difference between content, action and explanation visible

Use one line per alleged publication or availability. Note what the source directly shows and set aside the explanations given by you or others. Do not add full addresses to a commonly shared view if a secure reference to the attachment is sufficient. The card helps legal aid assess the elements of the accusation. It is not an invitation to reconstruct the message on a new platform or to coordinate missing conversations with others. Traceability and limited distribution can be important here at the same time.

• Action: obtain, post, forward or otherwise make available.
• Time: original publication, own action and later recording moment.
• Data: type of information, person involved and reference to the original file.
• Circle: recipients, accessibility and known further distribution.
• Context: full text, preceding messages, responses and relevant attachments.
• Target question: concrete instructions, own explanation and unknown circumstances.
• Continued: interrogation, limiting contact, keeping the evidence safe and legally assessed action.

Prepare a verifiable conversation about your own role

When receiving an invitation for questioning, it is important which suspicion and period are mentioned and what information you have already received. Discuss the rights under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the guide to police interrogation. A confidential overview for the lawyer does not immediately have to become a statement to the police. Make it clear which parts are your own memory and which parts emerge from the saved conversation. Have the possible choice to explain and the method of explanation assessed in advance.

Our conclusion: a doxing case requires a careful reading of personal data, concrete actions and the legal purpose in their original context. No label, such as public, private, joke or journalistic, replaces that research. A complete publication map makes legal assistance more targeted and prevents the search for defense itself from leading to further dissemination. In addition, keep careful track of existing restrictions and new communications. This way, evidence, safety and process choices remain separately visible while an expert assesses the legal significance of the concrete case.