MARRIED & 'ECHEATING': A DREADFUL ALLIANCE

MARRIED & 'ECHEATING': A DREADFUL ALLIANCE
In Homer’s Odyssey (a Greek Myth) sailors were lured to their death by Sirens, mythological temptresses who sang seductive songs. Sailors called Argonauts escaped the songs, because of the great musician Orpheus. He played his lyre so beautifully, that it drowned out the songs from the Sirens. His decisive deed saved the crew from total devastation.

Today’s version of this enticement is “ECheating” - a phrase I’ve coined. “ECheating” enchants new scalawags to an internet isle. Rather than sail, today’s Argonauts surf to this island. In great numbers surfers are defying danger and destruction for a chance encounter - a rendezvous.

Here’s one such tale:
Martin leaves mornings for work before rush hour. He hates the wasted time or so he’s been coached to tell Michelle, his unwitting wife. She cleans up breakfast dishes before heading off to work an hour later. Michelle loves Martin and thinks of him throughout the day. She faithfully trusts him.

Martin is the first at work. He logs onto the internet using his personal laptop to avoid detection and violation of company policy. He follows these tips from his team of “eCheating” consultants. Martin receives many hits just a few days after setting up his “eCheating” membership profile. He only has seconds to wait. With his coffee still steaming, seventeen women want to hear from him. Several want dialogue, others want extra. Nervously rolling his wedding band around his finger Martin is tempted to read them all. He’s overcome will excitement, finally the monotony is gone! (That’s the Siren’s seductive song.)

“Your name is Cindy; you live in Seattle and need to spice up your marriage. This is your first time too? You enjoy things that might make some blush……Oh no, what am I doing?”

Martin says under his breath. With a quick click of the mouse Martin’s off the net - escaping what seemed like a crime he’s committed. His heart beat races. Martin is both scared and energized. For now signing off is the right thing. “That’s it, no more,” Martin says to himself. “Well at least they helped me cover my tracks. Michelle will never know I signed up.”

Almost coincidentally, Martin’s boss passes the cubicle with a routine welcome. “Oh not bad Paul, thanks for asking… Man that was close! I can’t believe what I’m doing. I’m married; what am I crazy; I’ve got so much to lose. What would the kids do if they found out?” Martin asks himself.

Unfortunately, Martin yields to his desires and a rendezvous devised. His next business trip provides the perfect alibi. He will meet his chosen “eCheater” at a nearby convention hotel. Michelle remains clueless.

But wait, “eCheating” serves a compelling purpose, true? Just listen to one slogan “When Monogamy becomes Monotony.” This catchphrase conjures up a sense of justification or reason. It includes not just a sex theme, but a sense of fellowship.

Does marriage end when it’s unexciting?

Is in fact adultery the answer?

These new dreadful alliances would lead you to believe it is!

I am deeply troubled these “eCheating” businesses are flourishing! Isn’t it time we put an end to them? How? What can YOU do about them?

Be proactive.

Get informed.

Search adultery keywords for banner ads.

Learn these “ECheating” sites by name.

Search computer history for visits to them.

Don't get another computer or laptop - install a Keylogger on THEIR computer.

Install spy ware on home PC – yours of course.

Keep an eye on credit cards statements.

Monitor computer usage.

Paying attention to your relationship.

Fight for your marriage and spouse – seek help.

Don’t use God or the Bible as a weapon in confrontations.

Therapy sessions don’t work if you are forcing them.

Don’t require your spouse to go to therapy – it will deliberately fail after a few sessions and be used against you.

Safeguard your homes and kids from the internet.

Make time to watch the eHighway carefully for those hazardous detours.

Communicate better.

Recognize the signs of adultery early on.

If you don’t know them, I can help you.

You are not alone… let’s break these alliances together.

To receive a free special report entitled Emergency Infidelity Survival Plan—Top Fifteen Steps to Implement Right Now! send an e-mail to mitchellreports@bellsouth.net, with “Emergency Plan” in the subject line. We will respect your privacy.

MARRIED & 'ECHEATING': A DREADFUL ALLIANCE

MARRIED & 'ECHEATING': A DREADFUL ALLIANCE
In Homer’s Odyssey (a Greek Myth) sailors were lured to their death by Sirens, mythological temptresses who sang seductive songs. Sailors called Argonauts escaped the songs, because of the great musician Orpheus. He played his lyre so beautifully, that it drowned out the songs from the Sirens. His decisive deed saved the crew from total devastation.

Today’s version of this enticement is “ECheating” - a phrase I’ve coined. “ECheating” enchants new scalawags to an internet isle. Rather than sail, today’s Argonauts surf to this island. In great numbers surfers are defying danger and destruction for a chance encounter - a rendezvous.

Here’s one such tale:
Martin leaves mornings for work before rush hour. He hates the wasted time or so he’s been coached to tell Michelle, his unwitting wife. She cleans up breakfast dishes before heading off to work an hour later. Michelle loves Martin and thinks of him throughout the day. She faithfully trusts him.

Martin is the first at work. He logs onto the internet using his personal laptop to avoid detection and violation of company policy. He follows these tips from his team of “eCheating” consultants. Martin receives many hits just a few days after setting up his “eCheating” membership profile. He only has seconds to wait. With his coffee still steaming, seventeen women want to hear from him. Several want dialogue, others want extra. Nervously rolling his wedding band around his finger Martin is tempted to read them all. He’s overcome will excitement, finally the monotony is gone! (That’s the Siren’s seductive song.)

“Your name is Cindy; you live in Seattle and need to spice up your marriage. This is your first time too? You enjoy things that might make some blush……Oh no, what am I doing?”

Martin says under his breath. With a quick click of the mouse Martin’s off the net - escaping what seemed like a crime he’s committed. His heart beat races. Martin is both scared and energized. For now signing off is the right thing. “That’s it, no more,” Martin says to himself. “Well at least they helped me cover my tracks. Michelle will never know I signed up.”

Almost coincidentally, Martin’s boss passes the cubicle with a routine welcome. “Oh not bad Paul, thanks for asking… Man that was close! I can’t believe what I’m doing. I’m married; what am I crazy; I’ve got so much to lose. What would the kids do if they found out?” Martin asks himself.

Unfortunately, Martin yields to his desires and a rendezvous devised. His next business trip provides the perfect alibi. He will meet his chosen “eCheater” at a nearby convention hotel. Michelle remains clueless.

But wait, “eCheating” serves a compelling purpose, true? Just listen to one slogan “When Monogamy becomes Monotony.” This catchphrase conjures up a sense of justification or reason. It includes not just a sex theme, but a sense of fellowship.

Does marriage end when it’s unexciting?

Is in fact adultery the answer?

These new dreadful alliances would lead you to believe it is!

I am deeply troubled these “eCheating” businesses are flourishing! Isn’t it time we put an end to them? How? What can YOU do about them?

Be proactive.

Get informed.

Search adultery keywords for banner ads.

Learn these “ECheating” sites by name.

Search computer history for visits to them.

Don't get another computer or laptop - install a Keylogger on THEIR computer.

Install spy ware on home PC – yours of course.

Keep an eye on credit cards statements.

Monitor computer usage.

Paying attention to your relationship.

Fight for your marriage and spouse – seek help.

Don’t use God or the Bible as a weapon in confrontations.

Therapy sessions don’t work if you are forcing them.

Don’t require your spouse to go to therapy – it will deliberately fail after a few sessions and be used against you.

Safeguard your homes and kids from the internet.

Make time to watch the eHighway carefully for those hazardous detours.

Communicate better.

Recognize the signs of adultery early on.

If you don’t know them, I can help you.

You are not alone… let’s break these alliances together.

To receive a free special report entitled Emergency Infidelity Survival Plan—Top Fifteen Steps to Implement Right Now! send an e-mail to mitchellreports@bellsouth.net, with “Emergency Plan” in the subject line. We will respect your privacy.

Online liars' noses don't grow, but their wordiness does, Cornell researchers find

How to spot an online fibber
REPOSTING THIS IN HONOR OF SELF-INVOLVED BLABBERS - CYBERPATHS: DOUGLAS BECKSTEAD AND NATHAN E.B. THOMAS, JR. HONORABLE MENTION: self-styled politic pundit: JEFF DUNETZ aka Yid With Lid

(ITHACA, N.Y.) How to spot an online fibber: They talk too much, use more pronouns about others and use more terms about the senses, such as "see," "hear" and "feel," than people telling the truth, according to a new study by Cornell University communication experts.

"Our study suggests that people who are lying to another person in a chat room or in instant messaging use approximately one-third more words, probably in their attempt to construct a more cohesive and detailed story in order to seem believable," says Jeff Hancock, assistant professor of communication in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS) at Cornell.

"Perhaps more important is the finding that people being lied to also change the way they talk, even though they don't explicitly know they are being lied to," says Hancock. He found that targets of lies on the Web ask more questions and also use more words than when they are being told the truth. Hancock says that this may be another reason for the extra words: targets of deception may become skeptical and ask more questions than those receiving truthful information.

The study is published in the Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (2004). It was first presented at the 2004 annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society in Chicago.

Other studies have shown that liars use fewer words, but these studies examined deceptive monologues, not a conversation with a partner, and did not look at online communications, which, because they are written, give people more time to prepare their responses. Hancock's finding that liars use more pronouns about others ("he," "she," "they") than truthful communicators is consistent with other research and is probably liars' attempts to distance themselves from their deception and to deflect the focus.

Hancock's co-authors are Lauren E. Curry '04 (now at Fordham Law School) and Saurabh Goorha, M.S. '04 (now in Cornell's S.C. Johnson Graduate School of Management), and collaborator Michael T. Woodworth at Okanagan University College, British Columbia. The researchers studied 66 people and paired them up for a conversation via an instant-messaging interface on computers. Participants were asked to discuss five assigned topics about themselves; one of each pair was randomly assigned to fabricate stories in two topics and was given examples about the kinds of lies to tell. They had five minutes to prepare.

Although more research is needed to observe deceptive face-to-face conversations to see what happens when nonverbal cues, such as facial expressions, are available, Hancock says that text-based communication is becoming increasingly ubiquitous. His findings suggest that researchers might be able to develop techniques to identify online communication that appears to be deceptive.

~~~~~
The study was supported in part by the Department of Communication at Cornell and a federal Hatch Grant.

Related World Wide Web sites: The following sites provide additional information on this news release. Some might not be part of the Cornell University community, and Cornell has no control over their content or availability.

Jeff Hancock

(Sounds a LOT like Ed Hicks, Dan Jacoby and Gareth Rodger, too!)

Online liars' noses don't grow, but their wordiness does, Cornell researchers find

How to spot an online fibber
REPOSTING THIS IN HONOR OF SELF-INVOLVED BLABBERS - CYBERPATHS: DOUGLAS BECKSTEAD AND NATHAN E.B. THOMAS, JR. HONORABLE MENTION: self-styled politic pundit: JEFF DUNETZ aka Yid With Lid

(ITHACA, N.Y.) How to spot an online fibber: They talk too much, use more pronouns about others and use more terms about the senses, such as "see," "hear" and "feel," than people telling the truth, according to a new study by Cornell University communication experts.

"Our study suggests that people who are lying to another person in a chat room or in instant messaging use approximately one-third more words, probably in their attempt to construct a more cohesive and detailed story in order to seem believable," says Jeff Hancock, assistant professor of communication in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS) at Cornell.

"Perhaps more important is the finding that people being lied to also change the way they talk, even though they don't explicitly know they are being lied to," says Hancock. He found that targets of lies on the Web ask more questions and also use more words than when they are being told the truth. Hancock says that this may be another reason for the extra words: targets of deception may become skeptical and ask more questions than those receiving truthful information.

The study is published in the Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (2004). It was first presented at the 2004 annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society in Chicago.

Other studies have shown that liars use fewer words, but these studies examined deceptive monologues, not a conversation with a partner, and did not look at online communications, which, because they are written, give people more time to prepare their responses. Hancock's finding that liars use more pronouns about others ("he," "she," "they") than truthful communicators is consistent with other research and is probably liars' attempts to distance themselves from their deception and to deflect the focus.

Hancock's co-authors are Lauren E. Curry '04 (now at Fordham Law School) and Saurabh Goorha, M.S. '04 (now in Cornell's S.C. Johnson Graduate School of Management), and collaborator Michael T. Woodworth at Okanagan University College, British Columbia. The researchers studied 66 people and paired them up for a conversation via an instant-messaging interface on computers. Participants were asked to discuss five assigned topics about themselves; one of each pair was randomly assigned to fabricate stories in two topics and was given examples about the kinds of lies to tell. They had five minutes to prepare.

Although more research is needed to observe deceptive face-to-face conversations to see what happens when nonverbal cues, such as facial expressions, are available, Hancock says that text-based communication is becoming increasingly ubiquitous. His findings suggest that researchers might be able to develop techniques to identify online communication that appears to be deceptive.

~~~~~
The study was supported in part by the Department of Communication at Cornell and a federal Hatch Grant.

Related World Wide Web sites: The following sites provide additional information on this news release. Some might not be part of the Cornell University community, and Cornell has no control over their content or availability.

Jeff Hancock

(Sounds a LOT like Ed Hicks, Dan Jacoby and Gareth Rodger, too!)

Victims & Abusers: Both Use Technology

By Shannon Proudfoot

Technology has moved to the front lines in the fight against domestic violence.

Advocacy organizations are using increasingly sophisticated high-tech solutions in their efforts to keep victims safe, even as they struggle to keep pace with abusers using technology to control and threaten their victims.

"Worldwide, it's an epidemic," says Alexis A. Moore, an abuse survivor and founder of the California-based victim advocacy group Survivors in Action.

"Perpetrators are changing their information and their manoeuvres. Their road map changes by the hour, where our training and education and awareness programs happen on a yearly basis, if that. Laws take years to develop."

GPS devices on vehicles or cellphones can be used to track a victim's movement without their knowledge and abusers can hack into their victim's online accounts to track e-mails or instant-messages, says Cynthia Fraser, a technology safety specialist with the Washington-based National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV).

Advocates first started hearing about high-tech abuse a decade ago, she says, but it's becoming a bigger problem because the technology is so widely and cheaply available. Even abusers who are not tech-savvy can learn how to stalk their partner with the help of the Internet, Fraser says.

The consequences of leaving a digital trail can be deadly. Fraser recalls one case where an abused woman wrote an e-mail about her plans to leave but didn't empty her computer trash bin after deleting the message. Her abuser found the message and killed her.

Fraser works with Safety Net, a project that focuses on technology and domestic abuse, and she's conducted training in Canada with law enforcement, Crown attorneys and shelter workers. Like other advocates, she's careful about how much detail she provides on this type of abuse and efforts to counter it because she doesn't want to "educate abusers."

"Technology has just added another layer to the complexities of women's safety," says Erin Lee-Todd, executive director of Lanark County Interval House, a shelter near Ottawa. "We just have to move with the times."

In Canada, most shelter websites prominently display warnings to victims that their online activities may be monitored, and many have escape buttons that switch to an innocuous website if someone walks into the room. Telecommunications companies have donated new cellphones and airtime to victims who fear their abusers may be tracking their communication or whereabouts with their regular phone.

E-Services, an online counselling program that allows shelters to provide live chat help to clients, is currently being rolled out across Canada by Shelternet, a Toronto-based organization that provides online resources to shelters and abuse victims.

Like those of many advocacy groups, the E-Services website has detailed instructions for clearing browser histories to help victims cover their online tracks, says project manager Tammy Falovo. But the widespread availability of spyware programs that can grab regular screen shots or log every keystroke on a computer and send the information to an abuser means that's no longer enough, she says.

"What we try to do is remind people that no medium is 100 per cent safe," Falovo says.

Many organizations now advise victims to seek help only on computers located in a safe place such as a public library or workplace, and to create a safe e-mail address they only use on computers the abuser has no access to.

The goal is to educate abused women and their children about the high-tech risks without frightening them even more, says Lee-Todd. But while the methods of abuse and stalking may be changing, she says the underlying motivation remains the same.

"The issues are still about power and control, and they're still rooted in that," she says. "Technology has afforded the opportunity to do that more strategically and often in a more sophisticated way."

For Moore, even a professional background as a high-tech investigator didn't protect her when she left an abusive partner several years ago. He began a campaign of "cyberstalking" that involved cancelling her credit cards, emptying her bank account and destroying her credit rating, she says, and like most intimate partners, he knew all the personal information and passwords that allowed him to do so.

Now a cyberstalking expert and founder of the California-based victim advocacy group Survivors in Action, Moore says some abusers will open e-mail accounts and impersonate their victims to seek information or send out naked photos — real or faked — to embarrass them.

"You can't believe what some of them do," she says.*

ARTICLE HERE

(*EOPC can believe it... )

Victims & Abusers: Both Use Technology

By Shannon Proudfoot

Technology has moved to the front lines in the fight against domestic violence.

Advocacy organizations are using increasingly sophisticated high-tech solutions in their efforts to keep victims safe, even as they struggle to keep pace with abusers using technology to control and threaten their victims.

"Worldwide, it's an epidemic," says Alexis A. Moore, an abuse survivor and founder of the California-based victim advocacy group Survivors in Action.

"Perpetrators are changing their information and their manoeuvres. Their road map changes by the hour, where our training and education and awareness programs happen on a yearly basis, if that. Laws take years to develop."

GPS devices on vehicles or cellphones can be used to track a victim's movement without their knowledge and abusers can hack into their victim's online accounts to track e-mails or instant-messages, says Cynthia Fraser, a technology safety specialist with the Washington-based National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV).

Advocates first started hearing about high-tech abuse a decade ago, she says, but it's becoming a bigger problem because the technology is so widely and cheaply available. Even abusers who are not tech-savvy can learn how to stalk their partner with the help of the Internet, Fraser says.

The consequences of leaving a digital trail can be deadly. Fraser recalls one case where an abused woman wrote an e-mail about her plans to leave but didn't empty her computer trash bin after deleting the message. Her abuser found the message and killed her.

Fraser works with Safety Net, a project that focuses on technology and domestic abuse, and she's conducted training in Canada with law enforcement, Crown attorneys and shelter workers. Like other advocates, she's careful about how much detail she provides on this type of abuse and efforts to counter it because she doesn't want to "educate abusers."

"Technology has just added another layer to the complexities of women's safety," says Erin Lee-Todd, executive director of Lanark County Interval House, a shelter near Ottawa. "We just have to move with the times."

In Canada, most shelter websites prominently display warnings to victims that their online activities may be monitored, and many have escape buttons that switch to an innocuous website if someone walks into the room. Telecommunications companies have donated new cellphones and airtime to victims who fear their abusers may be tracking their communication or whereabouts with their regular phone.

E-Services, an online counselling program that allows shelters to provide live chat help to clients, is currently being rolled out across Canada by Shelternet, a Toronto-based organization that provides online resources to shelters and abuse victims.

Like those of many advocacy groups, the E-Services website has detailed instructions for clearing browser histories to help victims cover their online tracks, says project manager Tammy Falovo. But the widespread availability of spyware programs that can grab regular screen shots or log every keystroke on a computer and send the information to an abuser means that's no longer enough, she says.

"What we try to do is remind people that no medium is 100 per cent safe," Falovo says.

Many organizations now advise victims to seek help only on computers located in a safe place such as a public library or workplace, and to create a safe e-mail address they only use on computers the abuser has no access to.

The goal is to educate abused women and their children about the high-tech risks without frightening them even more, says Lee-Todd. But while the methods of abuse and stalking may be changing, she says the underlying motivation remains the same.

"The issues are still about power and control, and they're still rooted in that," she says. "Technology has afforded the opportunity to do that more strategically and often in a more sophisticated way."

For Moore, even a professional background as a high-tech investigator didn't protect her when she left an abusive partner several years ago. He began a campaign of "cyberstalking" that involved cancelling her credit cards, emptying her bank account and destroying her credit rating, she says, and like most intimate partners, he knew all the personal information and passwords that allowed him to do so.

Now a cyberstalking expert and founder of the California-based victim advocacy group Survivors in Action, Moore says some abusers will open e-mail accounts and impersonate their victims to seek information or send out naked photos — real or faked — to embarrass them.

"You can't believe what some of them do," she says.*

ARTICLE HERE

(*EOPC can believe it... )

INFIDELITY ON THE INTERNET

Virtual Relationships and Real Betrayal

by Marlene M. Maheu, Rona Subotnik

From Publishers Weekly
"Cybering," slang for virtual sex online, appears to be the dark secret of the Internet, and it is creating havoc in the real world of relationships. The ease with which people can find partners for sex a quick computer search can yield hundreds of opportunities, in chat rooms or on porn sites and the apparent safety of anonymous encounters has tempted huge numbers of people to cheat on their mates.

According to mental health professionals Maheu and Subotnik (Surviving Infidelity), a large-scale study in 2000 reported that an estimated 20% of Internet users engage in online sexual activity, and two-thirds of them are married or in a committed relationship. The many cybersex practitioners given voice here demonstrate wide-ranging viewpoints about what constitutes infidelity. People cruise cyberspace for brief sex with strangers or for lengthy affairs.

Some believe cybersex is a harmless fantasy, while others acknowledge the harmful consequences that discovery brings and express profound regret. Testimonies of cybering adventures solicited through a self-help Web site elucidate the different motivations that drive people to have cybersex and the obsessive-compulsive behavior that can develop among habitual users.

Expressing zero tolerance for people who minimize the consequences of cyberinfidelity, the authors present a program for kicking the habit and rebuilding a damaged relationship after an online romance has been revealed. Although they allow for the possibility that in a climate of openness and honesty, extramarital cybering might be a nonthreatening, permissible form of Internet recreation, their argument that cyber-infidelity is often damaging and addictive is convincing.

Forecast: If cybering is as widespread as the authors suggest, the audience for this book could be sizable. But do cheaters actually purchase books on cheating?

SOURCE

INFIDELITY ON THE INTERNET

Virtual Relationships and Real Betrayal

by Marlene M. Maheu, Rona Subotnik

From Publishers Weekly
"Cybering," slang for virtual sex online, appears to be the dark secret of the Internet, and it is creating havoc in the real world of relationships. The ease with which people can find partners for sex a quick computer search can yield hundreds of opportunities, in chat rooms or on porn sites and the apparent safety of anonymous encounters has tempted huge numbers of people to cheat on their mates.

According to mental health professionals Maheu and Subotnik (Surviving Infidelity), a large-scale study in 2000 reported that an estimated 20% of Internet users engage in online sexual activity, and two-thirds of them are married or in a committed relationship. The many cybersex practitioners given voice here demonstrate wide-ranging viewpoints about what constitutes infidelity. People cruise cyberspace for brief sex with strangers or for lengthy affairs.

Some believe cybersex is a harmless fantasy, while others acknowledge the harmful consequences that discovery brings and express profound regret. Testimonies of cybering adventures solicited through a self-help Web site elucidate the different motivations that drive people to have cybersex and the obsessive-compulsive behavior that can develop among habitual users.

Expressing zero tolerance for people who minimize the consequences of cyberinfidelity, the authors present a program for kicking the habit and rebuilding a damaged relationship after an online romance has been revealed. Although they allow for the possibility that in a climate of openness and honesty, extramarital cybering might be a nonthreatening, permissible form of Internet recreation, their argument that cyber-infidelity is often damaging and addictive is convincing.

Forecast: If cybering is as widespread as the authors suggest, the audience for this book could be sizable. But do cheaters actually purchase books on cheating?

SOURCE

Exposure: Is it an Intervention? or Revenge?

Mistaken by a cyberpath as an attack.


A predator/ narcissistic cyberpath is complicated but simultaneously transparent when confronted with exposure of their motives.

They are always about the next fix, so if a situation becomes difficult and they find that it is not making them feel good they will blame shift and start looking for the next target. They can never admit and are incapable of realizing that 110% they did it to themselves!

...it was never, ever about you. It was always about them. All about their relentless and all-consuming pursuit of the nectar of supply. You simply made yourself available for feeding upon. You were an means to an end. Nothing more. Yeah, that smarts.

...They don't see you. It's not about you. It will never be about you. You didn't exist for them as a fully feeling and sentient human being. They can not properly assess your value as a person. You are only as good as the nectar of attention you can give them. No matter how great the quality, at some point they get bored. All you'll get for thanks is a door in your face and a big kiss off. They are nothing more than big children who play with their toy for days, weeks, months. Then one day they lose all interest in the toy and kick it aside for another... you've been drastically and catastrophically demoted. All in a moment, a twinkling of the narcissist's eye.

They've moved on to another source and leave you to the licking of your wounds. Lick your wounds, but don't work on that too long. You have reason to be thankful. You are no longer being used. You are no longer someone's sycophant, slave or fall-back supply source. Been dumped by a narcissist? Thank the God in Heaven for your new lease on life and resolve to not again be taken in by a parasitic narcissist.

They are not worth the tears you're shedding for them. You are weeping over the relationship you thought you had, but never did. - SOURCE

Next time they will be more careful not to get caught or figured out. And the next target gets to be on the receiving end of the heightened game.

But what if they have been EXPOSED?

The script has to change now. What does that mean?

Effort. Now they have to work harder to keep up the lie. Reputation, ego, image, humiliation.

Now their avenues for prey have been depleted downward.

Now the blame shifting has become their only weapon. Make it the other person's fault, but don't stop there. Do it up big. Make themselves the victim . Turn it around and play the "poor me" card.

Always notice that at no point do they think about who they hurt, stop to feel bad about the pain they caused someone else. At no point can they see that they need to STOP and realize that if it has gotten this bad, it is time to reevaluate themselves and get help. No, narcissists are incapable of this moment of self awareness. They don't have the internal mechanisms for this sort of deep introspection. They can SAY they do - but they do NOT.

Even though its time to wake up... They Can't. They simply CAN NOT.

This doesn't happen because of their entrenched belief that they are superior to everyone. Oh, they may apologize to the wife/husband/partner; go to counseling for a few weeks and bamboozle the counselor; even tell a minimized, white-washed, spun story of "what really happened" according to them - but those they preyed on? Well, its THE PREY'S fault isn't it?

NOT!


Then they keep finding outlets, ways to escape reality. New identities, new websites, new emails. Even if they say they do - they don't stop. Ever.

Being Exposed is an Intervention. Our Intervention for them. And they will only see it as a full frontal attack. So don't stop. DO THE INTERVENTION... but do it for you and others.

The ways they respond confirms its the real truth which they exposed - ALL BY THEMSELVES

Exposure: Is it an Intervention? or Revenge?

Mistaken by a cyberpath as an attack.


A predator/ narcissistic cyberpath is complicated but simultaneously transparent when confronted with exposure of their motives.

They are always about the next fix, so if a situation becomes difficult and they find that it is not making them feel good they will blame shift and start looking for the next target. They can never admit and are incapable of realizing that 110% they did it to themselves!

...it was never, ever about you. It was always about them. All about their relentless and all-consuming pursuit of the nectar of supply. You simply made yourself available for feeding upon. You were an means to an end. Nothing more. Yeah, that smarts.

...They don't see you. It's not about you. It will never be about you. You didn't exist for them as a fully feeling and sentient human being. They can not properly assess your value as a person. You are only as good as the nectar of attention you can give them. No matter how great the quality, at some point they get bored. All you'll get for thanks is a door in your face and a big kiss off. They are nothing more than big children who play with their toy for days, weeks, months. Then one day they lose all interest in the toy and kick it aside for another... you've been drastically and catastrophically demoted. All in a moment, a twinkling of the narcissist's eye.

They've moved on to another source and leave you to the licking of your wounds. Lick your wounds, but don't work on that too long. You have reason to be thankful. You are no longer being used. You are no longer someone's sycophant, slave or fall-back supply source. Been dumped by a narcissist? Thank the God in Heaven for your new lease on life and resolve to not again be taken in by a parasitic narcissist.

They are not worth the tears you're shedding for them. You are weeping over the relationship you thought you had, but never did. - SOURCE

Next time they will be more careful not to get caught or figured out. And the next target gets to be on the receiving end of the heightened game.

But what if they have been EXPOSED?

The script has to change now. What does that mean?

Effort. Now they have to work harder to keep up the lie. Reputation, ego, image, humiliation.

Now their avenues for prey have been depleted downward.

Now the blame shifting has become their only weapon. Make it the other person's fault, but don't stop there. Do it up big. Make themselves the victim . Turn it around and play the "poor me" card.

Always notice that at no point do they think about who they hurt, stop to feel bad about the pain they caused someone else. At no point can they see that they need to STOP and realize that if it has gotten this bad, it is time to reevaluate themselves and get help. No, narcissists are incapable of this moment of self awareness. They don't have the internal mechanisms for this sort of deep introspection. They can SAY they do - but they do NOT.

Even though its time to wake up... They Can't. They simply CAN NOT.

This doesn't happen because of their entrenched belief that they are superior to everyone. Oh, they may apologize to the wife/husband/partner; go to counseling for a few weeks and bamboozle the counselor; even tell a minimized, white-washed, spun story of "what really happened" according to them - but those they preyed on? Well, its THE PREY'S fault isn't it?

NOT!


Then they keep finding outlets, ways to escape reality. New identities, new websites, new emails. Even if they say they do - they don't stop. Ever.

Being Exposed is an Intervention. Our Intervention for them. And they will only see it as a full frontal attack. So don't stop. DO THE INTERVENTION... but do it for you and others.

The ways they respond confirms its the real truth which they exposed - ALL BY THEMSELVES

Online dating is about game theory — not looks

Flawed business model behind Web site for the hot misses the point
By Helen A.S. Popkin

Since when do über hotties need a specialized online dating service? If evolutionary psychology and People magazine teach us anything, it’s this: When it comes to hooking up, the only thing the most attractive of the species need do is walk outside.

Hence the intrinsically flawed business model behind HotEnough.org, a matchmaking Web site exclusively for “fit, good-looking people.” Access to this database of desirability is granted to those ranked 8 or higher by HotEnough.org’s current members — those symmetrical few who themselves land on the high end of the Bo Derek periodic table. Only then are you allowed to pay $9.95 a month for the privilege of e-hitting on the site’s 1,000 or so members.

Whatever.

Do I read bitter? I assure you it’s only because I’m generally filled with black and hate. There’s no special loathing reserved for the attractive insecure, and certainly the Internet has been nothing but great to me. EBay tchatzkahs, dogs, and yes, even eligible (and handsome) bachelors, I find whatever I want in six clicks or less.

Strategy is the key to my success - honed from an embarrassing amount of years lurking on bulletin boards and social networking sites. As more people post their personals, online dating has gone from just trying to hook up to deeply layered game theory. Niche sites like HotEnough.org may seem like a tempting, time-saving filter - eliminating the risk of dating, or Heaven forbid, falling for, a genetic inferior. But like so many other things on the InterWeb, it’s an illusion.

HotEnough.org is going to fail, and not because it caters to a niche crowd. Hey, I read “The LongTail: Why the Future of Business is Selling More” by Chris Anderson (OK, I just read the Amazon review). This millennium, it’s all about serving niches. Certainly, there are plenty of successful specialized, online dating sites outside of the big catch-alls like eHarmony and Match.com, JDate, FarmersOnly.com, Gothic Match and Green Friends.

HotEnough.org is going to fail because Darwin says so. Any skin-deep beauty seeking love on the Internet is guaranteed damaged down to the bone. Yeah, yeah, they’re soooooooo busy, they “just don’t have time” to meet attractive equals offline. Guess what? Making movies is a major time suck, yet Johnny Depp sure didn’t meet Winona Rider, Kate Moss or Vanessa Paradis in cyberspace.

Non-psychotic pretty people don’t seek peer validation from exclusive dating sites.

They’re busy adopting third world orphans and designing clothing lines for H&M.

Meanwhile, for us above-average-to-ugly people, the Internet is a viable and respectable place to find love or something like it. It’s what Al Gore intended. Unlike those out-of-touch few who doubt the Internet’s ability to help you find a real world mate, I totally buy the empirical proof. Heck, I am the empirical proof. The Internet provided me with at least two decent relationships and countless ego-boosting flirtations. (Seeking peer validation is perfectly acceptable for us 7s and under.)

The Internet helped me hook up with an OK guy who we’ll call Boy Millionaire. Charming and hilarious, Boy Millionaire looked great on paper (I saw his tax return). He also came with a complete leather-bound set of emotional issues — just like I like ‘em. Alas, it was not to be. After four and a half months, I ended it via e-mail. (Don’t judge me — it’s what he preferred.) Still, it counts as successful. Our brief infatuation excised me forever from an offline icky gum-on-your-shoe relationship that I previously failed to end on my own. Is there nothing the Internet can’t do?

I found my current gentleman friend on Friendster - a broke-ass Brooklyn artist of the conceptual variety. For Art Boy, I deviated from my usual e-flirting strategy and contacted him first. There was no way of knowing if he was “hot enough” or what, because instead of a photo, Art Boy posted an illustration of himself as a cartoon. I really like cartoons. Three or four years later, we’re still together, which counts as successful, too, I guess. Of course, Art Boy came with his own beautifully engraved bound volume set of issues. But hey, that’s me. There are probably plenty of well-adjusted potential mates to be found online … if that’s what you’re into.

To be fair, finding what, or who, you want online is made easier or harder by your geographical location. Many national online dating sites feature a smorgasbord of eligible lovelies in New York City. Change your search location to say, Tampa, Fla., however, and it’s humanity at low tide.

Of course, there are plenty of online losers within the New York City tri-state area. You just have to know the signs. For example, anyone who lists “9/11” as their “most humbling experience” is a poseur. Same goes for anyone claiming “Confederacy of Dunces” as their favorite book. Fine, if that’s your favorite book. Hey, it could happen. But if you list it in your profile, you’re trying too hard to look too cool.

Whether you’re creating your online profile, or scanning through those of others, online dating is a tricky business at best. Hot or not, online dating isn’t about you. It’s about who you want to be, and who you want Imaginary You to date. Just like offline dating. Except in the real world, you can’t use Photoshop.

CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Online dating is about game theory — not looks

Flawed business model behind Web site for the hot misses the point
By Helen A.S. Popkin

Since when do über hotties need a specialized online dating service? If evolutionary psychology and People magazine teach us anything, it’s this: When it comes to hooking up, the only thing the most attractive of the species need do is walk outside.

Hence the intrinsically flawed business model behind HotEnough.org, a matchmaking Web site exclusively for “fit, good-looking people.” Access to this database of desirability is granted to those ranked 8 or higher by HotEnough.org’s current members — those symmetrical few who themselves land on the high end of the Bo Derek periodic table. Only then are you allowed to pay $9.95 a month for the privilege of e-hitting on the site’s 1,000 or so members.

Whatever.

Do I read bitter? I assure you it’s only because I’m generally filled with black and hate. There’s no special loathing reserved for the attractive insecure, and certainly the Internet has been nothing but great to me. EBay tchatzkahs, dogs, and yes, even eligible (and handsome) bachelors, I find whatever I want in six clicks or less.

Strategy is the key to my success - honed from an embarrassing amount of years lurking on bulletin boards and social networking sites. As more people post their personals, online dating has gone from just trying to hook up to deeply layered game theory. Niche sites like HotEnough.org may seem like a tempting, time-saving filter - eliminating the risk of dating, or Heaven forbid, falling for, a genetic inferior. But like so many other things on the InterWeb, it’s an illusion.

HotEnough.org is going to fail, and not because it caters to a niche crowd. Hey, I read “The LongTail: Why the Future of Business is Selling More” by Chris Anderson (OK, I just read the Amazon review). This millennium, it’s all about serving niches. Certainly, there are plenty of successful specialized, online dating sites outside of the big catch-alls like eHarmony and Match.com, JDate, FarmersOnly.com, Gothic Match and Green Friends.

HotEnough.org is going to fail because Darwin says so. Any skin-deep beauty seeking love on the Internet is guaranteed damaged down to the bone. Yeah, yeah, they’re soooooooo busy, they “just don’t have time” to meet attractive equals offline. Guess what? Making movies is a major time suck, yet Johnny Depp sure didn’t meet Winona Rider, Kate Moss or Vanessa Paradis in cyberspace.

Non-psychotic pretty people don’t seek peer validation from exclusive dating sites.

They’re busy adopting third world orphans and designing clothing lines for H&M.

Meanwhile, for us above-average-to-ugly people, the Internet is a viable and respectable place to find love or something like it. It’s what Al Gore intended. Unlike those out-of-touch few who doubt the Internet’s ability to help you find a real world mate, I totally buy the empirical proof. Heck, I am the empirical proof. The Internet provided me with at least two decent relationships and countless ego-boosting flirtations. (Seeking peer validation is perfectly acceptable for us 7s and under.)

The Internet helped me hook up with an OK guy who we’ll call Boy Millionaire. Charming and hilarious, Boy Millionaire looked great on paper (I saw his tax return). He also came with a complete leather-bound set of emotional issues — just like I like ‘em. Alas, it was not to be. After four and a half months, I ended it via e-mail. (Don’t judge me — it’s what he preferred.) Still, it counts as successful. Our brief infatuation excised me forever from an offline icky gum-on-your-shoe relationship that I previously failed to end on my own. Is there nothing the Internet can’t do?

I found my current gentleman friend on Friendster - a broke-ass Brooklyn artist of the conceptual variety. For Art Boy, I deviated from my usual e-flirting strategy and contacted him first. There was no way of knowing if he was “hot enough” or what, because instead of a photo, Art Boy posted an illustration of himself as a cartoon. I really like cartoons. Three or four years later, we’re still together, which counts as successful, too, I guess. Of course, Art Boy came with his own beautifully engraved bound volume set of issues. But hey, that’s me. There are probably plenty of well-adjusted potential mates to be found online … if that’s what you’re into.

To be fair, finding what, or who, you want online is made easier or harder by your geographical location. Many national online dating sites feature a smorgasbord of eligible lovelies in New York City. Change your search location to say, Tampa, Fla., however, and it’s humanity at low tide.

Of course, there are plenty of online losers within the New York City tri-state area. You just have to know the signs. For example, anyone who lists “9/11” as their “most humbling experience” is a poseur. Same goes for anyone claiming “Confederacy of Dunces” as their favorite book. Fine, if that’s your favorite book. Hey, it could happen. But if you list it in your profile, you’re trying too hard to look too cool.

Whether you’re creating your online profile, or scanning through those of others, online dating is a tricky business at best. Hot or not, online dating isn’t about you. It’s about who you want to be, and who you want Imaginary You to date. Just like offline dating. Except in the real world, you can’t use Photoshop.

CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Australian Man Pleads Guilty to CyberHarassment & Cyberstalking

by Mark Oberhardt

A BIOTECHNOLOGY expert who couldn't deal with rejection from women bombarded four of them with abusive e-mails and texts after they spurned his advances, a court has heard.

Jason Ronald Vaughan, 35, made his second appearance in the District Court in Brisbane on charges arising out of harassing women he met and who didn't want anything to do with him.

Last year a District Court jury found Vaughan guilty of unlawfully stalking an artist who he met at a gallery where she displayed her work.

He was sentenced 2 1/2 years' probation and 240 hours' community service.

The trial heard despite the fact the woman had a boyfriend and told Vaughan she wanted nothing to do with him, he constantly phoned and sent her messages and emails from July to August 2008.

The artist gave up painting and stopped exhibiting her artwork in the gallery.

Vaughan failed in an appeal against his conviction late last year.

In the District Court today, Vaughan pleaded guilty to four counts of using a carriageway to harass, menance or cause offence between 2005 and 2007.

Commonwealth prosecutor Stuart Shearer said while Vaughan was this time charged under federal law the offences were very similar to the stalking charge from Vaughan's trail last year.

The offences involved three women - Vaughan's former girlfriend, a university student he met on a bus, and a woman he met at a nightclub in Paddington.

Mr Shearer said it involved Vaughan behaving in an aggressive and persistent manner when rejected by women.

"He has an inability to accept and deal with rejection from women . . . this conduct is almost routine to him," Mr Shearer said.

The texts and e-mails were usually juvenile and overtly sexual and phone calls usually started out calmly before Vaughan became angry, Mr Shearer added.

In a written statement of agreed facts showed Vaughan sent messages such as: "What was I ever doing with a walrus like you" or "You vile piece of filth - you will pay 4 what you've done."

Barrister Aaron Simpson, for Vaughan, said his client had a science degree and worked in the biotechnology field. He said Vaughan had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression. Mr Simpson said Vaughan had taken steps to address his problems by seeking medical help and assistance.

Judge Tony Rafter, SC, said in many ways he's a despicable person because his behaviour was not isolated. He said, however, after taking mitigating factors into account he would sentence Vaughan to 12 months' jail but release him immediately on a $2000 good behaviour bond for two years.

Judge Rafter also accepted a request from state prosecutors to revoke the community service order from the stalking convictions.

original article here

Australian Man Pleads Guilty to CyberHarassment & Cyberstalking

by Mark Oberhardt

A BIOTECHNOLOGY expert who couldn't deal with rejection from women bombarded four of them with abusive e-mails and texts after they spurned his advances, a court has heard.

Jason Ronald Vaughan, 35, made his second appearance in the District Court in Brisbane on charges arising out of harassing women he met and who didn't want anything to do with him.

Last year a District Court jury found Vaughan guilty of unlawfully stalking an artist who he met at a gallery where she displayed her work.

He was sentenced 2 1/2 years' probation and 240 hours' community service.

The trial heard despite the fact the woman had a boyfriend and told Vaughan she wanted nothing to do with him, he constantly phoned and sent her messages and emails from July to August 2008.

The artist gave up painting and stopped exhibiting her artwork in the gallery.

Vaughan failed in an appeal against his conviction late last year.

In the District Court today, Vaughan pleaded guilty to four counts of using a carriageway to harass, menance or cause offence between 2005 and 2007.

Commonwealth prosecutor Stuart Shearer said while Vaughan was this time charged under federal law the offences were very similar to the stalking charge from Vaughan's trail last year.

The offences involved three women - Vaughan's former girlfriend, a university student he met on a bus, and a woman he met at a nightclub in Paddington.

Mr Shearer said it involved Vaughan behaving in an aggressive and persistent manner when rejected by women.

"He has an inability to accept and deal with rejection from women . . . this conduct is almost routine to him," Mr Shearer said.

The texts and e-mails were usually juvenile and overtly sexual and phone calls usually started out calmly before Vaughan became angry, Mr Shearer added.

In a written statement of agreed facts showed Vaughan sent messages such as: "What was I ever doing with a walrus like you" or "You vile piece of filth - you will pay 4 what you've done."

Barrister Aaron Simpson, for Vaughan, said his client had a science degree and worked in the biotechnology field. He said Vaughan had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression. Mr Simpson said Vaughan had taken steps to address his problems by seeking medical help and assistance.

Judge Tony Rafter, SC, said in many ways he's a despicable person because his behaviour was not isolated. He said, however, after taking mitigating factors into account he would sentence Vaughan to 12 months' jail but release him immediately on a $2000 good behaviour bond for two years.

Judge Rafter also accepted a request from state prosecutors to revoke the community service order from the stalking convictions.

original article here

Facebook Safety

Are You Doing Enough?

By Joelle Halon

Keeping in touch with friends has always been important, but since the invention of the social networking site Facebook, keeping in touch with people has become of part of many PUC students' normal routines.

When keeping up with friends, it's nice to congratulate your long-lost elementary school classmates on a recent wedding. But is it necessary to share information like getting so wasted that you vomited all over yourself and passed out on the streets of Chicago? For some, this is a case of too much information, but the main issue of TMI is sharing your phone numbers, email addresses, and street addresses on Facebook and other networking sites. By doing so, you are leaving yourself open for stalking and other tragic occurrences.

Facebook's privacy states that the user chooses what information you put in your profile, including contact and personal information. This information is shared at the user's discretion.

Danny Santiago, a sophomore CIT major, stated that the fact that Facebook reports every action you make on the site should be cause for concern. Facebook is unique in that it almost mirrors the physical act of stalking with status updates.

Any bit of your information that you include is shown on your profile, which can lead to further problems.

Although many may think they're only sharing this information with your friends, Facebook has a "friends of friends" feature that allows your friends' followers to see the activity.

According to My Fox Alabama, Alabama police captured Spencer Shivers, 19, and Tyler Glass, 20, who robbed several homes of individuals who announced they were going on vacation during the month of July.

Although they were not direct friends of the victims, they found the information using the "friends of friends" feature, which displays status messages in the profile boxes.

Besides the aforementioned, cyber stalking has also increased since social networking has increased in popularity.

According to Bureau of Justice Statistics, as of January 2009, 46% of reported stalking cases were cyber stalking claims. Within this same report, women were the most likely targets of cyber stalking.

One victim, "Kathy," has been cyberstalked for the past year. Kathy shared her information online and received e-mails from an individual that contained lewd images.

Additionally, her stalker also discovered her whereabouts and places she planned to visit, wanting to meet her at these locations. As a result, she had to create a new identity in order to protect herself. She continued by stating that he used an untraceable IP address.

Classrooms, are turning to Facebook to enhance the classroom experience and communication.

English 104 instructor Miranda Morley mentions that she uses Facebook to communicate with some of her students, but mostly uses it for her writing groups.

However, there are students who are upset about professors using Facebook.

Sophomore sociology major Megan Byrne said that she had an English professor who required a Facebook and Facebook group for a class. Byrne stated that she thought it was quite ridiculous.

As Charity Wysong, a senior CGT student, states that if you want people to have that information, then you should decide who needs to have it and send those people private messages.

Furthermore, if you're planning a long-term vacation or a trip out of town, do not post this information in your status messages.

The Internet is not as safe as people think, so always air on the side of caution.

original article here

Facebook Safety

Are You Doing Enough?

By Joelle Halon

Keeping in touch with friends has always been important, but since the invention of the social networking site Facebook, keeping in touch with people has become of part of many PUC students' normal routines.

When keeping up with friends, it's nice to congratulate your long-lost elementary school classmates on a recent wedding. But is it necessary to share information like getting so wasted that you vomited all over yourself and passed out on the streets of Chicago? For some, this is a case of too much information, but the main issue of TMI is sharing your phone numbers, email addresses, and street addresses on Facebook and other networking sites. By doing so, you are leaving yourself open for stalking and other tragic occurrences.

Facebook's privacy states that the user chooses what information you put in your profile, including contact and personal information. This information is shared at the user's discretion.

Danny Santiago, a sophomore CIT major, stated that the fact that Facebook reports every action you make on the site should be cause for concern. Facebook is unique in that it almost mirrors the physical act of stalking with status updates.

Any bit of your information that you include is shown on your profile, which can lead to further problems.

Although many may think they're only sharing this information with your friends, Facebook has a "friends of friends" feature that allows your friends' followers to see the activity.

According to My Fox Alabama, Alabama police captured Spencer Shivers, 19, and Tyler Glass, 20, who robbed several homes of individuals who announced they were going on vacation during the month of July.

Although they were not direct friends of the victims, they found the information using the "friends of friends" feature, which displays status messages in the profile boxes.

Besides the aforementioned, cyber stalking has also increased since social networking has increased in popularity.

According to Bureau of Justice Statistics, as of January 2009, 46% of reported stalking cases were cyber stalking claims. Within this same report, women were the most likely targets of cyber stalking.

One victim, "Kathy," has been cyberstalked for the past year. Kathy shared her information online and received e-mails from an individual that contained lewd images.

Additionally, her stalker also discovered her whereabouts and places she planned to visit, wanting to meet her at these locations. As a result, she had to create a new identity in order to protect herself. She continued by stating that he used an untraceable IP address.

Classrooms, are turning to Facebook to enhance the classroom experience and communication.

English 104 instructor Miranda Morley mentions that she uses Facebook to communicate with some of her students, but mostly uses it for her writing groups.

However, there are students who are upset about professors using Facebook.

Sophomore sociology major Megan Byrne said that she had an English professor who required a Facebook and Facebook group for a class. Byrne stated that she thought it was quite ridiculous.

As Charity Wysong, a senior CGT student, states that if you want people to have that information, then you should decide who needs to have it and send those people private messages.

Furthermore, if you're planning a long-term vacation or a trip out of town, do not post this information in your status messages.

The Internet is not as safe as people think, so always air on the side of caution.

original article here

Social Networking: A Bonanza for Stalkers?

"Vengeance will be mine...," declared a defiant message on MySpace.com. "I should have killed you all when I had a gun and some drugs." This violent monologue, one of several postings on the writer's site, threatened his ex-wife, who had fled the state to escape his abuse. In postings on other sites, he demanded photos of his family and warned that if he didn't get to see the kids, "it isn't going to be real good, because I'm gonna see them whether you let me or not."[1]

The increasing use of MySpace to threaten and stalk victims raises many important questions. Do social networking sites enable stalking? What recourse do victims have when these sites are used to stalk? And what tools can help block the use of these sites to stalk?

What Are Social Networking Sites?
Social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook are virtual communities where people with mutual interests meet on-line to share information and build relationships. Site visitors can chat, debate, network, and socialize. On many sites, members may post details about themselves-photos; educational backgrounds; favorite books, movies, and music; and relationship status. Others sites promote business, activism, networking, counseling, socializing, or many types of recreational interests. Sites such as MySpace, Facebook, Friendster, and Xanga have attracted millions of members, particularly among teenagers and young adults.


How Do They Work?
On many social networking sites, anyone with a computer and Internet access can become a member. Some sites require only an e-mail address, and many sites have no system to verify the validity of information that registrants provide. A few sites, including MySpace and Friendster, have minimum age requirements (14 and 16, respectively) although these sites have no reliable method to verify a user's age. Once a member, anyone can post personal information, images, music, or other data on their Web pages, depending on the site's features. On many sites, members select a circle of "friends" who can post messages on their profiles, add comments, or access pages not visible to other users. Unless the site allows members to control access to specific information (and members actually exercise those options), everything posted on a profile may be visible to all site visitors. Most sites require members to agree to terms of proper conduct, but enforcement of such terms is sporadic and often depends on members to report violations.[2]


Links to Stalking
The attractions of social networking-access to an ever-widening world of "friends"-can lead users to overlook the pitfalls of these sites. Young people, in particular, may tend to view such sites as "part of their own little world,"3 not a public bulletin board with millions of other visitors. They may not recognize that posting personal information may lead to contacts from sexual predators, identity theft, fraud, or stalking-or that anyone could post a bogus profile to disparage, misrepresent, harass, threaten, or embarrass them.[3]

Cases
Several recent cases suggest how stalkers and predators are beginning to use social networking sites. In the months before the Virginia Tech massacre, the shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, allegedly used Facebook to locate and stalk female classmates.[4] In July 2007, authorities inLorager, Louisiana, arrested a 17-year old for stalking and cyberstalking another teenage boy. The alleged stalker's MySpace page featured a video of the accused pistol-whipping another boy posing as the victim.[5]

In 2006, a University of Kansas student received death threats from someone who found her class schedule on-line. He posted photos from the victim's MySpace account on his own site, along with insults about her appearance and her major.[6] Also last year, National Public Radio's Veronica Miller discovered "Becky," a MySpace "cyber twin" who had copied a photo of Miller from Facebook and published it-along with photos of Miller's family-on the imposter's site. Although Miller's impersonator did not threaten or stalk her (and MySpace promptly removed "Becky's" site), the incident shows the potential of such sites for stalking or harassment.[7]

Features to Watch
Several social networking site features may increase users' vulnerability to stalkers and other predators. For example, new MySpace members are asked to supply a name or nickname and information about their marital status, sexual orientation, hometown, school, religion, education, interests (e.g., music, movies, television, books, and heroes), children, or income. Although most of these questions are optional, users may automatically answer them because they are using the site to meet other people. On many sites, all these answers go "public," remaining open to anyone who uses the site. Stalkers may use such information to gain access to site members.

Many social networking sites (e.g., Stalkerati) also have search tools that can simultaneously pull personal information about the same person from a number of different sites, including MySpace, Friendster, Flickr and Google. A recently shut-down site called fbstalker.com tracked changes in the profiles of users' friends while saving copies of each page to compare to subsequently updated files.5 Other sites, such as Profilesnoop and Link View, allow visitors to trace a user's Internet Protocol (IP) address (and even physical location on Google Maps) with many social networking sites, including Facebook.[8]

Stalkers can also use social networking sites to introduce spyware into the computers of their victims. Spyware infection rates are increasing, an anti-spyware company spokesman told Business Week, in part because "people are creating multiple profiles, and the links on their sites will take you to sites that will download adware and spyware."[9] Stalkers can exploit this vulnerability on their victims' profile pages. Once downloaded, spyware can help stalkers gather information about all their victims' computer activity, including e-mails, chats, instant messages, keystrokes, passwords, and Web sites visited.

Legal Recourse
Stalkers who use social networking sites as part of a pattern of stalking may be subject to criminal charges. For example, someone who repeatedly follows and tracks a victim in her car, as well as posts a lewd photo of the victim on a social networking site, can be charged with the crime of stalking. Also in many states, cyberstalking statutes enable prosecutors to charge those who use technology to stalk and harass their victims. Other states have general stalking laws that define ‘pattern of conduct' broadly enough to cover the use of technology to stalk. Most of these laws are relatively new, however, and few cases involving social networking sites have yet been prosecuted.

Victims also have options in civil or family courts. They can seek protective orders against stalkers, who can be ordered not to contact the victim, including not using any form of electronic communications to stalk the victim. Victims may also be able to file a civil tort case against their stalker, seeking damages for the impact of stalking on their lives. Also, under certain conditions, victims can sue social networking sites for failure to remove offensive or defamatory material regarding the victim from the site.

New Laws
Lawmakers are starting to propose measures to govern the use of social networking sites. In April 2007, for example, the California legislature introduced a bill to prevent individuals from using social networking sites to incite harassment or abuse against an individual. Harassment would include posting digital images or messages on Web sites to cause fear, harassment, or harm to an individual.[10]

Prevention: The Best Defense
The best defense against social networking site stalking is to use the sites with extreme caution. Wise users carefully consider what they post (see "Think Before You Post). Last names, school names, favorite hangouts, phone numbers, and addresses make it easy for stalkers to locate victims. Photos with identifiers (like school names or locations) also increase a victim's vulnerability. Posted information is permanently public. "You can't take it back," warn experts Larry Magid and Anne Collier, about information posted on-line. "Deleted" information can be recovered, for example, from Google's cache of deleted and changed Web pages and from Internet Archive (archive.org), which offers access to deleted postings.[11]

Users can also boost security by limiting on-line "friends" to people they actually know and by activating all available privacy settings. Since June 2006, MySpace has allowed all users to keep their profiles private-open only to those designated as "friends." MySpace also offers other privacy options: to control how others may add their names to friends lists, to approve friends' comments before hosting, to hide the feature that shows when they are on-line, or to prevent e-mailing photos. To activate these features, members must change their settings and choose the privacy options they prefer. Although stalkers can find ways around these protections, members who use them are less vulnerable than those who do not.[12]

Networking Safely
The social networking revolution presents complex dilemmas. The convenience and appeal of these sites are undeniable, and stalking cases that involve social networking are still quite rare. Yet as stalkers diversify their tactics, they are likely to exploit any available technology. For stalking victims as well as the public, safe social networking will require awareness and vigilance.

As the Stalking Resource Center continues to track this issue, we welcome insights from the field about these sites, related cases, and new features to keep them safe. We will periodically report our findings at www.ncvc.org/src. For more information, please visit the SRC Web site or call 202-467-8700.


[1] As told to staff by a stalking survivor.

[2] Massachusetts Attorney General, "Consumer Advisory: AG Reilly Warns Parents about the Potential Dangers of Children Using Social Networking Sites Such and MySpace and Xanga," August 29, 2006, www.ago.state.ma.us/sp.cfm?pageid=986&id=1710 (accessed February 26, 2007).

[3] Justin Pope, "Colleges Warn about Networking Sites," the Associated Press, August 2, 2006 (accessed March 4, 2007).

[4] Adam Geller, "VA Gunman Had 2 Past Stalking Cases," Associated Press, April 18, 2007, www.newsday.com (accessed July 24, 2007).

[5] Florida Parishes Bureau, "Loranger Teen Booked in Threats to Harm Other Teen, Cyberstalking," Capital City Press, July 12, 2007.

[6] KUJH-TV News, "Facebook Used to Aid Stalkers, May 4, 2006, www.tv.ku.edu/newsd (accessed March 5, 2007).

[7] Veronica Miller, "Stalking Becky, The Girl Who Stole MySpace," National Public Radio, All Things Considered, August 6, 2006, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5622009 (accessed July 25, 2007).

[8] Andy Meyers, "On-line Stalking Nothing New," The Brandeis Hoot, September 8, 2006, www.thehoot.net (accessed March 5, 2007).

[9] Arik Hesseldahl, "Social Networking Sites a ‘Hotbed' for Spyware, Business Week, August 18, 2006, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14413906, (accessed October 12, 2007).

[10] Jaikuman Vijayan, "California Eyes Stronger Cyberstalking Laws, ComputerWorld Government, 04/25/07. www.computerworld.com (accessed July 24, 2007).

[11] Larry Magid and Elaine Collier, Myspace Unraveled: A Parent's Guide to Teen Social Networking, Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press, 2007, pp. 122-3.

[12] Ibid.

original post here