INTERNET LURING

(While the original article deals with warning for children - we have amended it to read for adults, as well. A link to the original article is below - EOPC)

For generations it has been ingrained in us, time-honoured rule: "Don't talk to strangers."

But that rule has a new meaning now that people can talk to strangers all over the world via the internet.

Talking in chat groups and through e-mail isn't anything like talking over the telephone or meeting someone in person. There is no eye contact and there is no chance to pick up meaning from the cadence and rhythm of the human voice. People on the internet can log on using fake names, they can create whole new identities that are tough to challenge.

The scary thing is that many people who talk and chat on the Internet think it's perfectly safe.

But it's not.

An underage Canadian girl, who can't be named, received this e-mail from her "cyberpal."

I thought about you and what I would do if we were together and this happened when we had our baby... You are my inspiration and my soul! I can hardly wait til you're with me.
Love, your man Jason

Jason turned out to be 28-year-old Jason Wright from Washington state. He arrived at the girl's home in Victoria, B.C., and drove away with her.

Police caught up with them and charged Wright with abduction and sexual assault. Police say Wright had spent a night in a hotel with the girl.

They also found a notebook containing the names and e-mail addresses of other young girls in Canada and the U.S.

Wright was found not guilty of both charges.

In 2001, Ottawa proposed a new law that would mean a maximum five-year prison sentence for people caught using the internet to lure children. The law came into effect in July 2002 as part of an omnibus amendment to the Criminal Code.

But Bruce Headridge, a former detective with the Organized Crime Agency of B.C., says there's still a long way to go as the legal system tries to keep up with the quickly-evolving technology. (Needs to provide recourse and safety for lured adults as well!!)

Online safety rules

* Don't respond to flaming (provocation)

* Choose a genderless screen name

* Don't flirt online, unless you're prepared for the consequences. This is just like real life. Yes, you have the right to flirt. And you have the right to a sexy nickname. Sometimes it's better just to back off a bit and not exercise all your rights all the time.

* Save offending messages and report them to your service provider (and theirs)

* Don't give out any personal information about yourself or anyone else.

* Get out of a situation online that has become hostile, log off or surf elsewhere.

CyberBreach.com, set up by Headridge also suggests similar guidelines for online chats and e-mails.

(edited from the original)

ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

Bill Targets Cyber-Impersonation

by Alejandro Martínez-Cabrera

Two months ago, a San Jose Mercury News reporter received a profanity-laced e-mail critical of one of her stories. More than a year before, a similar e-mail was sent to a long mailing list of hundreds of Silicon Valley industry, labor, political and community leaders.

The sender of the e-mails appeared to be Carl Guardino, the chief executive of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which represents the high-tech industry. The problem: He didn't actually send it.

"This absolutely misrepresented me in a very harmful way," he said. "It was completely out of character and it depicted me in a very bad light."

Guardino was the victim of online impersonation, and he soon found out he wasn't alone - friends, colleagues and relatives had stories of usurped identities and tarnished reputations. Unfortunately for them, the state law on impersonation was written in 1872 and is not equipped to deal with the digital age.

But a bill making its way through the Legislature is looking to change that. Inspired by Guardino's story, state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, introduced a bill in June that would make it a misdemeanor to maliciously impersonate someone.

If Simitian's bill passes, online impersonations with the purpose "of harming, intimidating, threatening or defrauding" would be punishable with a maximum fine of $1,000 and one year in jail.

But while supporters believe the law urgently needs to be updated to punish and deter malicious impersonators, privacy advocates worry that such legislation might easily cross the line and threaten people's First Amendment rights.
Political commentary

Simitian said his bill is not going after those who create fake Barack Obama Facebook profiles for political commentary, or the likes of Fake Steve Jobs, Newsweek writer Daniel Lyons who poses as Apple's chief executive in his satirical blog.

Instead, the bill is meant to deal with miscreants whose impersonations range from the naughty to the outright sinister.

In recent years, impersonators have tweeted under the names of Maya Angelou, Kanye West and St. Louis Cardinals' manager Tony La Russa, to name a few. Revenge-seekers and pranksters have embarrassed their victims in front of potential employers and created smears that are difficult to remove from the Web. Students have posed as teachers to harass other kids.

In one case in December, a Wyoming woman was raped in her home by a man responding to a Craigslist ad looking for "a real aggressive man with no concern for women" to fulfill a rape fantasy. However, she didn't post the ad - it had been her disgruntled ex-boyfriend, a Marine stationed in California who was posing as her. Similar stories abound, online abuse experts said.

'No recourse'
The Internet "makes it so easy for stalkers and harassers to ruin somebody's life with a few keystrokes, and there's little to no recourse for victims to try and undo the damage," said Jayne Hitchcock, president of the volunteer organization Work to Halt Online Abuse, who was a victim of cyberstalking.

No one seems to know how widespread the problem is, but Hitchcock said she has noted more complaints about MySpace, Twitter, Facebook and e-mail impersonations.

"I probably see it more often than I'd like to through our organization," she said.

But when it comes to addressing the problem, not everybody is convinced Simitian's approach is the best. Corynne McSherry, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the scope of Simitian's bill was defined too loosely and could have a negative effect on freedom of speech. For one, she said, the definition of harm needs to be narrowed.

"Harm is a pretty broad term. That could just mean that you undermined a politician's reputation. I'm concerned that the nature of 'harm' is too vaguely defined," she said.

McSherry also expressed concern that the bill would not protect some forms of parody and satire on the Internet that involve impersonation.

For instance, she pointed to the Yes Men, activists that the foundation is representing in a lawsuit filed against them by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In October, the group held a fake news conference posing as chamber representatives who promised the organization would no longer lobby against climate-change legislation.

"It was a very effective form of satire that was really useful in provoking some form of debate," McSherry said. "I don't think it's Sen. Simitian's intent to shut down this form of freedom of speech but I believe it's what this bill can do."

Simitian's bill names "credible" impersonators that act without consent, but, McSherry said, "Just requiring that an impersonation is credible is not going far enough to protect the type of political speech I'm talking about."

And even though she supports the spirit of Simitian's bill, Hitchcock questions whether it's enforceable, considering the need to educate law enforcers on online abuse issues and the jurisdictional problems relating to cybercrimes.

"Unless the victim and the harasser are both in California, it's going to need a lot of collaboration between law enforcement agencies and the states. And if (the impersonator) is in another country, good luck. But it's a start," she said.

Hard to enforce
Danielle Keats Citron, a law professor at the University of Maryland who has written extensively about the role of the law and online abuse, believes the proposed law will have challenges based on the enforcement difficulties and the broadness of its interpretation.

But even if the bill in its current form becomes law, Citron said, the statute might have an overall positive effect. At its most basic level, the measure might help change attitudes about what's permissible, she said.

"The legislation is trying to take the lead on this emerging technology that people are abusing, and teaching them how to treat each other," she said. "It's an important point we shouldn't forget."

She added: "But we also have to get the law right."

original article here

When It's Someone You Trust...

You never know who might try to hurt you on the internet

BY CATHERINE WALKER

OVER the past few weeks we have learned that 80 per cent of victims of cyber-stalking are women, and many have been the victims of ex-lovers, but although it seems relationships have a lot to do with online stalking it is not always men who are the stalkers. This week, we talk to a woman who was stabbed in the back by the person who she least expected.

Jane Burns (name has been changed to protect identity) was a normal young woman. In 2005, most of her friends at university were studying abroad, which brought her and another classmate a lot closer together than before. They spent hours together and told each other everything. Jane’s new best friend spent a lot of time on the internet, trying to meet men in forums. Jane worried her friend because she would often go to meet them after just a few weeks, thinking she had found her ideal man, and then resulting in disappointment, but little did Jane know it was herself she should worry about. Jane was in a long-distance relationship with a man abroad, but thanks to the internet they kept in touch every day.

One day, after she returned from a holiday at her boyfriend’s home, she went online and found an e-mail, apparently from him, which was directed to another woman, telling her he loved and missed her. Jane, with tears in her eyes, contacted her boyfriend to ask for an explanation. He, of course, knew nothing, but she felt deceived and hurt and told him she wanted to split up. Luckily, he insisted she checked whether the e-mail had really come from his address – it hadn’t. The address that had been used was the same, apart from a dash, which in the heat of the moment, she hadn’t noticed. On closer examination, the language was a little different, although the nickname used for her was right.

The only person who had this information was Jane’s friend, who also happened to have asked to read some of their e-mails just two weeks earlier. Why did she do this? Jane says she can’t imagine. But when she told her friend about the ordeal, without accusing her, she immediately went offline and the two have not spoken since.

You never know who is trying to hurt you on the internet, so be careful.

original article found here

Trust turning to betrayal.

When Hate Comes to Your Homepage

The suicide of a young teenager shows we must wake up to the crossover between the virtual world and real cruelty

by J. Turner

A psychotherapist friend was explaining why she had forbidden her 12-year-old daughter from joining Facebook. It had driven several of her patients, around the same age as her daughter, to the verge of mental breakdown. But surely these girls were unusually fragile: if not Facebook, wouldn't there have been some other catalyst? Maybe, she said, but few young egos are strong enough to deal with this stuff.

I thought she was being alarmist and somewhat old-fashioned. Our generation merely utilises the internet: our children have it hardwired into their synapses. It is their medium, just as ours was television: our parents fretted similiarly - and impotently - about its new-fangled consequences.

You are supposed to be 18 to join Facebook. But you can lie about your age; no one checks. When my sons signed up I thought it sweet when they befriended their aunties and old babysitters, sent virtual pina-coladas to far-flung godparents. Then I realised they're all on there! The entire lower school, the whole prepubescent lot of them, “poking”, posting preening party pictures and telling each other “u are soooo pretty!!!”.

My friend's warning was amplified this week when a trial with implications for the future of social networking opened in Los Angeles. Megan Meier, 13, was befriended on MySpace by a boy called Josh Evans who flirted and flattered and told her she was “sexi”. When he dumped Megan abruptly, saying the world would be a better place without her, she went up to her bedroom and hanged herself with a belt. It transpired “Josh” was a 49-year-old mother called Lori Drew who, it is alleged, believed Megan was bitching about her own daughter online. Drew is charged with conspiracy and accessing computers without authorisation, not murder. But the prosecution case is that Drew “fully intended to hurt and prey on Megan's psyche” through MySpace.

It is an outlandish and extreme story. Yet what struck me was how Megan's mother's reacted when her daughter came to her sobbing about Josh's cruelty. She told her she shouldn't get into silly arguments and shouldn't have been on her computer anyway. Clearly, she believed her daughter was wasting real emotions on something which was “unreal”, since it took place online. Many parents, I guess, would have been equally dismissive.

It is a quandary we have not yet addressed, despite Britons spending more time online (an average of 14 hours a week) than any other European nation and with half of us now members of social networking sites: can the virtual world cause real pain? Facebook seems so harmlessly middle-class, like an endless online evening drinks party. For us sad, solitary home-working types it is a simulacrum of cheering human contact.

But my friend suggested I look at Facebook with a 12-year-old's eyes. She pointed out the popular “honesty box” application where you ask a question - “What do you really think of me?” etc - which then anyone can answer anonymously. Like a ouija board, evil yet so tantalising. My inner pre-teen came out in a terrified sweat.

Besides, said the psychotherapist, it is the ordinary stuff which devastates her patients, the photos of a sleepover to which you weren't invited, your best friend ignoring you and chatting on someone else's “wall”. And everyone will know, by how many friends you have, whether you're a big, fat loser. It's not even proper bullying, just crude kidult passive- aggression. But, boy, does it hurt.

Even so, her patients cannot stop themselves logging in. They have to look. And so the mean-girl snubs, the whispering behind hands, follow them home and upstairs into lonely bedrooms.

We think as adults we are tougher, that something as remote and notional as a chat room cannot hurt us. Indeed, it is a blast, a liberation, when talking online to say what you really mean for once, to make mischief, to dispense with uptight British niceness, or even assume the guise of an atavar, a pumped-up, better-hung version of our own weedy workaday self.

In the glow of our screens, safely at home, we think our egos are armour-plated. But there is no protection as we step on to the ten-lane superhighway of a billion heartless strangers. It can smart like hell, that withering rebuke from someone you'll never meet. A friend, who frequents a jolly and supportive parenting website, was devastated when another mother posted “I hope your child fails the 11-plus”, particularly when she discovered the woman was a neighbour, who'd always harboured a secret grudge.
We are a fighty nation at present, itching for a scrap like a railway station drunk. Perhaps, because we feel impotent in the face of huge economic forces, we lash out at more accessible targets - Ross and Brand, Haringey social workers, the judges on Strictly Come Dancing. And our anger spews onto the BBC's Have Your Say messageboards, blogs and newspaper websites.

This morning I was forwarded a letter from a reader who berated me about something I wrote last month, with the use of two C-words and sundry other curses. From the handwriting - and by the simple fact it came by snail-mail - I could tell it was written by an elderly person. It had no address and was signed “No Nonsense Norm”. Poor Norm, I thought, with his thin notelet, shaky pen and his probably painful walk to the postbox. With a computer he could have enjoyed the same secret thrill of hate in an instant, and free.

Most journalists, me included, find the honesty box below our words bracing: in the democracy of the web, why should we claim a monopoly on thought? Others, though, find the comments too confidence-destroying to read. (If you blog about us, do we not bleed?) Although few, like the hack hero in Tim Dowling's hilarious novel The Giles Wareing Haters' Club actually track down and confront their tormentors.

Maybe future generations will learn to deal with the strong and confusing emotions engendered by the virtual world. Friends with older teens say that they log into social sites before breakfast, know the etiquette, how seriously to take it, where to complain. And later my friend rings to say her daughter just 'fessed up to having a secret Facebook account. What can we do? Not much. Online we're elderly residents of a new world, just like Norm.

ORIGINAL

NET ABUSERS ARE PATHOLOGICAL

IT'S OFFICIAL: NET ABUSERS ARE PATHOLOGICAL
By Evan Schuman, TechWire

Another yardstick of success will be achieved by the Internet community: It will be awarded its first official mental health disorder.

The newly identified disorder will be dubbed Pathological Internet Use (PIU) and will be christened during the presentation of a major medical paper at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association in Chicago.

The term is being coined by Dr. Kimberly Young, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Pittsburgh at Bradford, in Bradford, Pa. With her paper's presentation, the APA will classify excessive Internet use as addictive, in the same way that drugs (including alcohol), gambling, video games, and some types of eating disorders are today officially considered addictive.

Like those other ailments, Internet addiction starts when the rest of the person's life starts to fall apart, the paper stated. The Internet is a fine hobby or work tool, until it causes problems with social partners, work, or school, Young said.

Young studied 396 cases of PIU-afflicted people and drew some overall conclusions.

Net marketers need not fear, as traditional Web surfing accounted for only 7 percent of the Internet addicts and even more information-oriented tools (gophers and FTP sites, for example) represented only an additional 2 percent.

"Upon examination, traditional information protocols and Web pages were the least utilized compared with more than 90 percent who became addicted to the two-way communication functions: chat rooms, MUDs [Multi-User Dungeons], newsgroups, and E-mail," Young said. "This makes the case that database searches -- while interesting and often time-consuming -- are not the actual reasons Dependents become addicted to the Internet."

Young said one surprise in the results was the lack of high-tech people among the addicted. "While it is a common perception that those addicted to the Internet are computer savvy individuals, these demographic results show that only 8 percent came from high-tech jobs," she said. "Compare this to the 42 percent who indicated having no permanent jobs and the 39 percent who worked in low-tech fields. It is typically newbies who become excessive Internet users."

Among the jobs that she classified as low-tech were secretaries, bank tellers, teachers, advertising executives, and journalists.

The report said that the attraction of the Internet revolves around its perceived anonymity, where people feel comfortable acting out in ways they would never consider in real life.

"The ability to enter into a bodiless state of communication enabled users to explore altered states of being that fostered emotions that were new and richly exciting," Young said. "Such uninhibited behavior is not necessarily an inevitable consequence of visual anonymity, but depends upon the nature of the group and the individual personality of the online user."

"For those who felt unattractive, it was perceived easier to pick up another person through cybersex than in real life," she said.

But beyond sexual issues, newsgroups and chat lines allow people to literally create and secretly test new personalities before trying them out in the real world. "Beyond amusement, reinventing oneself is a way to fulfill an unmet need. The loss of a social identity online allows one to reconstruct an ideal self in place of a poor self-concept," Young said. "Those who suffer from low self-esteem, feelings of inadequacy, or frequent disapproval from others are at the highest risk" of becoming Net addicts.

She quoted one participant in the survey as telling her, "By day, I am a mild-mannered husband, but at night I become the most aggressive bastard online."

The addiction can become a problem when the new emotional creation makes inroads into real lives or when the time spent in the virtual life takes away from responsibilities in the real life.

The addicted Internet user will spend an average of 38 hours per week online dealing with nonemployment/nonacademic efforts, compared with "nonaddicts" in the survey who averaged eight hours. Almost half of the participants diagnosed with PIU reported that they get less than four hours of sleep per night due to late log-in sessions.

Another reason for some of the addictions is the sense of community that some newsgroups create. "With routine visits to a particular group (chat area or newsgroup, for example), a high degree of familiarity among other group members is established.

Like all communities, the cyberspace culture has its own set of values, standards, language, signs, and artifacts, and individuals adapt to the current norms of the group," Young said.

"One can easily become involved in the lives of others almost like watching a soap opera and thinking of the characters as real people," she said.

Young's report said that this is especially attractive to people who might find it difficult to establish other social circles. "Homebound caretakers, the disabled, retired individuals, and homemakers have limited access to others," she said.

Internet addiction centers have already been created at facilities ranging from the University of Maryland at College Park to Proctor Hospital in Peoria, Ill., to Harvard affiliate McLean Hospital.

The test group broke down into 157 men and 239 women; the average age for the males was 29, and the average age for the women was 43 .

WHAT CONSTITUTES PATHOLOGICAL INTERNET USE?
Do you:

* feel preoccupied with the Internet (i.e., thinking about the Internet when offline)? * feel a need to use the Internet with increasing amounts of time in order to achieve satisfaction? * have an inability to control your Internet use?

* feel restless or irritable when attempting to cut down to stop Internet use?

* use the Internet as a way of escaping from problems or of relieving a poor mood (i.e., feelings of helplessness, guilt, anxiety, or depression)?

* lie to family members or friends to conceal the extent of involvement with the Internet? (i.e. online sexual interaction with anonymous persons, online relationships your family/friends know nothing about, having an online life that only you know about?)

* jeopardize or risk the loss of significant relationship, job, educational or career opportunity because of the Internet?

* after spending an excessive amount of money on online fees (such as for online gambling, porn or shopping), often return another day?

* go through withdrawal when offline (e.g., increased depression, anxiety, etc.)?

* stay online longer than originally intended?

Individuals who met four or more of these criteria during a 12-month period were classified as dependent.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

WHY PEOPLE ARE SUCH JERKS ONLINE

The concept of the flame war online is certainly nothing new. It's been around since before most people were even aware the internet existed. However, more people are starting to look into the issue of why people tend to be such incredible jerks online when they might be perfectly nice in person. It seems that there are few different things contributing to the effect.

First is that people somehow feel "disinhibited" when sitting behind a keyboard and monitor -- whether it's because of the supposed anonymity, the fact that you're effectively "invisible" or even the fact that there's a time lag between being a jerk and any response to it. The fact that you're somewhat separate from the response just makes it that much easier to be a jerk.

Some feel that it has even more to do with the lack of direct human contact in terms of either seeing hurt feelings or hearing someone's voice. There's just less empathy involved in seeing black and white text then seeing a physical reaction to being mean. Some of the latest research on this actually looked at how brains process messages during a conversation, and noted that in a normal conversation the person is tracking a variety of different cues in terms of how the other person is responding, and those cues help moderate what we say. Without any such cues when sitting behind a keyboard, you don't get any of the warning lights to moderate what you're saying, and the natural tendency is just to go right to the extreme edge without ever cooling off.

(Right now, EOPC is dealing with a couple individuals - one on another discussion board where we occassionally post; who have strung together a bunch of unrelated facts to try and indict us for our anonymity. Most of the facts revolve around an old victim we helped who they are trying to 'prove' is us. This victim went on to do a lot of work with DV victims like herself. Unfortunately DV advocated attract just as many disordered naysayers who are desperate to place blame as we do. We are hanging in there.

If things like this are happening to you - take a breath and step back before you react to accusations or disordered or negative individuals (such as your cyberpath) who string together unrelated things in attempts to construct a 'gotcha' moment for you. If you try to defend yourself? These 'jerks' will take it as your 'admission of guilt' thereby setting up a no win situation for you. Stay in what you know to be truth and distance yourself from these types of people. We are.)

Of course, so far, it doesn't seem like the research is coming up with many good solutions to get people to moderate what they say online -- other than suggesting that using video communications might help. Other than that, perhaps just being more conscious of the fact that it really is a human being at the other end might help -- but so far that kind of "self awareness" hasn't caught on. And, even if it has, as long as one person in the group is unable to moderate his or her speech, it tends to set off many others as well.

WHY PEOPLE ARE SUCH JERKS ONLINE

The concept of the flame war online is certainly nothing new. It's been around since before most people were even aware the internet existed. However, more people are starting to look into the issue of why people tend to be such incredible jerks online when they might be perfectly nice in person. It seems that there are few different things contributing to the effect.

First is that people somehow feel "disinhibited" when sitting behind a keyboard and monitor -- whether it's because of the supposed anonymity, the fact that you're effectively "invisible" or even the fact that there's a time lag between being a jerk and any response to it. The fact that you're somewhat separate from the response just makes it that much easier to be a jerk.

Some feel that it has even more to do with the lack of direct human contact in terms of either seeing hurt feelings or hearing someone's voice. There's just less empathy involved in seeing black and white text then seeing a physical reaction to being mean. Some of the latest research on this actually looked at how brains process messages during a conversation, and noted that in a normal conversation the person is tracking a variety of different cues in terms of how the other person is responding, and those cues help moderate what we say. Without any such cues when sitting behind a keyboard, you don't get any of the warning lights to moderate what you're saying, and the natural tendency is just to go right to the extreme edge without ever cooling off.

(Right now, EOPC is dealing with a couple individuals - one on another discussion board where we occassionally post; who have strung together a bunch of unrelated facts to try and indict us for our anonymity. Most of the facts revolve around an old victim we helped who they are trying to 'prove' is us. This victim went on to do a lot of work with DV victims like herself. Unfortunately DV advocated attract just as many disordered naysayers who are desperate to place blame as we do. We are hanging in there.

If things like this are happening to you - take a breath and step back before you react to accusations or disordered or negative individuals (such as your cyberpath) who string together unrelated things in attempts to construct a 'gotcha' moment for you. If you try to defend yourself? These 'jerks' will take it as your 'admission of guilt' thereby setting up a no win situation for you. Stay in what you know to be truth and distance yourself from these types of people. We are.)

Of course, so far, it doesn't seem like the research is coming up with many good solutions to get people to moderate what they say online -- other than suggesting that using video communications might help. Other than that, perhaps just being more conscious of the fact that it really is a human being at the other end might help -- but so far that kind of "self awareness" hasn't caught on. And, even if it has, as long as one person in the group is unable to moderate his or her speech, it tends to set off many others as well.

HOW CAN YOU TELL IF THEY ARE LYING?

Did you know that Online Dating is the top moneymaker on the Web? Chances are good that you have joined a site or two yourself. If so, you've probably asked the top three questions my CyberRomance clients all do:

"Why don't they answer my emails?"
"How do I tell them about ___?" - you fill in the blank.
"How can you tell if they are lying?"

"Why don't they answer my emails?" You'll never know, but rudeness is a pretty good guess. Say "Thank you" to cyberspace for weeding out inconsiderate candidates so quickly!

"How do I tell them about ___?" Just about everyone has something they are ashamed of others knowing and worried about how to break the news. This question takes time and finesse for the best solution -- and usually there IS a good solution! A Romance Coach could help if you are really stumped.

Much of the problem of Internet lying is media over hype. What kind of interest would there be in a story about all the honest people who are on the Net?

But of course some people do lie, and being concerned about who is and who isn't lying makes a heck of a lot of sense.

"How can you tell if they are lying?" Count the ways:

Reasons people lie:
To avoid conflict.
To avoid the consequences of their behavior.
To postpone having to make changes in lifestyle.
To hide something they did or did not do.
To avoid rejection.
To be in control of a situation.
To avoid being embarrassed.
To make themselves appear more successful, good, or talented than they really are.
All make terrific reasons for people to lie online.

How to detect lying:
A truthful person will be "congruent." That means that all the information they give out -- their words, body language, they way they live and dress, everything -- fits together and contains no contradictions. People who lie will be incongruent in some way.

Here's what to watch out for:
1. How they use words, written, on the phone, or in person:
Talking faster or slower.

Changes in voice pitch.

Taking charge of conversation, attempts to distract you.

Continual denying of accusations.

Unusual voice fluctuations, word choice, sentence structure.

Stalling the conversation by repetitive use of pauses and comments like "um" or "you know."

Lack of use of contractions.

Prefers emphasizing "not" when talking.

Being extremely defensive.

Saying "Trust me" or "this is a True Story"


2. How they behave or the attitudes they exhibit:
Being hesitant.

Nervous laughter.

Smugness.

Uncommon calmness.

Providing more information and specifics than is necessary or was asked for.

Inconsistencies in what is being shared.

3. In-person behavior clues:
Touching chin, covering the mouth, or rubbing brows.

Crossed arms or legs.

Pupils narrow.

Playing with hair.

Body language and facial expressions don't match what is being said such as saying "no", but nodding head up and down.

Avoidance of eye contact, eyes glancing to the right, staring past you or down, or turning away from you while they are talking.

Rigid or fidgeting.

Slouching posture.

Unnatural or limited arm and hand movements.

Partial shrug.

Lack of finger pointing.

May place a barrier such as a desk or chair in front of self.

Sweating, even if it isn't a warm day.

Saying "no" several times.

4. Your own inner cues:
You sense something is not right. Explanations do not feel enough for you. You feel confused, you find yourself squinting or angling your head. You feel a block or a wall between you and the other.

In Internet dating, or any kind of dating for that matter, keep your anxiety down, your head attached, and LISTEN to everything your date tells you in every way. People tell you about themselves constantly, from the very first second of contact. You just have to be willing to hear it. Not only do they tell you by what they do say, they tell you by what they don't say.

Many of these cues can come from simple distraction or nervousness, not deceit. New daters have plenty of reasons to be anxious. Signs of lying differ from one person to another. Don't let your own nervousness force a jump to wrong conclusions. Give your date a break and take some time.

Often, Cyber daters move too quickly to the phone and/or a face to face meeting. Gone is the golden opportunity to safely ask questions and study answers slowly and over time. Moving to face-to-face or skin-to-skin vastly increases tension and anxiety, which complicate clear thinking and judgment. (Some Cyber-players try to avoid a face to face meeting all together!)


With online dating, you have a tremendous advantage over meeting immediately flesh-to-flesh: You have a written record of what the other tells you. Make use of it!

http://www.kathrynblord.com/

(SAVE SAVE SAVE your IM's & EMAILS!!!)

HOW CAN YOU TELL IF THEY ARE LYING?

Did you know that Online Dating is the top moneymaker on the Web? Chances are good that you have joined a site or two yourself. If so, you've probably asked the top three questions my CyberRomance clients all do:

"Why don't they answer my emails?"
"How do I tell them about ___?" - you fill in the blank.
"How can you tell if they are lying?"

"Why don't they answer my emails?" You'll never know, but rudeness is a pretty good guess. Say "Thank you" to cyberspace for weeding out inconsiderate candidates so quickly!

"How do I tell them about ___?" Just about everyone has something they are ashamed of others knowing and worried about how to break the news. This question takes time and finesse for the best solution -- and usually there IS a good solution! A Romance Coach could help if you are really stumped.

Much of the problem of Internet lying is media over hype. What kind of interest would there be in a story about all the honest people who are on the Net?

But of course some people do lie, and being concerned about who is and who isn't lying makes a heck of a lot of sense.

"How can you tell if they are lying?" Count the ways:

Reasons people lie:
To avoid conflict.
To avoid the consequences of their behavior.
To postpone having to make changes in lifestyle.
To hide something they did or did not do.
To avoid rejection.
To be in control of a situation.
To avoid being embarrassed.
To make themselves appear more successful, good, or talented than they really are.
All make terrific reasons for people to lie online.

How to detect lying:
A truthful person will be "congruent." That means that all the information they give out -- their words, body language, they way they live and dress, everything -- fits together and contains no contradictions. People who lie will be incongruent in some way.

Here's what to watch out for:
1. How they use words, written, on the phone, or in person:
Talking faster or slower.

Changes in voice pitch.

Taking charge of conversation, attempts to distract you.

Continual denying of accusations.

Unusual voice fluctuations, word choice, sentence structure.

Stalling the conversation by repetitive use of pauses and comments like "um" or "you know."

Lack of use of contractions.

Prefers emphasizing "not" when talking.

Being extremely defensive.

Saying "Trust me" or "this is a True Story"


2. How they behave or the attitudes they exhibit:
Being hesitant.

Nervous laughter.

Smugness.

Uncommon calmness.

Providing more information and specifics than is necessary or was asked for.

Inconsistencies in what is being shared.

3. In-person behavior clues:
Touching chin, covering the mouth, or rubbing brows.

Crossed arms or legs.

Pupils narrow.

Playing with hair.

Body language and facial expressions don't match what is being said such as saying "no", but nodding head up and down.

Avoidance of eye contact, eyes glancing to the right, staring past you or down, or turning away from you while they are talking.

Rigid or fidgeting.

Slouching posture.

Unnatural or limited arm and hand movements.

Partial shrug.

Lack of finger pointing.

May place a barrier such as a desk or chair in front of self.

Sweating, even if it isn't a warm day.

Saying "no" several times.

4. Your own inner cues:
You sense something is not right. Explanations do not feel enough for you. You feel confused, you find yourself squinting or angling your head. You feel a block or a wall between you and the other.

In Internet dating, or any kind of dating for that matter, keep your anxiety down, your head attached, and LISTEN to everything your date tells you in every way. People tell you about themselves constantly, from the very first second of contact. You just have to be willing to hear it. Not only do they tell you by what they do say, they tell you by what they don't say.

Many of these cues can come from simple distraction or nervousness, not deceit. New daters have plenty of reasons to be anxious. Signs of lying differ from one person to another. Don't let your own nervousness force a jump to wrong conclusions. Give your date a break and take some time.

Often, Cyber daters move too quickly to the phone and/or a face to face meeting. Gone is the golden opportunity to safely ask questions and study answers slowly and over time. Moving to face-to-face or skin-to-skin vastly increases tension and anxiety, which complicate clear thinking and judgment. (Some Cyber-players try to avoid a face to face meeting all together!)


With online dating, you have a tremendous advantage over meeting immediately flesh-to-flesh: You have a written record of what the other tells you. Make use of it!

http://www.kathrynblord.com/

(SAVE SAVE SAVE your IM's & EMAILS!!!)

Hire-A-Hitman Online? Go to Jail

A young lady who was jealous and enraged about the fact that her ex-boyfriend had moved on, has been charged for trying to hire a hitman to kill his new lover with stolen credit cards from Paypal: Marissa Mark, 28, from Allentown, Pennsylvania is alleged to have hired Essam Ahmed Eid through his amateurish website www.hitmanforhire.net. She wanted him to kill Anne Royston for $37,000 in 2006. She is accused of paying a $19,000 deposit with three stolen credit cards through website PayPal. Marissa Mark, left, is accused of hiring Las Vegas poker dealer Essam Eid, left, through his website www.hitmanforhire.net to kill her ex-boyfriend’s new lover. The shoddy website said: ‘Whether you are trying to put an end to a domestic dispute or eliminate your business competitors, we have the solution for you’. The hire-a-hitman website, which has since been taken down, said: ‘Assassinations are the most practical solutions to common problems. Thanks to the Internet, ordering a hit has never been easier. We manage a network of freelance assassins, available to kill at a moment’s notice.’ Court documents show that PayPal refused to transfer the money Mark allegedly paid from three stolen credit cards, meaning Eid never received any money. According to FBI accounts and court documents, Royston – who worked as a loan broker – was first contacted by Eid in September 2006 under the pretence of wanting to refinance his house. He visited her officers in Woodland Hills, California with one of his two wives, Theresa Engle, posing as his assistant, and told her ‘Somebody wants your head. Somebody wants you killed and they hate you a lot.’ He said he decided against killing her because she reminded him of his own daughter and she could save her life and see Mark dead by settling the balance of the contract.

In this current case Mark was arrested in Jersey City, New Jersey and transferred to Allentown, Pennsylvania where she appeared in court charged with conspiracy, identity theft and other counts. She was granted bail on a $150,000 bond.

There are rumours that the events could be turning into a movie.

original article here

Hire-A-Hitman Online? Go to Jail

A young lady who was jealous and enraged about the fact that her ex-boyfriend had moved on, has been charged for trying to hire a hitman to kill his new lover with stolen credit cards from Paypal: Marissa Mark, 28, from Allentown, Pennsylvania is alleged to have hired Essam Ahmed Eid through his amateurish website www.hitmanforhire.net. She wanted him to kill Anne Royston for $37,000 in 2006. She is accused of paying a $19,000 deposit with three stolen credit cards through website PayPal. Marissa Mark, left, is accused of hiring Las Vegas poker dealer Essam Eid, left, through his website www.hitmanforhire.net to kill her ex-boyfriend’s new lover. The shoddy website said: ‘Whether you are trying to put an end to a domestic dispute or eliminate your business competitors, we have the solution for you’. The hire-a-hitman website, which has since been taken down, said: ‘Assassinations are the most practical solutions to common problems. Thanks to the Internet, ordering a hit has never been easier. We manage a network of freelance assassins, available to kill at a moment’s notice.’ Court documents show that PayPal refused to transfer the money Mark allegedly paid from three stolen credit cards, meaning Eid never received any money. According to FBI accounts and court documents, Royston – who worked as a loan broker – was first contacted by Eid in September 2006 under the pretence of wanting to refinance his house. He visited her officers in Woodland Hills, California with one of his two wives, Theresa Engle, posing as his assistant, and told her ‘Somebody wants your head. Somebody wants you killed and they hate you a lot.’ He said he decided against killing her because she reminded him of his own daughter and she could save her life and see Mark dead by settling the balance of the contract.

In this current case Mark was arrested in Jersey City, New Jersey and transferred to Allentown, Pennsylvania where she appeared in court charged with conspiracy, identity theft and other counts. She was granted bail on a $150,000 bond.

There are rumours that the events could be turning into a movie.

original article here

HOW TO HANDLE ONLINE HARASSMENT

FROM WHOA

You must clearly tell the harasser to stop
Generally speaking, it is unwise to communicate with a harasser. However, as soon as you determine that you are truly being harassed by someone, you must very clearly tell that person to stop. Simply say something like "Do not contact me in any way in the future" and leave it there. You do not need to explain why, just state that you do not want the person to contact you. Sometimes it is helpful to copy this message to the abuse department of the harasser's ISP. Keep a record of this message for your records. Do not respond to any further messages of any sort from the harasser. Don't have anyone else contact the harasser on your behalf.

It is common for the harasser to claim that you are harassing him or her, but if you aren't contacting the person, it is clear that you aren't the harasser.

Save everything
One of the first impulses many harassment victims have is to just delete any communications they've received, and that's a bad idea. It's important to save absolutely every communication you have with the harasser - email, chat logs, ICQ histories, anything. If the harasser has created a web site about you, save copies of it to your local system and have someone you trust who would testify in court for you if necessary to do the same. If you receive any phone calls from the harasser, have them traced immediately (your local phone company can tell you how to do that). If you receive any kind of postal mail or other offline communications, save them (with envelopes, boxes, etc.). Do not destroy any evidence - and do not handle it more than absolutely necessary or permit anyone else to do so. Immediately turn the evidence over to the police. Place envelopes, letters, etc. in plastic bags to protect any possible fingerprints.

Complain to the appropriate parties
It can at times be a little difficult for people to determine who the appropriate party is. If you're harassed in a chat room, contact whoever runs the server you were using. If you're harassed on any kind of instant messaging service, read the terms of service and harassment policies they've provided and use any contact address given there. If someone has created a web site to harass you, complain to the server where the site is hosted. If you're being harassed via email, complain to the sender's ISP and any email service (like Hotmail) used to send the messages. Figuring out who to complain to is one of the areas in which WHOA's volunteers can definitely help you.

Cease & desists also can be sent to them and you can go to the police (and their police) and demand a report be filed on them.

Determine your desired result
What do you want to have happen? You need to think about that. Be realistic. It's reasonable to expect that you can get the harasser to stop contacting you. It is reasonable to expect that you can increase your safety online and offline and that of your family.

It is not realistic to expect an apology from the harasser or any kind of "payback" or revenge. If you want to file a lawsuit because of something the harasser said or you believe they said about you, find a lawyer who will take the suit, but realize that you'll probably have to pay a lot of legal costs and may not ever get any kind of satisfaction.

Take our advice
You have to be willing to take the advice given to you, or you're wasting your time and ours. If we suggest that you change your email address, there's a good reason for it, even if it is a hassle. If we suggest that you not visit a particular chat room again, there's a good reason for it.

MORE AT WHOA

HOW TO HANDLE ONLINE HARASSMENT

FROM WHOA

You must clearly tell the harasser to stop
Generally speaking, it is unwise to communicate with a harasser. However, as soon as you determine that you are truly being harassed by someone, you must very clearly tell that person to stop. Simply say something like "Do not contact me in any way in the future" and leave it there. You do not need to explain why, just state that you do not want the person to contact you. Sometimes it is helpful to copy this message to the abuse department of the harasser's ISP. Keep a record of this message for your records. Do not respond to any further messages of any sort from the harasser. Don't have anyone else contact the harasser on your behalf.

It is common for the harasser to claim that you are harassing him or her, but if you aren't contacting the person, it is clear that you aren't the harasser.

Save everything
One of the first impulses many harassment victims have is to just delete any communications they've received, and that's a bad idea. It's important to save absolutely every communication you have with the harasser - email, chat logs, ICQ histories, anything. If the harasser has created a web site about you, save copies of it to your local system and have someone you trust who would testify in court for you if necessary to do the same. If you receive any phone calls from the harasser, have them traced immediately (your local phone company can tell you how to do that). If you receive any kind of postal mail or other offline communications, save them (with envelopes, boxes, etc.). Do not destroy any evidence - and do not handle it more than absolutely necessary or permit anyone else to do so. Immediately turn the evidence over to the police. Place envelopes, letters, etc. in plastic bags to protect any possible fingerprints.

Complain to the appropriate parties
It can at times be a little difficult for people to determine who the appropriate party is. If you're harassed in a chat room, contact whoever runs the server you were using. If you're harassed on any kind of instant messaging service, read the terms of service and harassment policies they've provided and use any contact address given there. If someone has created a web site to harass you, complain to the server where the site is hosted. If you're being harassed via email, complain to the sender's ISP and any email service (like Hotmail) used to send the messages. Figuring out who to complain to is one of the areas in which WHOA's volunteers can definitely help you.

Cease & desists also can be sent to them and you can go to the police (and their police) and demand a report be filed on them.

Determine your desired result
What do you want to have happen? You need to think about that. Be realistic. It's reasonable to expect that you can get the harasser to stop contacting you. It is reasonable to expect that you can increase your safety online and offline and that of your family.

It is not realistic to expect an apology from the harasser or any kind of "payback" or revenge. If you want to file a lawsuit because of something the harasser said or you believe they said about you, find a lawyer who will take the suit, but realize that you'll probably have to pay a lot of legal costs and may not ever get any kind of satisfaction.

Take our advice
You have to be willing to take the advice given to you, or you're wasting your time and ours. If we suggest that you change your email address, there's a good reason for it, even if it is a hassle. If we suggest that you not visit a particular chat room again, there's a good reason for it.

MORE AT WHOA

Find the Facts Out About Them

(Florida, USA) Karen Berry got into private investigation the hard way: Somebody was stalking her, and she decided to take matters into her own capable hands. The 25-year Sunrise resident was working as property manager for a condo in Davie in the early '90s, living alone while her military husband was overseas serving in Desert Storm. One of the condo residents took a dislike to her when the association started pursuing him to pay late maintenance fees.

"I was the closest person handy," she says, "because my condo was near his. He threatened to kill me, he flattened my tires, he had my car stolen, he even hired somebody to shoot a gun near me. He was very open about it. He would leave voice mails saying he was gonna get me."

Berry decided she wanted to get him first. "I worked for a company called Record Search, so I started looking into him. I found out he had a violent past and a prior record for marijuana possession. I found 15 police reports on the guy."

Eventually, Berry's work helped put her stalker away for three years.

Now, almost two decades later, after doing investigative work for a series of companies, she has founded her own investigation company, Berry WorldWide, which takes a decidedly softer bent: Berry helps find old flames. The ones that got away. The guy you dated a few times before you shipped off to college and just couldn't forget. The grade-school sweetheart who was really meant for you.

Isn't this just a kinder, gentler form of stalking? "I always call the person being searched for once I find them," Berry says. "I tell them who I am and what I'm doing. I ask their permission to divulge their phone number or location." So far, not a single person has refused to be found. And several of the ten couples she has reunited so far are pursuing serious relationships.

As for us, we tracked down Berry through Facebook, which itself raised another question. With social media networks gobbling up the internet, aren't sites like Classmates, Facebook, MySpace, and others cutting into her profits?

Not really. "Sometimes people just don't have time to do their own searches," Berry says, "or they don't really know how to go about it. Or sometimes women change their names if they've gotten married."

Berry charges an extremely reasonable $40 for a basic search. "Most people can be found very easily; it's not like I have to do any intensive investigative research. I don't feel like I should gouge anybody because with the databases I have available, it doesn't cost me a whole lot."

Berry, who suffers from Lymphedema, moved to Pittsburgh two weeks ago to be closer to a friend who's a trauma nurse. And she's still married to the guy who came home from Desert Storm. "He takes good care of me, and I love this business," she says. "Plus, I get to work in my pajamas."

Find the Facts Out About Them

(Florida, USA) Karen Berry got into private investigation the hard way: Somebody was stalking her, and she decided to take matters into her own capable hands. The 25-year Sunrise resident was working as property manager for a condo in Davie in the early '90s, living alone while her military husband was overseas serving in Desert Storm. One of the condo residents took a dislike to her when the association started pursuing him to pay late maintenance fees.

"I was the closest person handy," she says, "because my condo was near his. He threatened to kill me, he flattened my tires, he had my car stolen, he even hired somebody to shoot a gun near me. He was very open about it. He would leave voice mails saying he was gonna get me."

Berry decided she wanted to get him first. "I worked for a company called Record Search, so I started looking into him. I found out he had a violent past and a prior record for marijuana possession. I found 15 police reports on the guy."

Eventually, Berry's work helped put her stalker away for three years.

Now, almost two decades later, after doing investigative work for a series of companies, she has founded her own investigation company, Berry WorldWide, which takes a decidedly softer bent: Berry helps find old flames. The ones that got away. The guy you dated a few times before you shipped off to college and just couldn't forget. The grade-school sweetheart who was really meant for you.

Isn't this just a kinder, gentler form of stalking? "I always call the person being searched for once I find them," Berry says. "I tell them who I am and what I'm doing. I ask their permission to divulge their phone number or location." So far, not a single person has refused to be found. And several of the ten couples she has reunited so far are pursuing serious relationships.

As for us, we tracked down Berry through Facebook, which itself raised another question. With social media networks gobbling up the internet, aren't sites like Classmates, Facebook, MySpace, and others cutting into her profits?

Not really. "Sometimes people just don't have time to do their own searches," Berry says, "or they don't really know how to go about it. Or sometimes women change their names if they've gotten married."

Berry charges an extremely reasonable $40 for a basic search. "Most people can be found very easily; it's not like I have to do any intensive investigative research. I don't feel like I should gouge anybody because with the databases I have available, it doesn't cost me a whole lot."

Berry, who suffers from Lymphedema, moved to Pittsburgh two weeks ago to be closer to a friend who's a trauma nurse. And she's still married to the guy who came home from Desert Storm. "He takes good care of me, and I love this business," she says. "Plus, I get to work in my pajamas."

Online Reputation and Personal Responsibility

Sites are cropping up all over the internet that promise to protect your reputation online. This started me thinking about online reputation and personal responsibility in the face of an ever shrinking online world.

At what point does our personal responsibility for our own online reputation end?

In this internet age, your reputation is not just everything, it's everywhere.

Logging on to sites like FaceBook and MySpace, we are confronted with the changing face of society. A younger set perfectly content to put every detail of their lives online, without regard to the consequences. What effect does this propensity of information and lowering of boundaries have on the average individual's future? On the average company?

The answer is that it can adversely effect both individual and company in a variety of ways. Most people who have been online longer than ten minutes know the term "to get dooced" mean to be fired for blogging during/about work. The term was coined for blogger Heather Armstrong, who writes the blog Dooce, and who was one of the first bloggers to find out just how entwined your online reputation is with your offline one. It worked out well for Dooce (her blog is still going strong), but in most cases it works out poorly for he individual.

A company can face even more serious repercussions if its reputation goes in the toilet online. That is why so many companies are adopting strict policies blocking and/or regulating access to the internet at work. One slip by an employee on their personal site, blog or social network profile page can have a company facing serious repercussions for leaked products and other fiascos. That doesn't even begin to touch on how employee conduct may reflect on certain organizations that depend on having a clean reputation to do business.

Add in to the mix the anonymity of the web, which makes people lower their guard even further, and you can have a real mess on your hands. Most people will change their behavior if they think they can get away with it, and the web breeds an erroneous feeling that "no one can see the real you". In face, online, everyone can see the real you. All of the information that has ever been online about you, both private and public, is usually only a few clicks away. That's a sobering thought that most people don't ever pause to consider.

Companies have been cropping up in recent months to handle the new need for online reputation monitoring in the age of hyper connectivity. Some of these companies, like Techrigy, got their start as something else (in the case of Techrigy, a blog backup service is evolving into a reputation protector for companies). Reputation Defender is making a name for itself helping several women lawyers manage their images after they viciously attacked online. Other companies cropping up to help either companies or individuals keep their reputations and identitiy intact include: Stolen ID Search, MyPublicInfo, Claim ID, Naymz, Choice Point, and new uses for old school application LexusNexus.

All of those companies charge steep fee for what amounts to little more than damage control. Once your reputation flounders online, the ensuing ripple effect is often hard to staunch before it becomes a river. For all attacks on individual reputations, a little discretion fro the moment you first log onto a computer and start posting information about yourself would go a long way. Unfortunately, sometimes even the most cautious and circumspect can fall afoul of a vindictive soul (or souls). There are always going to be internet users who see the curtain of anonymity as license to be abusive and libel others, and they are hard to shake once they become fixated on someone.

Companies have their share of zealot opponents too, but they have an easier time dealing with them. By having a response come from the top of the organization immediately upon being faced with a problem, being sincere, and keeping the response as transparent as possible, a company can do much to staunch the hemorrhaging of its reputation due to one incident (the Gizmodo response to the indictment of its action at CES was one example of how not to act when your reputation is challenged online). If a company hasn't been careful with its reputation in the past, or simply puts out a terrible product or service that gets more than just a little bad feedback, they maybe they need to hire an online reputation repair service after all.

In my view, personal responsibility goes much further than damage control. Face the fact that unless you have been hyper-vigilant every minute of every day both on and offline, chances are you have something stupid, somewhere, sometime. Even greater are the chance that you or someone else got it on camera, blogged it or otherwise put it out there for the world to see. When that happens, being as forthright as possible about your own actions will go much farther to correct the situation than an online reputation management firm ever could.

In the end, your online reputation is up to you, the individual, and you, the company. Education is key - know where your data is going to be used, and how.

Pay attention to how you present yourself online. Take note of your actions and how they could be construed by others. Behave online as if your mother was looking over your shoulder, instead of as if you were hiding behind a curtain of anonymity, free to be as hurtful as you please. Remember that there are consequences for your actions, even online, though they may not be the ones you expect. If all else fails, face the music with square shoulders and a responsible attitude.

SOURCE

Online Reputation and Personal Responsibility

Sites are cropping up all over the internet that promise to protect your reputation online. This started me thinking about online reputation and personal responsibility in the face of an ever shrinking online world.

At what point does our personal responsibility for our own online reputation end?

In this internet age, your reputation is not just everything, it's everywhere.

Logging on to sites like FaceBook and MySpace, we are confronted with the changing face of society. A younger set perfectly content to put every detail of their lives online, without regard to the consequences. What effect does this propensity of information and lowering of boundaries have on the average individual's future? On the average company?

The answer is that it can adversely effect both individual and company in a variety of ways. Most people who have been online longer than ten minutes know the term "to get dooced" mean to be fired for blogging during/about work. The term was coined for blogger Heather Armstrong, who writes the blog Dooce, and who was one of the first bloggers to find out just how entwined your online reputation is with your offline one. It worked out well for Dooce (her blog is still going strong), but in most cases it works out poorly for he individual.

A company can face even more serious repercussions if its reputation goes in the toilet online. That is why so many companies are adopting strict policies blocking and/or regulating access to the internet at work. One slip by an employee on their personal site, blog or social network profile page can have a company facing serious repercussions for leaked products and other fiascos. That doesn't even begin to touch on how employee conduct may reflect on certain organizations that depend on having a clean reputation to do business.

Add in to the mix the anonymity of the web, which makes people lower their guard even further, and you can have a real mess on your hands. Most people will change their behavior if they think they can get away with it, and the web breeds an erroneous feeling that "no one can see the real you". In face, online, everyone can see the real you. All of the information that has ever been online about you, both private and public, is usually only a few clicks away. That's a sobering thought that most people don't ever pause to consider.

Companies have been cropping up in recent months to handle the new need for online reputation monitoring in the age of hyper connectivity. Some of these companies, like Techrigy, got their start as something else (in the case of Techrigy, a blog backup service is evolving into a reputation protector for companies). Reputation Defender is making a name for itself helping several women lawyers manage their images after they viciously attacked online. Other companies cropping up to help either companies or individuals keep their reputations and identitiy intact include: Stolen ID Search, MyPublicInfo, Claim ID, Naymz, Choice Point, and new uses for old school application LexusNexus.

All of those companies charge steep fee for what amounts to little more than damage control. Once your reputation flounders online, the ensuing ripple effect is often hard to staunch before it becomes a river. For all attacks on individual reputations, a little discretion fro the moment you first log onto a computer and start posting information about yourself would go a long way. Unfortunately, sometimes even the most cautious and circumspect can fall afoul of a vindictive soul (or souls). There are always going to be internet users who see the curtain of anonymity as license to be abusive and libel others, and they are hard to shake once they become fixated on someone.

Companies have their share of zealot opponents too, but they have an easier time dealing with them. By having a response come from the top of the organization immediately upon being faced with a problem, being sincere, and keeping the response as transparent as possible, a company can do much to staunch the hemorrhaging of its reputation due to one incident (the Gizmodo response to the indictment of its action at CES was one example of how not to act when your reputation is challenged online). If a company hasn't been careful with its reputation in the past, or simply puts out a terrible product or service that gets more than just a little bad feedback, they maybe they need to hire an online reputation repair service after all.

In my view, personal responsibility goes much further than damage control. Face the fact that unless you have been hyper-vigilant every minute of every day both on and offline, chances are you have something stupid, somewhere, sometime. Even greater are the chance that you or someone else got it on camera, blogged it or otherwise put it out there for the world to see. When that happens, being as forthright as possible about your own actions will go much farther to correct the situation than an online reputation management firm ever could.

In the end, your online reputation is up to you, the individual, and you, the company. Education is key - know where your data is going to be used, and how.

Pay attention to how you present yourself online. Take note of your actions and how they could be construed by others. Behave online as if your mother was looking over your shoulder, instead of as if you were hiding behind a curtain of anonymity, free to be as hurtful as you please. Remember that there are consequences for your actions, even online, though they may not be the ones you expect. If all else fails, face the music with square shoulders and a responsible attitude.

SOURCE