Elon Musk's X blocks access links to hacked JD Vance dossier

Elon Musk's social media platform, X (formerly Twitter), has blocked attempts to share a story featuring a leaked opposition research dossier on Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Senator JD Vance.

The document, reportedly obtained by Iranian hackers, was published by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein on his Substack platform.

Following the release, X suspended Klippenstein's account, citing violations of its policies on sharing personal information, commonly referred to as doxxing.

The dossier, which is said to be 271 pages long, allegedly contains detailed opposition research compiled by the Trump campaign, mostly focusing on Vance’s public statements.

Many of these statements, particularly from 2016, include strong criticisms of Donald Trump, Vance’s current running mate.

However, the controversy surrounding the leaked document centers on more sensitive private information it contained—such as parts of Vance’s Social Security number, home addresses in both Cincinnati, Ohio, and Washington, D.C., and other personal details.

X’s Safety account confirmed Klippenstein’s suspension in a post, explaining that the journalist had violated platform rules by posting "unredacted private personal information," specifically citing Vance’s physical addresses and a portion of his Social Security number.

The account emphasized that X does not tolerate the exposure of personal data, as it poses potential safety risks. Musk also responded publicly, describing the document leak as "one of the most egregious, evil doxxing actions" and raising concerns about the security of political figures, especially given recent attempts on Donald Trump’s life.

Musk, who has been outspoken about his support for free speech and transparency on social media, adopted a notably different tone in this case.

He argued that the publication of such sensitive information could endanger individuals, particularly in a tense political climate.

Musk’s comments drew parallels to previous security breaches, including two assassination attempts targeting Trump earlier this summer, further intensifying concerns about the safety risks of releasing private information.

Klippenstein, however, defended his actions in a follow-up post on his newsletter. He argued that he did not post any private information directly on X but simply linked to his article on Substack, which contained the hacked dossier.

He pointed out that much of the personal data included in the document was already accessible through public sources, such as real estate websites and government property records.

"Data brokers profit from selling this information every day, and the media frequently purchases such data for reporting purposes, just like political campaigns do," Klippenstein wrote.

While Klippenstein’s post sparked widespread debate, it is worth noting that other media outlets had previously been approached with the same dossier but chose not to publish it.

Earlier in August, Microsoft reported that Iranian hackers had targeted the Trump campaign, and it was during this period that the dossier was circulated to various journalists.

Most news organizations ultimately declined to cover the leak, with many calling the document a "dud" because it primarily consisted of old, public statements from Vance that had already been widely reported.

Despite the blocked links and Klippenstein’s suspension, the dossier’s contents—particularly Vance’s private information—quickly became a point of controversy.

In his defense, Klippenstein pointed out that information like Vance’s home addresses could easily be found online, using public records such as those from the District of Columbia’s Office of Tax and Revenue and the Hamilton County auditor’s website.

Indeed, searches for both Vance’s D.C. and Ohio addresses remained accessible on those platforms well after the dossier’s release, raising broader questions about how "private" such information really is in the digital age.

The incident also sheds light on the increasingly complicated relationship between tech platforms, freedom of information, and privacy in the digital age.

X’s decision to block Klippenstein’s links and suspend his account sparked renewed debate over content moderation, with some arguing that the platform is selectively enforcing its rules.

This isn’t the first time X, under Musk’s ownership, has faced scrutiny for how it handles hacked materials and private information.

In fact, Musk himself was highly critical of Twitter’s former leadership for its handling of the 2020 Hunter Biden laptop story, which involved blocking the sharing of hacked emails and private data.

At the time, Musk called Twitter’s decision to suppress the Hunter Biden story "incredibly inappropriate" and launched the so-called "Twitter Files" to uncover what he described as government-directed censorship of the platform.

However, Musk’s apparent shift in tone regarding hacked materials and privacy has raised eyebrows. Critics argue that his condemnation of Klippenstein’s publication of the Vance dossier contradicts his earlier calls for transparency and opposition to censorship.

While Musk previously described himself as a "free speech absolutist," his stance on how platforms should handle sensitive information seems to have evolved, especially when it comes to the security risks involved in sharing personal data.

Musk is set to implement a new policy that will allow users who have been blocked to view but not interact with their public posts which has raised concerns over potential harassment and privacy violations .

The controversy comes at a time when the US lacks comprehensive digital privacy laws to protect individuals from having their personal information exposed online.

While several lawmakers have introduced bills aimed at regulating data brokers and enforcing digital privacy standards, progress has been slow.

Notably, Senator JD Vance, whose personal information was exposed in the hacked dossier, has yet to sign on as a co-sponsor to any of these proposed privacy laws.

As the debate over digital privacy, free speech, and platform responsibility continues, this incident raises broader questions about the role of social media companies in policing content and protecting sensitive information in the politically charged environment of the 2024 election.

For now, X’s actions signal a more cautious approach to dealing with hacked materials and personal data, even as questions about Musk’s consistency on these issues linger.