Jump to content
Ysc3

Doxxing to be made a crime punishable by jail, up to S$5,000

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

It will soon be a crime for online vigilantes to publish someone else’s personal information with the intention to harass, threaten or facilitate violence against them, and victims of this offence – called doxxing – will be able to seek recourse from the law.

 

Making doxxing a crime was among a slew of changes made to the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA), which was tabled in Parliament on Monday (April 1).

Most of the changes focused on making it easier for victims of intimate partner violence – both married and unmarried – to seek protection by law.

 

These include making breaches of protection orders an arrestable offence and extending protection and expedited protection orders to family members of the victims.​​

RISE IN DOXXING

 

The Ministry of Law (MinLaw) said in a statement that there has been an increasing trend of doxxing — publishing an individual’s personal information, such as photographs and contact details, with a view to harassing the person. The ministry did not provide statistics.

 

“Often, this arises in the context of online ‘vigilantism’. The amendments will prohibit the publication of such personal information where it is done with an intention to harass the victim,” said the ministry.

 

Under Section 3 of the amended POHA, those found guilty of intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress can be fined up to S$5,000 or receive a maximum jail term of six months, or both.

 

Individuals guilty of creating fear or provocation of violence also face tougher punishment. They can be fined up to S$5,000 or receive a maximum jail term of 12 months, or both, double what they would have received under the old law.

 

URGENT RELIEF FOR VICTIMS

 

The courts will also be given an expanded scope of orders in relation to falsehoods, and victims of falsehoods will be able to apply for interim orders if they want false statements about them to be taken down urgently.

 

Under the expanded powers, the courts will be able to issue general correction orders, similar to the ones found under the newly introduced Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill. 

 

Under general correction orders, where the false statement made has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the victim’s reputation, a third party, such as the mainstream media, can be ordered to publish a correction to draw the public’s attention to the falsity of the statement or to a corrected statement.

 

“As false statements can go viral extremely quickly, the courts will be empowered to make relevant interim orders to provide victims with urgent relief,” said MinLaw.

 

This will come on top of the court’s existing powers to issue four types of orders: stop publication orders, correction orders, disabling orders and targeted corrections.

 

Under a stop publication order, a publisher is required to take down a false statement and can be prohibited from publishing a substantially similar statement.

 

A correction order directs the publisher to post a correction notice, while a disabling order requires Internet intermediaries to disable access to the statement.

 

Victims of online falsehoods can file applications for interim orders at the new Protection from Harassment Courts, which will have oversight over all criminal and civil matters under POHA. The court, however, can also refuse to grant an interim order.

 

Cases on interim orders will be heard within 24 hours from when the application is filed, but the process can take longer if the other party decides to challenge the victim’s interim order.

 

In that event, the court will issue a final order about a month from the application date.

 

CORRECTION: In an earlier version of this article, our headline and article said that the new crime of doxxing would carry a fine of up to S$10,000. The Ministry of Law has clarified that the maximum fine is in fact S$5,000.

 

Note: These are only examples. Ultimately, whether a doxxing offence is made out depends on the context within which the identity information is published. The courts will interpret the law and decide each case based on its own facts. Source: Ministry of Law

post-2854-0-86704800-1554126029_thumb.jpg

Edited by Ysc3
↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About time

  • Praise 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edmw csi no more business

  • Praise 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edmw csi no more business

First time I heard this word .... tot doxx is something to do with @radx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

no more fuel ten then.

no more auto lock kidnap.

no more Eric the cyclist......

 

the law is slowly clamping down on social media.

 

how about illegal financial institutions soliciting sms to take up their loan. Definitely constitute sharing of personal information amount to harassment.

Edited by Kopites
↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no more fuel ten then.

no more auto lock kidnap.

no more Eric the cyclist......

 

the law is slowly clamping down on social media.

 

how about illegal financial institutions soliciting sms to take up their loan. Definitely constitute sharing of personal information amount to harassment.

This piece of law is even more impt now since the recent exposure of some high profile person on social media.
  • Praise 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no more fuel ten then.

no more auto lock kidnap.

no more Eric the cyclist......

 

the law is slowly clamping down on social media.

 

how about illegal financial institutions soliciting sms to take up their loan. Definitely constitute sharing of personal information amount to harassment.

 

I think as long as no personal information is posted, it doesn't break the rules... so videos will still pop up.... just that no more CSI witch-hunts.

  • Praise 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never heard the term before

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just have to phrase what to write and say VERY carefully  :XD:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

from the first post. I am not in the legal profession any lawyer care to share.

 

photo and personal details. the word "and" mean both must be present? They didn't state photo "or" personal details....

 

 

--------------------------------------

 

The Ministry of Law (MinLaw) said......— publishing an individual’s personal information, such as photographs and contact details, with a view to harassing the person. The ministry did not provide statistics.

Edited by Kopites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

First time I heard this word .... tot doxx is something to do with @radx ðð

 

Doxxing you dunno but I'm sure you know what dogging means :p

Edited by Othello
  • Praise 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mixed feelings..

 

Happy that the innocent can get legal recourse

 

Sad that no more juicy kaypohji news to read

  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prease don’t sexpose moi :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just have to phrase what to write and say VERY carefully :XD:

Posting of personal info i agree lah but 'fake news' i really cannot understand. Social media news meh, not chit chat kepo ? If i say Ms X pretty and others say not, so is my comments in social media fake leh?

 

News I thought is official website? So all these year kopitiam and market ah soh gossips also fake leh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-100773-0-00436200-1554163640.jpg

 

IMO, the first row of example is somewhat arbitrary. Who decides what constitutes "to teach him a lesson" and what is "with the intention to warn people"?

 

For the Fuel10 case, it could be argued that the poster want to warn other pump attendants of an alleged scammer hitting petrol kiosks, instead of teaching the scammer a lesson. How do we even draw the line?

  • Praise 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A simple solution to all these. Only government websites published news are considered genuine. Any other websites, social platforms are basically just chit chat. 

 

Anyone wishes to publish anything serious, they have to register with the authorities and declare that their website is subject to fake news law. 

 

So we don't have to worry if what we read or hear is fake or not. Everyday I also hear fake news that my bosses going to give me a fat bonus but never come.  [:p]  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-2854-0-86704800-1554126029_thumb.jpg

 

IMO, the first row of example is somewhat arbitrary. Who decides what constitutes "to teach him a lesson" and what is "with the intention to warn people"?

 

For the Fuel10 case, it could be argued that the poster want to warn other pump attendants of an alleged scammer hitting petrol kiosks, instead of teaching the scammer a lesson. How do we even draw the line?

Ultimately, whether a doxxing offence is made out depends on the context within which the identity information is published. The courts will interpret the law and decide each case based on its own facts. Source: Ministry of Law

 

法庭说了算. They are the "way", the "truth" and the... [insert your own descriptive]

  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ccb pap

↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×