Is unmasking an anonymous author addressed by Halacha?

Question

If an individual writes a document for public consumption anonymously or pseudonymously and either explicitly or presumably desires to remain anonymous, is there a Halachic issue with publicly unmasking the author, or with publicly assembling information about the author toward the goal of unmasking them?

This activity ("doxing," in Internet slang) is practiced in various Internet forums, and the ethics thereof are a subject of controversy. It's potentially relevant on a forum like this one that values contributions from pseudonymous authors.

If sources address this activity, do they distinguish regarding the nature of the material that was anonymously authored - whether it was Torah, objectionable, controversial, etc.?

Related: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/6534/false-portrayal-on-an-anonymous-qa-site http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/10693/loshon-hara-against-an-online-identity http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/22897/who-wrote-tohar-hayichud — Isaac Moses, Jan 03 '13 at 16:51
@IsaacMoses Are you encouraging me edit ba's comment at the end of my post into my post? — Double AA, Jan 06 '13 at 04:21
@DoubleAA You could do so (and also your Aruch Hashulchan citation), or someone could post a separate answer. Anyway, what, you look down at the potential for a rep bonus now that you're a mod? :) — Isaac Moses, Jan 06 '13 at 04:25
@IsaacMoses No but if you hadn't seen it and would prefer to ask me to do so from there (and I'll likely comply) I might be willing to refund your 50 points which would have been offered in error. More than one of us would be happy to see you reach 20k and giving me bounties wouldn't be helping. — Double AA, Jan 06 '13 at 04:26
@DoubleAA My hopes are not so circumscribed. Maybe a contemporary posek has addressed this question, or something like it, directly. I don't know. — Isaac Moses, Jan 06 '13 at 04:28
@ShmuelBrin Is that by עפשטיין, ברוך? I just searched the volumes by him on HebrewBooks under that title for "צלפחד" and came up empty. — Isaac Moses, Jan 06 '13 at 04:46
A related post on Hirhurim: http://torahmusings.com/2013/02/keeping-secrets/ — b a, Feb 05 '13 at 07:08
@ShmuelBrin, Answers given here may be relevant to that case. Like any specific case, though, the ruling for it in particular may depend on its particular characteristics. (For example, if we assume for argument's sake that doxing is forbidden in general for exactly one reason - Lashon Hara, then doxing in some particular cases may then be permitted leto'elet. Evaluating to'elet, of course, is extremely situation-dependent.) — Isaac Moses, Apr 26 '13 at 17:40

score 8 · Answer 1 · answered Jan 03 '13 at 17:08

8

The Talmud (Yoma 4b) relates:

ויקרא אל משה וידבר למה הקדים קריאה לדיבור? לימדה תורה דרך ארץ, שלא יאמר אדם דבר לחבירו אלא אם כן קורהו. מסייע ליה לרבי חנינא, דאמר רבי חנינא: לא יאמר אדם דבר לחבירו אלא אם כן קורהו. לאמר אמר רבי (מוסיא בר בריה דרבי מסיא משמיה דרבי מוסיא) +מסורת הש"ס: [מנסיא]+ רבה: מניין לאומר דבר לחבירו שהוא בבל יאמר, עד שיאמר לו לך אמור - שנאמר +ויקרא א+ וידבר ה' אליו מאהל מועד לאמר.‏
And the Lord called unto Moses, and spoke unto him; why does Scripture mention the call before the speech? — The Torah teaches us good manners: a man should not address his neighbour without having first called him. This supports the view of R. Hanina, for R. Hanina said: No man shall speak to his neighbour unless he calls him first to speak to him. Rabbah said: Whence do we know that if a man had said something to his neighbour the latter must not spread the news without the informant's telling him ‘Go and say it’? From the scriptural text: The Lord spoke to him out of the tent of meeting, lemor [saying] . (Translation from Soncino)

If one is forbidden to say over something until one knows for sure that he can, all the more so one should be forbidden to do so if he knows he cannot.

answered Jan 03 '13 at 17:08

Double AA

98,894
6
250
713

Doesn't this just raise the question of whether or not one has a halachic right to anonymity in the first place? – yoel Jan 03 '13 at 17:14
2

Would there not be a difference between repeating something told in confidence and revealing who wrote something? – Gershon Gold Jan 03 '13 at 17:16
1

@GershonGold Anyone who knows in order to revel it has effectively been told not to repeat it because the author told everyone not to repeat it. – Double AA Jan 03 '13 at 17:16
@yoel I'm not sure I follow. Why not? If I tell you something and tell you not to pass it on you can't. – Double AA Jan 03 '13 at 17:17
1

@yoel, this answer seems to be treating identity as a particular kind of confidential information rather than as protected by some special "right." – Isaac Moses Jan 03 '13 at 17:18
2

If I was not told, however I figured it out would that not be different? – Gershon Gold Jan 03 '13 at 17:19
1

@GershonGold, it's not clear in the language of this Gemara whether the case is one where the first person said not to repeat the information or one where the first person merely hasn't yet explicitly given permission to do so. I wonder if it's interpreted in later Halachic sources. – Isaac Moses Jan 03 '13 at 17:21
1

@GershonGold When he announces it is anonymous he is telling everyone including you that he doesn't want it to be told. – Double AA Jan 03 '13 at 17:21
@IsaacMoses Hence my Kol vaHomer at the end. It sounds to me like the gemara is saying you can't pass it on in an ambiguous case until you clarify. – Double AA Jan 03 '13 at 17:22
Also the Gemara is talking about saying over what someone said without his permission, not talking about revealing who said something anonymously. – Gershon Gold Jan 03 '13 at 17:26
@DoubleAA I understand, as per Isaac Moses' explication and the subsequent discussion here - we're presuming a case where I was told not to repeat this information, not applying this source to all cases of anonymity. – yoel Jan 03 '13 at 17:31
@GershonGold You have repeated the same point many times, so I will repeat my response. Something said intentionally anonymously includes within it information about who said it and a request that such information not be told over. Anyone who hears something said intentionally anonymously has also heard the request to not tell over the identity of the speaker. If that person subsequently finds out who the speaker is, then the request to not reveal that information remains in place. – Double AA Jan 03 '13 at 17:33
Also would there be a difference after the death of the author? – Gershon Gold Jan 03 '13 at 17:33
When a person releases a document anonymously he knows that people are interested in figuring out who wrote this. If someone can figure out who wrote it, then he did not completely protect himself. – Gershon Gold Jan 03 '13 at 17:44
@GershonGold Did not completely protect himself doesn't mean he wants it known and requests that people do so. No one can completely protect themself. He may know people will try but he still requests they don't. – Double AA Jan 03 '13 at 17:45
1

For instance, the person who downvoted this post never told me s/he doesn't want his/her identity known. But if I found out somehow, would it be ok for me to publicize that information? – Double AA Jan 03 '13 at 17:46
The Tosefta offers authors' names for laws that are anonymous in the Mishna. – Gershon Gold Jan 03 '13 at 18:00
@GershonGold Those laws in the Mishna were not left that way in order to hide the author's name because he didn't want it revealed. – Double AA Jan 03 '13 at 18:02
Then why were they left anonymous? – Gershon Gold Jan 03 '13 at 18:03
1

@GershonGold That is an interesting side question, and it probably is half historical (whose notes Rebbe used when compiling) and half intentional on Rebbe's part to indicate majority positions. But it's pretty clear (to me at least) that Rebbi Meir wasn't hiding his identity when he made rulings that were incorporated Stam into the Mishna. – Double AA Jan 03 '13 at 18:07
1

-1. The op asked for halachic sources. – Jan 03 '13 at 20:25
@nikmasi You don't think the Talmud is a halachik source? Do you prefer the Aruch Hashulchan OC 156? – Double AA Jan 03 '13 at 20:29
@DoubleAA that's much better. I would suggest editing that into the answer – Jan 03 '13 at 20:44
For halachic sources, you can also look in Chafetz Chayim part 1 chapter 2: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49098&pgnum=66 – b a Jan 04 '13 at 01:33
@doubleAA so, if I understood, you could not "spread" something, an information if you were told not to suppose you were not acknowledged of the importance that a certain information has, plus, you never knew that it could not be brought to light. Even more, someone's identity, true identity still remains unknown. Is that still wrong? – Charlie May 03 '13 at 21:35

score 4 · Answer 2 · edited Jun 16 '20 at 10:41

According to an article on "Internet Privacy in Halacha" by R' Asher Meir in the Winter 2014 issue of Jewish Action, it is forbidden to publicize someone's secret identity.

R' Meir says that revealing someone else's private information violates the prohibition in Vayikra 19:16:

... לֹא תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל בְּעַמֶּיךָ

You shall not go around as a gossipmonger amidst your people.

He notes that Rashi, there, says that the word "רָכִיל," "gossipmonger," is etymologically related to the verb "לְרַגֵּל," "to spy," and that this verse prohibits spying to obtain private information and then going around telling it to people. According to R' Meir, revealing private information about people online is included in the prohibition, and "the only real difference between now and the time of Matan Torah is that the potential for harm is multiplied when gossip reaches the Internet, where it can easily 'go viral.'"

R' Meir goes on to provide some intriguingly-applied sources to demonstrate that even digging up someone's private information without disclosing it to others is "halachically questionable." I recommend taking a look at the whole article for his complete treatment.

Is unmasking an anonymous author addressed by Halacha?

2 Answers2

Linked