The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 110 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Hong Kong's response to the fight against doxxing
Open accessAbstract
Doxxing is a form of cyber harassment. The easy accessibility and increased usage of social media platforms have made it easier for the malicious publication of personal information to harass, threaten, and injure people online and in the real world. The harms caused are amplified because the information is released to a ‘broad and unknowable audience’ and once released, it cannot be erased. The city-wide protests in June 2019 against the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 resulted in city-wide doxxing against police officers, judicial officers and political dissidents. This paper has a two-fold objective. First, it examines the amendments made to the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance 1996, (Cap. 486) to consider whether the amendments had achieved its objective of reducing the number of doxxing incidents and providing an adeqaute remedy for doxxing victims. Second, a comparative analysis is made of the position in the UK, Singapore and New Zealand to learn how the Territory's Ordinance might be improved. The paper concludes with a suggestion for a review of the anti-doxxing provisions to ensure a balance between protecting individual information privacy and freedom of expression.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
89 Sources not found · 42 Own interpretation · 5 No basis given · 1 Own result
In the paper
“Half the respondents found the wording used in the legal definition to be unclear and ambiguous.”
§ Hong Kong's response to the fight against doxxing > Survey on the perception of doxxing
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [118]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An examination of the cases indicates three main categories of doxxing namely (1) domestic affairs (spurned love), (2) work grudges and (3) monetary (financial) disputes.”
§ Hong Kong's response to the fight against doxxing > Examination of the doxxing cases
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A 2022 study into Hong Kong university students' perceptions of doxxing showed that only 33% of them were aware of the doxxing law.118”
§ Hong Kong's response to the fight against doxxing > Survey on the perception of doxxing
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [118]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“An examination of the legislative timeline showed that it took a mere twelve weeks from the time the Amendment Bill was introduced to the Gazette to the time the Amendment Ordinance took effect.120”
§ Hong Kong's response to the fight against doxxing > Survey on the perception of doxxing
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [120]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In all these cases, the victims' PI was released without consent purely for malicious reasons, in what MacAlister refers to as 'punching down doxxing'.102”
§ Hong Kong's response to the fight against doxxing > Examination of the doxxing cases
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [102]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- It may state two separate claims as one. 57
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
- Probably not a substantial claim. 62
Create a free account to see these claims.
Create a free account to see these assumptions.
39 more claims
Create a free account to see all 137 claims and every source verdict.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Hong Kong's response to the fight against doxxing > Prosecutions under section 64(2)
“The section makes it an offence to disclose any personal data of the data subject which was obtained from the data user without the data user's consent, the disclosure of which causes psychological harm to the data subject.”
§ Hong Kong's response to the fight against doxxing > The proposed amendments to the PDPO The criminalisation of doxxing
“The new sections (sections 64(3A) and (3C)) replaced section 64(2) which punishes those who disclose personal data without the consent of the data subject and such disclosure causes psychological harm to the data subject.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Hong Kong's response to the fight against doxxing > The proposed amendments to the PDPO The criminalisation of doxxing
“there is a fine of $1,000,000 (US$12,789) and imprisonment for 5 years.”
§ Hong Kong's response to the fight against doxxing > The proposed amendments to the PDPO The criminalisation of doxxing
“a fine of up to HK$1 million (US $127,893) and imprisonment of up to five years”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Hong Kong's response to the fight against doxxing > Investigation and prosecution powers to the PCPO
“Of the 9 arrested cases, 10 (53%) were related to monetary disputes, four (21%) were related to workplace disputes, three (16%) were related to relationship disputes and the remaining two (10%) were disputes caused by differences in political opinions.”
§ Hong Kong's response to the fight against doxxing > Investigation and prosecution powers to the PCPO
“19 persons were arrested.”
Citations
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [6]6. Julia M MacAllister, 'The doxing dilemma: Seeking a remedy for the malicious publication of personal information' (2017) 85(5) Fordham Law Review 2451-2483.
Cited by
Senadheera, S., Yiğitcanlar, T., Li, R. Y. M., Mehmood, R., & Paz, A. (2026) · Sustainable Cities and Society · doi:10.1016/j.scs.2026.107886
Htwe, T. M. (2026) · Contemporary Politics · doi:10.1080/13569775.2026.2672928 · Cited by 1
Senadheera, S., Yiğitcanlar, T., Li, Y. L., Mehmood, R., & Paz, A. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6478858
Metadata
- Authors
- Ong, R.
- Affiliations
- City University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Corresponding author
- Ong, Rebecca
- ORCID
- Ong, Rebecca
- Venue
- Common Law World Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2024-08-02
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 17-42
- ISSN
- 1473-7795 (ISSN-L)
- 1740-5556
- OpenAlex
- W4401242190
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3
- FWCI
- 7.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Common Law World Review (publishedVersion)
- intR2Dok (Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Freedom of Expression and Defamation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Stalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Keywords
- doxing, online harassment, privacy law reform, 2019 Hong Kong protests, freedom of expression, comparative privacy law, Singapore, New Zealand, personal information disclosure
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Hong Kong's response to the fight against doxxing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/14737795241267290
- The paper
- Ong, R. (2025). Hong Kong's response to the fight against doxxing. Common Law World Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/14737795241267290
