Image via Teguh Jati Prasetyo/Shutterstock

A stark majority of Singaporeans aged 16 and older are supportive of the criminalisation of doxxing, according to findings from a survey measuring attitudes and behaviours towards the doxxing regulations and online vigilantism.

The survey was conducted by Milieu Insight, an independent market research firm, between 11 May 2019 and 18 May 2019 with 1,000 Singaporean citizens and residents aged 16 and above as respondents of the study. The responses are weighted to represent the online population of Singapore.

The survey was carried out following the introduction of new “doxxing” laws and recent cases of online vigilantism where personal details of the GoJek “hostage” passenger and the perpetrator of the NUS peeping tom incident were revealed.

Doxxing basically involves the publishing of an individual’s personal information with the intention to harass, cause fear or violence to the individual. The personal information could be names, e-mail addresses, contact numbers, videos, photographs, or even background information about the individual’s family, employment, or education.

In essence, the results from the study found that the respondents are overwhelmingly supportive (95%) of criminalising doxxing, with 30% stating it should be criminalised in every situation, and 65% stating it should only be criminalised in certain situations. In contrast, only a handful (5%) of Singaporeans think doxxing should not be criminalised at all.

Notably, among those who feel doxxing should only be criminalised in certain situations, the top scenario for which respondents felt it was justifiable was when the individual being doxxed committed an ​illegal act. Case in point, with the recent​ GoJek “kidnapping” incident where no crime was committed, only 22% of respondents felt that the “victim” should have had her information published online. However, with regards to the NUS peeping tom incident, the percentage of individuals who felt doxxing was justified doubles to 44%.

When it comes to the rationale behind criminalising doxxing, Singaporeans are primarily concerned about protection of personal privacy (64%). Other major concerns about doxxing include the unhealthy culture of vigilantism (57%) as well as the risk of the wrong individual(s) being identified (56%).

On the other hand, Singaporeans who are against the criminalisation of doxxing mainly do not believe offenders ought to be afforded the same privacy protection, with 51% stating that doxxing could help to prevent unlawful or desirable acts in the future, and 49% stating that the public has a right to know the perpetrator’s identity.

For the complete infographic:

Milieu Insight​ is an independent, Singapore-based online market research company that measures public opinion through a mobile survey app, leveraging high quality data to provide insights for everyone.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

张素兰发文悼林福寿医生:他是李光耀“相当惧怕”的自由斗士

光谱行动前政治扣留者、人权律师张素兰今日(4日)于脸书专页功能八号氏族会,发表短文悼念60年代左派领导者,已故林福寿医生。 张素兰在文中形容,已故建国总理李光耀“相当惧怕”林福寿医生,是60年代有能力的领导者、写作人和很有说服力的演说家。他所拥有的特质与智慧能与李光耀平起平坐。 当时,李光耀不折手段,成功掌握中英左派领导者。1963年2月2日,他发起冷藏行动,在英国殖民与马来亚的帮忙下,对逾133位左派领导者包括林福寿、工会工作人员、专家、教育工作者以及学生领袖,进行拘留并在未经审判下长时间监禁他们。 林福寿医生为了维护新加坡人民的权益,他积极参与领导了反对大马来西亚计划的运动,陈述英殖民政府违背新加坡人民意愿成立马来西亚联邦。 直至1982年,林福寿医生才获释,当时他已61岁高龄,他的阵营社会主义阵线(Barisan Sosialis)早已不复存在。在获释后10年,即是2009年,他呼吁重启调查委员会,调查当年的“冷藏行动”。2011年,他与15位昔日于1950-1987年间遭遇政治打压的被扣留者,联合发出声明,呼吁成立调查委员会及废除内安法令。 不幸的是,林福寿医生在2012年6月4日逝世,享年81岁。在他逝世后一个月,相关纪念手册也出版,悼念他。 张素兰文章中也提到,当时,他无法理解名言“权力使人腐化,绝对权力使人绝对腐化”,直到他得知林福寿医生在未经审判下被关押。 她也分享,在光谱行动25周年纪念之前,林福寿医生也曾鼓励她向当权者施压以成立调查委员会,针对废除内安法令和当年被拘留者的境遇进行公开听证。 张素兰说,如果当时林福寿医生的健康情况允许,相信他一定会出席当时的纪念集会,因为废除内安法令一直都是他的政治主张。 滥用内安法令夺走了他20年光阴,让他妻离子散,迫使他的妻子陈宗孟医生独自养育他5个月大的儿子。我们都无法想象这对他和他的家人是多么折磨身心的日子。 她继续呼吁,“我们可以也应该感謝林福寿医生提出废除内安法令和重启调查的诉求。“…

Joseph Nathan: 李显龙正为自己寻找“大出口”?

译自:Joseph Nathan脸书贴文 “大手笔支出”(BIG SPENDING),似乎已成为目前人民行动党(PAP)的新标志。从奢华的200年周年纪念,到更奢华的国庆群众大会晚宴(National Day Rally),他们不再像以前的“护国先贤”那样,认真接触老百姓和谨慎开支人民血汗钱。 诚然,部分金钱已用在回馈建国与立国一代,但与他们的报酬和福利相比,这些“少许的派息”就如同小小的花生一般微乎其微。 尽管有消费税折扣券和水电费回扣,但对比最近的水电费涨幅便可知道,我们需要付出多少,又有多少是可回扣的。尽管降幅缓慢,但我们的购买力确实在下降。为此,贫穷与劳工阶级只会愈来愈穷。故,为什么我们还要选择一个根本不管我们死活的领导人? 即使我们可以原谅人民行动党,未能实现瑞士生活水平的承诺,我不知道他们否也忘了,曾答应新加坡人民,为我们创造一个利益相关者经济的承诺,让每位人民能够从我们富有成功的经济,获取均等的派息。然而,直到今日,我们的前总统陈庆炎已退休卸任都还未兑现,我想问我们还可以问谁关于这“未兑现”的承诺? 尽管多年来他们一直误判,导致他们不得不补上其他政策。但最近,我们几乎可看见每位部长正为自己的政策贴上“实惠”(affordable)的标签,再重新包装成为“成功事迹”,难道这些“实惠”的标签就成为他们的新的护身符吗? 我无法理解的是,为何没有一个第四代政客(the 4G…

If the situation is under control, why do we need so many safeguards for the General Election? 

The date of the General Election has been announced, and the Elections…

自七楼掉到三楼不治身亡 确诊客工死前曾发布遗言录音

一名确诊感染冠状病毒19的印度籍客工于今年4月23日,在邱德拔医院因从高处坠落而身亡,但是在他是之前的一个小时,他曾发送两个录音。 验尸庭今日(9月24日)指出,在其中一个视频中,死者阿拉古(Alagu Periyakaruppan)表示医生说他确实被感染冠病,他不想活了。 据法院所获得的笔录显示,阿拉古说他已准备丧命,没有人需要为他的离去负责。他说,他是在神志清醒的情况下进行录制,并且以他的名字示意。 警方调查显示,现年46岁的阿拉古在意外发生前五天,曾投诉头疼和发烧,而被送入医院,在接受冠病拭子检测后,被送入了邱德拔医院。 法院获悉,4月23日,阿拉古可能移走了病床旁边的窗玻璃,挤过缝隙。一名调查员对验尸官指出,死者很可能将窗口的玻璃放到床旁边的地板上,窗户旁边也留下了黑色的运动鞋。 一名于清晨6时15分巡逻的护士,当时听到阿拉古的隔间传出巨响,以为是病人跌倒在地板上,所以前去查看。 她看到另一名病患刚醒来并坐在床上,但是阿拉古就没在床上。在看到死者留下的物件后,护士赶紧联系同事并搜寻阿拉古,但是一无所获,她还打开窗户查看,却没有发现阿拉古。而拨电联系阿拉古时,却在床上发现他的手机。他们也通知了一名值班的高级医药关系助理(senior patient relation associate)。 该助理于早上7时左右,发现身穿院服的阿拉古,无任何反应地仰卧在三层的露天楼梯,立刻呼吁紧急医疗援助。被发现时,阿拉古已经没有脉搏或呼吸了,嘴角还有已干枯的血迹。…