Doxing: how a darknet shop created the blackmail as a service business model

Abstract

Purpose

The objective of this paper is to explore the development of the Blackmail-as-a-Service business model within the Digital Thrift Shop. This service model involves the sale of doxing files to customers, as well as the removal of the content from the shop and its dissemination to victims or individuals closely connected to them.

Design/methodology/approach

To access the Digital Thrift shop, this study relies on the Tor browser and a darknet indexing site. The authors then use an application to collect and store the web pages as PDFs. Finally, content analysis is performed on these PDFs to understand the Blackmail-as-a-Service business model developed by the Digital Thrift.

Findings

The doxing data available on the Digital Thrift is primarily targeted toward women. Digital Thrift has also established a way to value the purchase, sale and the removal of blackmail data. The presence of Blackmail-as-a-Service on darknet sites poses unique challenges for criminal justice agencies in terms of jurisdiction, due to the lack of harmonized laws and the obstacles involved in taking down content from darknet sites. Finally, the use of a service model for blackmail allows criminals without technical skills to engage in cyber-victimization using blackmail.

Originality/value

Research into Blackmail-as-a-Service from boutique providers has not been conducted. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is one of the first study seeking to understand the Blackmail-as-a-Service business model on the darknet when used to target adults. This study presents evidence of a lack of connection between the buyers of the compromising material and the potential victim, challenging preconceived notions about image-based sexual abuse and its connection to individuals involved in interpersonal relationships.

Citation

Logie, K. and Maras, M.-H. (2024), "Doxing: how a darknet shop created the blackmail as a service business model", Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 348-362. https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-04-2024-0894