By Aliza Shah
January 26, 2026 @ 8:00am
Doxxing is the act of publishing private or identifying information about a person with malicious intent. – File pic
KUALA LUMPUR: Shortly after videos of Rex Tan asking a question at a recent forum on Gaza went viral and drew backlash, the journalist’s personal details began surfacing on social media. Tan was not the first person to be doxxed, and he is unlikely to be the last.
The publishing and sharing of his personal details drew concern from media groups, followed by warnings from Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Abdullah and Inspector-General of Police Datuk Seri Mohd Khalid Ismail against doxxing. The New Straits Times takes a closer look at doxxing and what the law says about it.
What is doxxing?
Doxxing is the act of publishing private or identifying information about a person with malicious intent. According to Britannica, the term originates from the phrase “dropping dox”, which refers to the disclosure of another person’s personal information. Such details may include a person’s home address, phone number, workplace details and personal photographs, among others.
Doxxing under the Penal Code
Veteran criminal lawyer Datuk Geethan Ram Vincent said publishing a person’s private information, even if true, can expose the individual responsible to criminal charges and civil suits. He said while Malaysia does not have a specific offence known as doxxing, amendments to the Penal Code in 2025, particularly Sections 507B to 507G, address online harassment and the circulation of a person’s identity information without consent.
He said Sections 507E and 507F specifically cover acts commonly understood as doxxing. “Section 507E is punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. “Section 507F, on the other hand, is punishable by up to one year’s imprisonment, a fine, or both,” he told the New Straits Times.
Geethan said before these amendments came into force last year, such conduct was addressed under Section 499 of the Penal Code. He said the section provides that anyone who, by words, signs or images, makes or publishes statements with the intention to harm, or knowing that it could harm, another person’s reputation, may be held criminally liable. “Thus, where there is an intention to harm a person’s reputation through the publication of personal information, Section 499 provides for criminal liability. “Examples include situations where personal information is shared online with the intention to ridicule someone, damage their reputation or subject them to hatred,” he said.
Cyberlaws apply, too
Geethan said Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) could also be invoked and is often paired with Section 505(b) of the Penal Code, which concerns statements conducing to public mischief.
“Section 233(1)(a) of the CMA provides that any person who makes, creates or initiates the transmission of any comment, request, suggestion or other communication which is obscene, indecent, false, menacing or grossly offensive in character, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person, commits an offence. “If it is established that the act of doxxing is abusive, threatening or harassing, this provision may also apply,” he said.
An offence under Section 233(1)(a) of the CMA carries a penalty of up to five years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to RM1 million, or both. Section 505(b) of the Penal Code provides for a maximum two-year jail term, a fine, or both.
Civil action
Geethan said doxxing may also fall under the tort of harassment, which was recently recognised by the Federal Court in the case of Mohd Ridzwan Abdul Razak v Asmah Mohd Nor, and could be pursued as a civil claim. “The court held that it was appropriate to introduce harassment, including sexual harassment, into Malaysian law as part of broader judicial development. “This recognition allows acts such as doxxing to be interpreted as harassment, particularly where they cause significant distress to the person targeted,” he said. However, he said the affected individual must show that the conduct was intended to intimidate, targeted them specifically, caused fear or distress, and was persistent.
Dangerous to dox
Geethan said doxxing is dangerous, particularly because information that has been made public cannot be fully retracted.
He said this exposes victims to coordinated online harassment, threats, stalking, job loss and, in serious cases, risks to their personal safety or that of their family members.
“It can also undermine due process by subjecting individuals to public condemnation before facts are legally established. “For those who publish such information, doxxing carries real legal consequences. Even where the information is accurate, publishing it with malicious, abusive or harassing intent can result in criminal charges and civil suits,” he said.