New York Times reporter appears back at work after controversy

A journalist who leaked data from a Jewish professional's WhatsApp Group that led to members being targeted with hate crimes was back at work last Monday - at The New York Times - after a five-week hiatus.

Melbourne-based journalist Natasha Frost has remained on staff at the publication following the controversy - which saw her download and share 900 pages of content that fell into the hands of pro-Palestinian activists.

Details of many of the group's members were then posted - resulting in online and in-person harassment that escalated to the point where some were forced to leave their homes, reported The New York Post.

When the data breach was first reported, Frost said: "I shared this document with one individual.

"Its subsequent dissemination and misuse happened entirely without my knowledge or consent.

"I was shocked by these events, which put me and many others at terrible risk.

"I deeply regret my decision, and I have no plans to comment further."

The widely reported incident led to public outrage and calls for the journalist to be fired.

This resulted in a national conversation about anti-doxxing legislation occurring in Australia - where many of the WhatsApp group members are located.

Doxxing is the search for and the publishing of private or identifying information about individuals on the internet - typically with malicious intent.

The incident prompted Mark Dreyfus, Australia’s attorney general who is Jewish, to propose a law that would criminalize doxxing.

The New York Times was approached for comment - a spokesman said the publication holds itself to the highest ethical standards.

In a reiterated statement, they added: "It has been brought to our attention that Natasha Frost inappropriately shared information with the subject of a story to assist the individual in a private matter, a clear violation of our ethics.

"This was done without the knowledge or approval of The Times. We have reviewed the matter and taken appropriate action.”

The spokesman refused to elaborate on what 'appropriate action' had been taken by the newspaper.

They said: "We don’t comment on the details of personnel matters."