Workshop on cyberbullying
Professor Edward CHAN & Dr Lu YU
Department of Applied Social Sciences
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Cyber-bullying Facts
• Top 10 Forms of Cyber Bullying
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xo8N9qlJtk
37% of Children 8-17 Report Being Bullied Online
Children 8-17
Bullied 86%
Online or Offline
Bullied 72%
Offline
Bullied 37%
Online
Bullied 23%
Online & Offline
Microsoft 2012 Report
• 37% (25 country average) of children age 8-17 who responded to the survey say they have been subjected to a range of online activities that some may consider to be online bullying or to have adverse effects.
3
Old Problem in New Disguise?
Bullying
1. making fun of others 2. giving them nicknames 3. spreading rumours
4. giving insulting comments 5. shoving or physical assault
Cyberbullying
(HK Playground Assoc Survey 2016)
1. Denigration (defaming) 2. Masquerade
3. Impersonation 4. Sexting
5. Happy slapping (attack a victim for the purpose of recording the assault)
6. Outing (revealing the homosexuality) 7. Harassment
8. Flaming (posting insults, offensive language) 9. Cyberstalking (doxing)
10. Exclusion
Different or no different?
• Grotesque defamation, Internet Polling: rating sites; doctored photos
• Denigration: Send damaging statements about victims to other students
• Cyberstalking: threaten physical or sexual violence; stalking through GPS
• Technological attacks: shut down V’s blogs; hack into V’s account and send offensive messages in V’s name to others
• Happy Slapping: videotaping a physical attack and posting it online
Cyber-Bullying
cyberbullying is an intentional aggressive act to inflict psychological harm on another individual,
repeatedly, through digital technologies andonline mediums
(Hinduja & Patchin, 2014)
“any aggressive, intentional act carried out by a group or individual, using electronic forms of
contact, against a victim who cannot easily defend
himself or herself”UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against Children, Annual Report 2016
Distinguished from cyberstalking and cybercrime
UN
- CB as a serious manifestation of online violence
- Elements of imbalance of power, use of electronic or digital means - Anonymity (absolute?)
- Ability to reach a broad audience : fast and wide
Cyberbullying - Doxing
Search for and publish private or identifying
information about a particular individual on the
Internet, typically with malicious intent (Oxford
Dictionaries, 2015).
Survey Study of Hong Kong
High School Students’ Attitude
A representative sample of Hong Kong secondary school students (n = 2,120)
N %
Male 1,123 52.97
Female 997 47.03
Total 2,120 100
N %
Secondary 2 549 25.90
Secondary 3 560 26.40
Secondary 4 501 23.60
Secondary 5 510 24.10
Total 2,120 100.00
Experience of conducting doxing
on the Internet
Table 2. Doxing as predictor of disclosure of others` personal information
Doxed others` information B OR 95% CI P
Name 1.190 3.286 [2.491, 4.336] < .001
Social information 1.235 3.438 [2.634, 4.487] < .001
Personally identifiable information 1.425 4.160 [2.227, 7.770] < .001 Current living situation 1.237 3.445 [2.338, 5.075] < .001 Education information 1.080 2.946 [2.036, 4.262] < .001
Private information 0.995 2.705 [2.018, 3.625] < .001
Sensitive information 1.645 5.181 [3.352, 8.007] < .001
Whether the students ever conducted doxing on the Internet
Male Female Total
Ever conducted doxing (searching personal
information) on the Internet 9.8% 14.5%
12.1%**Targets of doxing:
People whom you like 41.2%
62.0% 53.2%***People whom you dislike
57.0%45.9%
50.7%No specific targets 27.6% 35.6% 32.2%
Others 9.0% 8.4% 8.6%
Never conducted doxing on the Internet 90.2% 85.5% 87.9%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
**p<.01, ***p<.001
Platforms the students conducted doxing
No. Platform Male Female Total
1 Social networking site 66.8% 86.7% 78.2%***
2 Instant Messenger 48.4% 51.5% 50.2%
3 Search engine 43.0% 23.8% 31.9%**
4 Video-sharing website 24.3% 13.3% 18.0%*
5 Forum 29.4% 9.5% 18.0%***
6 Chat-room 9.9% 11.4% 10.7%
7 Web-page 9.6% 11.3% 10.6%
8 Email 11.4% 2.4% 6.2%*
9 Blog 7.2% 3.2% 4.9%
10 Other 0.8% 0.4% 0.6%
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
Experience of disclosing your personal information by others
- victimization
Whether the personal information ever been
disclosed on the Internet without students' consent
Male Female Total
The personal information ever been disclosed on the Internet without students' consent
48.8% 61.2% 54.7%***
***p<.001
Table 1. Types of information disclosed and associations with DASS scores
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
Prevalence DASS Correlation
Type Male (%) Female (%) Total (%) Chi-square Depression Anxiety Stress Personal photos or videos 27.7 35.5 31.4 34.811*** 0.124*** 0.108*** 0.118***
Name 24.4 36.0 29.9 52.886*** 0.101** 0.086** 0.074*
Birthday 18.8 30.0 24.2 44.818*** 0.106*** 0.096** 0.100**
Mobile phone number 12.4 18.1 15.1 28.667*** 0.148*** 0.146*** 0.125***
School name 10.5 19.5 14.8 47.820*** 0.109*** 0.117*** 0.107***
Academic performance 7.1 12.1 9.5 30.035*** 0.089** 0.084** 0.082**
Locations 7.7 11.0 9.3 13.655* 0.090** 0.097** 0.099**
Private internet or text conversation 5.2 13.4 9.1 55.864*** 0.123*** 0.119*** 0.129***
Embarrassing photos or videos 6.5 11.4 8.8 18.399** 0.107*** 0.111*** 0.124***
Personal email address 6.8 9.2 8.0 8.300 0.096** 0.083** 0.089**
Relationship status 4.2 9.1 6.6 25.169*** 0.121*** 0.115*** 0.113***
Odd habits 3.6 7.2 5.4 18.065 0.105*** 0.090** 0.096**
Parents` names 4.6 4.2 4.4 3.250 0.113*** 0.085** 0.117***
Intimate photos or videos 3.3 5.3 4.3 7.073 0.085** 0.085** 0.102***
Student card 4.2 4.1 4.2 2.829 0.108*** 0.092** 0.102**
Home telephone number 3.9 4.0 3.9 3.354 0.085** 0.068* 0.081**
Home address 4.3 2.5 3.5 7.523 0.097** 0.080** 0.106***
Sexual orientation 2.4 3.4 2.9 4.108 0.120*** 0.113*** 0.115***
Table 2. Doxing perpetrators and associations with DASS scores
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
Prevalence DASS Correlation
Type Male (%)Female (%) Total (%) Chi-square Depression Anxiety Stress
Parents/family members 20.8 28.0 24.6 7.84** 0.038 0.033 -0.006
Classmates 46.5 54.3 50.7 6.26* 0.045 0.058* 0.015
Other students in the same grade 28.8 31.6 30.3 0.60 0.078** 0.067* 0.048 Other students in your school 26.5 29.9 28.3 1.55 0.091** 0.109*** 0.059*
Teacher/Tutor 2.7 3.2 2.9 0.27 0.019 0.031 0.026
Friends outside your school 20.6 30.2 25.7 13.18*** 0.028 0.037 0.038 People you personally know 21.7 30.0 26.2 10.04** 0.086** 0.074* 0.055
Internet friends 3.8 6.2 5.1 3.18 0.029 0.009 0.034
Strangers 3.5 4.6 4.1 1.24 0.019 0.038 0.029
Table 3. Doxing platforms and associations with DASS scores
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
Prevalence DASS Correlation
Type Male (%)Female (%) Total (%) Chi-square Depression Anxiety Stress
Instant Messenger 53.7 67.8 61.3 21.91*** 0.083** 0.087** 0.068*
Social networking site 44.7 63.7 54.9 36.94*** 0.063* 0.068* 0.066*
Chatroom 9.7 8.8 9.2 0.05 0.049 0.050 0.018
Email 6.2 3.6 4.9 3.33 0.031 0.047 0.051
Video-sharing website 2.9 1.7 2.2 0.18 0.030 0.059* 0.062*
Webpage 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.00 0.022 0.029 0.016
Forum 0.7 0.2 0.4 2.17 0.032 0.027 0.049
Blog 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.33 0.032 0.027 0.047
Students’ understanding of privacy and knowledge of privacy protection
• More than 3/4 of the students agreed the following information is sensitive personal information: usernames and passwords of online accounts, bank account numbers, passport number, ID card number, private internet or text conversation, intimate photos or videos, embarrassing photos or videos, obscene or indecent photos or videos.
• And also more than 3/4 of the students thought name, birthday, school name and were personal information, instead of sensitive information.
• Only 3.5% of students can the name of the Ordinance in Hong Kong that aims to protect the privacy of individuals in relation to personal data.
• Nearly half of the students learn the knowledge about managing and protecting their privacy from the internet.
Conclusions and Implications
Almost all types of information subject to doxing to be significantly associated with such negative emotional states as depression, anxiety, and stress.
Participants doxed by schoolmates reported the most significantly negative emotional feelings.
Significant associations were found in our study between unauthorized disclosure via Instant Messenger, social networking sites and feelings of depression, anxiety, and stress in victims.
Further exploration of integrated cyber violence prevention programs is therefore strongly recommended for schools with regard to preventing doxing victimization.
Highlights
Conclusions and Implications (Cont.)
Adolescents who conducted doxing had greater odds of disclosing others’ personal information, students who had conducted doxing had also experienced information disclosure as victims, perpetrators, or bystanders.
Half of the doxing perpetrators target people they like to fulfill their social needs, the others target people they dislike with the malicious intention of harassing or attacking the victims.
Schools and parents need to provide adolescents with guidelines on online behavior that empathy education and training be included in intervention programs.
Improving parenting practices can be a protective factor from doxing behaviors,
programs should improve parent-adolescent relationships and parental involvement.
•Case study
Significant players
Bystanders
Victim(s)
UPstanders Perpetrator(s)
Instigators and the supporters
post words for
supporting the victims
their sensitive information have been disclosed
search and broadcast others’
sensitive information
see what is happening
between the perpetrators and the victims but do not get involved in the doxing provoke doxing and
who post words for supporting the perpetrators
Perpetrators
• Search the personal identifiable
information of victim(s) and reveal these information to the public purposefully and without the consent of victims.
• Some perpetrators motivate other netizen to conduct doxing of the victims.
Comments and feedbacks
• Some instigators provoke doxing by initiating the aggravation and motivate others to do the
harassment and cyberbullying acts on the victims.
• Some supporters like the posts and creates a snowball effect.
• Sometimes, not a must, UPstanders take actions to protect the victims.
Key antecedents
• Personal contacts: conflicts, disagreements, disputes between the perpetrators and victims
• Daily life experiences and observations: disagreements with some behaviors or reactions or arrangements
• Online platforms: comments (agreements or disagreements) with some sharing posts or incidents
Cycle of doxing
Reporting by mass media Handled by other parties
Doxing of person who interacts with the victims and/or every social relation the victims have
Responses by victims
Victims’ responses
as catalysts of doxing process
Case
No. Nature Form of cyberbullying Sex of victim/s Age of
victim/s
1 Peer verbal disputes
Insulting comments, Disclosure of personal information, Disclosure of identities of victim’s relatives and friends
F & M 17-19
Doxing process
Disagree with the views of netizen and defend themselves without reasonable evidence Those with relationship with victims clarify the incidents or provide more details, but not accept by the netizen
Apologize but not accept by the netizen
01
02
03
Catalysts
Responses by victims
Victims’ responses
as catalysts of doxing process
Netizens are barking up the wrong tree after victims’ responses
Case No. Nature Form of cyberbullying Sex of
victim/s Age of victim/s
2 Public affairs Insulting comments F Secondary one
students
Doxing process
Provide reasonable explanations
Apologize and accept by the netizen
01
02
Cooling
Responses by victims
Stop: no further comments from netizens
Role changing: conduct doxing on the
perpetrators
Netizens are barking up the wrong tree
after victims’ responses
Case no. 3
Role changing – revealing perpetrators’ personal
information
Legal Liabilities
Case No.
Collection and Disclosure of Personal Data
Harassment Defamation Copyright
Publication of Indecent and Obscene Articles
1 ✓ ? ✓
✓ ?
2 ✓ ? ✓ ✓ ?
3 ✓ ? ✓ ✓
?
Discussion
• Definition of doxing Legal response
• What is personal data?
• Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap.486)
• personal data (個人資料) means any data—
• (a) relating directly or indirectly to a living individual;
• (b) from which it is practicable for the identity of the individual to be directly or indirectly ascertained; and
• (c) in a form in which access to or processing of the data is practicable;
• Hard data
• Social data: engaging in social activities, networking
• Hard data: students know the importance of protecting; but hard data is not the major target pf doxing
• Social data: Less cautious to defend doxing or protect personal information;
but ready target of doxing
Intention of doxing:
• Mixed with curiosity & hostility
• Curiosity (no intention of causing harm) vs hostility (intent to cause harm)
• Blurred boundary between social doxing and hostile doxing
Acts:
• Searching, posting, reposting (collective activity, social endorsement)
• Doxing: perpetrator, victim, victim perpetrator, bystander
Legal responses:
- One-size-fits-all?
- Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap.486)
- Access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent (Crime Ordinance (S.161, Cap.200)
- Or need more specific law targeting specific crime?
HK Current legal remedies
Criminal intimidation (s. 24 Crimes Ord)
Criminal damage (s. 60 Crimes Ord)
Procuring unlawful sexual acts by threats (s. 117(1A) Crimes Ord)
Offensive telephone calls and messages
(s. 20 Summary Offences Ord) Blackmail
(s. 23 Theft Ord)
Possession of child pornography (s.3(3) Prevention of Child Pornography Ord)
Distribution of indecent and obscene articles (Obscene and Indecent
Articles Ord.)
Intimidation and harassment (tort) Defamation (tort)
intentional infliction of psychological harm
Access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent (s.161 Crimes Ord)
Unauthorised
use/disclosure of personal data (PDPO)
s.64: offence
10 Principles Digital
communication
New Zealand:
Harmful Digital
Communications Act 2015
• disclose sensitive personal facts about a person;
• be threatening, intimidating, or menacing;
• be grossly offensive;
• be indecent or obscene;
• be used to harass a person;
• make a false allegation;
• breach confidences;
• incite or encourage anyone to send a deliberately harmful message;
• incite or encourage a person to commit suicide; and
• denigrate a person’s colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, gender, sexual
orientation or disability.
Should NOT:
Improvement in
social network
A multi-disciplinary collaboration for cyberbullying prevention
Home
Parental guidelines and monitoring
School
Guidelines or policies to address the issues of cyberbullying
Curriculum
Raising students’ awareness and existing norms concerning cyberbullying, behavioral control by providing helping strategies for oneself and others, when confronted with cyberbullying, etc.
Legal
Laws against cyberbullying
Organizations
Anti-bullying programmes, early intervention and support
Government
Devote more resources on anti- bullying programmes
