Stronger Laws Needed for Web Threats

This is undoubtedly one case where there ought to be a law. Society must catch up to the malevolence all too prevalent on the Internet. Some should be deemed criminal.

The case in point: Drew and Joyce Kesse have been living a parent’s worst nightmare for the past four years — the unsolved abduction of their 24-year-old daughter, Jennifer, in Orlando. The Bradenton couple’s efforts to secure information about their daughter’s disappearance includes an Internet site stocked with images, appearances on national television and other publicity.

Their determined and admirable efforts have generated a great deal of sympathy, encouragement and leads, especially in postings on the Web at www.jennifer kesse.com.

Compounding their anguish, though, are the miscreants and parasites who exhibit twisted behavior and threatening comments via the Internet — all beyond the pale. “Weird crap,” Drew Kesse told Herald reporter Beth Burger for an in-depth article Sunday on the fourth anniversary of Jennifer’s kidnapping.

One lowlife attempted to extort millions, maintaining he held her for ransom. Another even claimed to have killed her along with more than a dozen others in a YouTube video.

But the veiled threats from one person — posted across some 100 pages on the family’s Web site — are deeply disturbing.

Plus, someone left threatening phone messages, one stating: “You’re gonna pay.” With some detective work by a Webmaster and prosecutors, the Kesses discovered the source of the phone calls matched the residence of the threatening poster’s computer.

Unfortunately, the Kesses have discovered that as abhorrent as all this is, criminal it is not.

The Manatee County Circuit Court declined to grant the family an injunction in the case, ruling the perpetrator’s identity had not been proven and the threat was not credible enough by legal standards.

Florida lacks a law against menacing threats delivered via electronic media. The state’s cyber stalking law requires threats be credible, which means the comments must be explicit about personal harm or death and the perpetrator must have the means to execute the threat.

Apparently, the Kesses’ tormentor has not quite crossed that line. In addition, proving who’s working the keyboard beyond a reasonable doubt is difficult without witness cooperation or a confession.

Come March when the regular session of the state Legislature convenes, lawmakers will be met by a bill that makes online written communication with threats of bodily harm or death a second-degree felony. That would cover e-mail, social networking sites like Facebook and postings on sites such as www.jenniferkesse.com.

In Burger’s report, Bradenton criminal defense attorney Mark Lipinski advocated the legislation include menacing communication as well — which would then cover the Kesses’ case.

Nobody should have to endure that kind of endless and senseless harassment. Florida law needs to catch up to technology and provide protections from these kinds of online threats, which should be considered terrorism of a sort.

original article here

CAUTION: Abusive Partners Use Social Networking to Stalk

By Marissa Carruthers

(Sunderland, U.K.) Abusive partners are turning to technology to find sick new ways of stalking their victims, the Echo can reveal.

An increasing number of Sunderland women are seeking refuge after campaigns of terror, including being stalked using GPS tracking devices and apps on mobile phones, hacking into computers and online harassment.

Experts say advances in new technology have given abusers a tighter rein on their victims by handing them extra tools to trace their every move.

Clare Phillipson, of Wearside Women in Need, said: “Abusive men will always find new ways to either exercise control over their partners or abuse them. We currently have concerns with new technology that enables men to stalk their partners using mobile phones.

“They are able to activate the sat nav function without anyone even knowing, and this means they can see exactly where they are all the time. There have been cases of men sitting there and watching people walking round the streets then use Google maps to see exactly what house they’ve gone into and get a complete picture.”

The organisation has also seen a worrying rise in the number of women being beaten for posting innocent status updates on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter and computer hacking to keep tabs on their partners.

In extreme cases, women’s movements inside their home have been monitored by CCTV cameras put up by possessive partners wanting to spy on their spouse.

“Websites like Facebook also give men a tool to constantly monitor their partners,” said Clare.

“We have seen a lot of times when women have left innocuous messages like you and I would say, like ‘had a nice night out with my friend last night’, and their partner has got violent. In some cases with more affluent men, CCTV cameras have been put up inside and around a house that can be accessed any time through mobile phones or computers.

“New technologies are making it much easier. Before, you couldn’t be in touch with your partner 24/7, but now we’re getting women beaten up because she’s at work and had to switch her phone off.”

There has also been several reported cases of wife-beaters turning to social networking sites to continue their harassment campaign after their partner has left them.

“I would say to people that if they are separating they should look very carefully at their Facebook privacy settings and their friends,” Clare added.

“There are many cases of abusive partners using them to build up a whole picture of their lives.”

original article found here

Social Networking Web Sites Encourage Cyberstalking

by Shelby Hill

Many college students use Facebook.com daily without being aware of the cyberstalking threat.

When students put their phone numbers, addresses and other personal information on a social networking site like Facebook, they increase their chances of being a cyberstalking victim, said Michael Kaiser, executive director of the National Cyber Security Alliance.

January was National Stalking Awareness Month and Kaiser said that because people between the ages of 18-24 have the highest victimization rate, due to the popularity of Facebook and MySpace.com, it's important for students to protect themselves against cyberstalking.

"People should be really guarded in sharing personal information," Kaiser said. "I wouldn't suggest that the Internet is a place to write an autobiography."

According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project's January 2009 report about adults and social networking websites, 75 percent of Internet users in the 18-24 age group have a profile on a social networking Web site.

A social networking Web site is a place for people to connect with each other by creating a profile that each individual can customize with pictures, contact information and details about interests, such as music and movies, to reflect that person's personality. Kaiser said an e-mail address is usually the only information needed to become part of a social networking Web site.

Some tips Kaiser had for students were install a firewall, anti-spyware, use the highest privacy settings on social networking web sites and limit the information they put online.

Kaiser advised students that they should "be really careful about who you let into your circle."

Along with the active steps that students can take to protect themselves, Kaiser suggested that students enter their names into a search engine to see if they come across information that they didn't know was there.

"People don't even know sometimes how much information about them there is on the Web," Kaiser said. "People leave trails all over the Internet and stalkers will use those trails."

He said stalkers would use anything from an e-mail address to a phone number, street address or instant message, to stalk a victim.

Nick Penta, a pre-veterinary science freshman, said he thinks an ex-girlfriend stalked him over MySpace. He said she sent him several messages and viewed his profile about 20 times a day to learn about his new girlfriend.

Kaiser said stalking is defined as repeated actions that would cause a reasonable person to feel fear.

Penta added that he wasn't scared of his ex's actions.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice's January 2009 report "Stalking Victimization in the United States," of the 3.4 million Americans who reported being stalked, 25 percent reported being cyberstalked through email or instant messaging.

Stephen Orlando, a pre-business freshman said he experienced the same jealous behavior by an ex, over the Internet.

According to the report, 75 percent of stalking victims were stalked by someone they knew.

"The vast majority of stalking is done by people who know each other," Kaiser said.

Even taking into account Orlando and Penta's experiences with exes over the Web, the two men have not chosen to make their Facebook profiles private and non-viewable to users whom they have not given permission.

Kaiser advised students to "use the highest privacy settings you can on any of the social networking sites."

Amy Cheng, a pre-physiology freshman, said her Facebook profile is private and she doesn't post her personal information on the page.

"I don't put anything on there that I wouldn't show my mom," Cheng said about information on her Facebook profile.

Emily Smith, an undeclared freshman, said that although her profile isn't private, she doesn't put any contact information on her Facebook profile.

She added that if she had more of an issue with cyberstalking she might consider changing her profile to private.

Orlando said that he thinks that cyberstalking is more of an issue for women than men.

"There's a lot more creeper stalker people looking for girls than guys," he said.

Penta said that the difference could be attributed to the fact that some women put relatively provocative photos on their individual profiles.

"They're easier targets, just because their pictures might be more revealing," Penta said.

Whatever the reason, the Department of Justice report did concede that women run a much greater risk for being victims of cyberstalking than men.

Whether the victim is a man or woman, the fact that friends and family support the stalking victim is crucial, Kaiser said.

For more information on cyberstalking, Kaiser said that students should visit the National Center for Victims of Crime's Web site, www.ncvc.org or the National Cyber Security Alliance's Web site, www.staysafeonline.org.

High Tech Adds to Abuse of Women

Mobile phones and computers are increasingly being used as tools to abuse, control and stalk women, a report from Women’s Aid reveals.

Many of the 14,613 women who called the Women’s Aid helpline last year said telephone, surveillance and computer technologies were being used to harass and intimidate them.

Women reported:

* How their home and mobile calls were being monitored, as well as their texts by their partners and ex-partners.

* How their phone conversations were being recorded.

* How they discovered that cameras had been secretly installed in their homes.

* Their online use had been tracked and scrutinized, with partners demanding access to their private email and social networking accounts.

* Their partners or ex-partners had put lies about them up on internet sites.

"The use of technology in domestic violence situations is now a key part of the wider pattern of emotional abuse," said Women’s Aid director Margaret Martin.

Women have told Women’s Aid that they feel like they were being watched constantly, that their privacy had been completely invaded and controlled.

"We also heard from women who had been photographed and filmed without their consent, sometimes having sex and having the images uploaded to the internet," she said.

Ms Martin said the use of technology often prevented women from seeking help as they feared that their partner would discover that they had phoned a helpline, had looked at a domestic violence website or spoken of the abuse to their friends, family or colleagues in an email or text.

She said the abuse did not stop for many women who left a relationship, with one in five women revealing that they had been abused by their former boyfriends, husbands and partners.

"For many, technology played a part in the stalking and harassment they experienced," she said.

Women told how they had been bombarded with texts and calls, often telling them in explicit detail how they would be attacked or even killed.

Younger women reported that their current or former boyfriends were stalking them on social networking sites.

Technology is also a lifeline for women experiencing abuse, with almost 90% of calls to the Women’s Aid helpline made from a mobile phone, while its website received over 39,000 visits.

Women’s Aid has also expressed concern about women who are being abused during pregnancy and shortly after the birth of a child.

"We hear from women who are forbidden to breast-feed their child, who are raped in the weeks following childbirth and women who are beaten while holding their baby."

* Women’s Aid national freephone number in Ireland is 1800 341 900.

original article here

THE BAD BOYS OF CYBERSPACE

Getting Known Through Anonymity

Much has been said lately about how anonymity on the internet "disinhibits" people. Feeling relatively safe with their real-world identity hidden, they say and do things they otherwise wouldn't normally say or do in "real life." In some cases, that seems to be a good thing. People may be more honest, open, generous, and helpful. In other cases, however, the nasty side of a person gets unleased.

I'd like to give a slightly different spin to this "disinhibition through anonymity" concept. My basic premise is this: NO ONE WANTS TO BE COMPLETELY ANONYMOUS. No one wants to be totally invisible, with no name or identity or presence or interpersonal impact at all. Everyone wants and needs to express some aspect of who they are, to have others acknowledge and react to some aspect of their identity. In some cases, it's a benign feature of who you are. In some cases, not. Anonymity on the internet allows people to set aside some aspects of their identity in order to safely express others. Snerts need someone to react to and affirm their offensive behavior. This need is a bit different than simply catharting their frustrated drives, as the "eros-ridden" idea suggests. Snerts are trying to express some unresolved and warded-off feature of their troubled identity in an (often desperate) attempt to have it acknowledged. Unfortunately, they do it in a way that abuses other people. Under ideal conditions, they may be able to accept and work through those inner feelings and self-concepts that torture them. If not, they will continue to vent that ooze through their online snert identities, while safely dissociating it from their "real world" identity.

Does greater anonymity result in greater deviance? It's an interesting question. Because greater anonymity usually is associated with less accountability for one's actions, the answer would seem to be "yes." (snipped)

The higher prevalence of misbehavior among anonymous users may be more than just a "disinhibiting" effect. Rather than the anonymity simply "releasing" the nasty side of a person, the person may experience the anonymity - the lack of an identity - as toxic. Feeling frustrated about not being known or having a place in the group, the new user acts out that frustration in an antisocial manner. They need to feel that they have SOME kind of impact on others. It's not unlike the ignored child who starts acting "bad" in order to acquire attention from the parent, even if it's scolding and punishment. The squeakiest wheel. Humans, being humans, will almost always choose a connection to others over no connection at all, even if that connection is a negative one. Some snert guests may think (perhaps unconsciously) that their misbehavior is a justified retaliation against a community that they feel has stripped away their identity and alienated them. They reject because they feel rejected.

In rare cases, people who are well known in the community may become the trouble-makers. Social psychology has demonstrated that people with power and status often have "idiosyncrasy credit" - they are given a bit more leeway in violating some of the less critical rules of the community.

EXCERPTED FROM THIS ARTICLE

This is from a fascinating site on the Psychology of Cyberspace which can be read (which we STRONGLY recommend) in full here.) And many many thanks to OneofSeven from our sister site for once again, finding such a wonderful article!! - EOPC

After Stalking His Ex on Facebook, he Kills Her

(U.K.) Clifford Mills, 49, attacked Lorna Smith after inviting her to his flat in Brixton, south London, in February last year. He denied murder, claiming he was suffering a mental abnormality at the time, but an Old Bailey jury took just 90 minutes to find him guilty.

Mills showed no emotion as the verdict was passed, but one of Miss Smith's relatives broke down in tears. Another shouted "Lorna lives in us, you murdering b******" as they left court.

Mills stabbed Miss Smith, 45, to death and went drinking for 14 hours before handing himself in at St Thomas' Hospital in central London. He told staff that someone called "Stan" had committed the killing and that "Stan" existed in his head.

Police found Miss Smith's body in Mills' flat, where he had left the Oasis song Stop the Clocks playing on a loop.

Miss Smith had been in a relationship with Mills from 2002 until 2006, and they remained in touch after breaking up. She began seeing another man, Tony Hersey, but Mills remained in "relentless" contact with her, prosecutor Zoe Johnson QC said.

As well as telephoning and sending text messages, he pretended to be someone called Charlie Manning on Facebook to stay in touch with her.

Mills had a "psychological grip" over Miss Smith and asked her to help him with court paperwork at his Brixton flat on the day she was killed.

Within 20 minutes of her arrival he had murdered her, because he was "jealous and angry", jurors were told.

Mills will be sentenced on Monday.

original article here

The Shadow of Fear

The shadow of fear that stalkers leave on their victims

by Grace Hammond

Jennifer Aniston recently had a restraining order issued against 24-year-old Jayson Peyton, who staked out her home for eight days and was found to have duct tape, dvds of her films and a sharp object in his car.

The story made the headlines and saw the former Friends star join the likes of Halle Berry, Mel Gibson and Gwyneth Paltrow, who have all been victims of stalkers.

But it is not just Hollywood A-listers who suffer what can be a terrifying experience. More than 1.2 million women and 900,000 men are stalked in the UK every year and in the worst instances, stalking can lead to violence, criminal damage, rape or even murder.

One of the most chilling cases in recent years involved German office worker David Heiss who murdered British student Matthew Pyke in a sustained and savage stabbing attack after becoming obsessed with his Yorkshire girlfriend, who he had met in the chatroom of a war game website.

Thankfully, such horrific cases are rare but for anyone who has been the victim of stalking it can be a traumatic ordeal. "People think stalkers are strangers lurking in the bushes, but research shows 50 per cent of stalking cases involve ex-partners," says Jane Harvey, from the charity Network for Surviving Stalking. "Anybody who deals with the public is more at risk – I was speaking to a teacher recently who was being stalked by the mother of a pupil."

Ms Harvey says stalking can have a huge impact on lives – making people feel panicked, depressed and lonely.

"It affects your relationships, your ability to trust people and to function as a normal human being."

At present, the only law against stalking is The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and although the law in the UK doesn't define what stalking is, Harvey says it "could be someone phoning you repeatedly, emailing you, following you, sending you presents or other 'gifts'."

Experts believe the rise in reported stalking incidents over the last decade is, in part, down to the development of the internet and mobile phones which have made it easier for stalkers to prey on their victims. But while celebrity figures like Jennifer Aniston are quick to contact the police, research in the UK has shown that 77 per cent of victims didn't report they were being stalked until more than 100 incidents had happened.

The story of Jemma, whose name has been changed to protect her identity, makes for unsettling reading. She met a man on a dating website who shared her interests. She was excited but wary. "He was my first internet date and I'd arranged to meet him in a public place – just as you're supposed to do," she says.

After a couple of dates, she decided to end their relationship which is when the emails started. "They pleaded for another chance, saying we'd both regret it if we didn't try again, but the emails continued, becoming stranger and darker. It frightened me."

He kept phoning in the middle of the night and threatened to come round if she wouldn't meet him. It left her feeling vulnerable and frightened. "I was finding it impossible to concentrate on work."

She called the police and her stalker was finally arrested and given a restraining order. But the stalker posted a fake profile on the same dating site and got in touch with Jemma asking to meet. "I was horrified he'd invented a new identity to harass me again."

He was finally caught by police again and they fitted a panic alarm in her home. But the experience has left her shaken. "How many more people are out there, creating false identities and stalking their victims under the cover of websites?"

Jane Harvey says if someone is making you feel uncomfortable then you should trust your instincts and go to the police. "Victims themselves don't take stalking seriously. If someone walked up to you and punched you in the face, you'd go to the police. But stalking can happen more slowly, a few texts one day, a few the next week."

There are basic precautions that anyone can follow, such as limiting the amount of personal information they put on the internet and social network sites like Facebook.

But the advice is simple – never confront a stalker, and keep a record of any text messages, emails and letters as evidence to help the police.

For more advice and information in the U.K., visit the Network for Surviving Stalking, http://www.nss.org.uk

original article here

Stalking Privacy on Facebook, One Psycho at a Time

phisby John Fontana

If you were asked who could harvest a trove of personal data from 10 million Facebook users in just three weeks you might guess company CEO Mark Zuckerberg over Jason Zada. You'd be dead wrong.

Who is Zada? He offered something scary at Halloween and nearly 10 million strangers stepped up and provided him access to their personal Facebook information to get it. Unwittingly walking him past their privacy settings and into their policy-protected data vaults. Maybe you were one of them?

Certainly more than 10 million people viewed Zuckerberg's private photos a few weeks ago when a Facebook bug exposed them to the public. But Zuckerberg was hacked, Zada's millions were socially engineered, accomplices in their own fleecing.

What sophisticated tool did he use? Facebook Apps.

Zada was the creator of TakeThisLollipop.com, a viral Facebook app that collected your Facebook pictures and profile information and put it in the middle of a psycho stalker video.

It was hailed as brilliantly scary. The video ends with the psycho getting out of his truck at a house. Your photo taped to his dashboard. Zada said it was a message about privacy.
"If you look at the video, the scariest part is that your information is in the video. The piece is scary because a person is violating your privacy, not because it's bloody or there's anything jumping out," he told AdAgeDigital.

Actually the scariest part is that your information is in the hands of the Facebook application developer - in this case Zada, who it turns out is benign. His intent was to entertain and his app clearly stated it was not saving your information. But what's to stop a real life psycho from doing the same thing and saving the data? Nothing really.

Facebook has a set of usage policies for its Facebook Platform, which is what developers use to create apps. Among other requirements, the policies dictate application owners must delete all user data if they stop using the platform or Facebook shuts down their app. And policy says app developers must 'delete all data you receive from us concerning a user if the user asks you to do so.'

If developers are running a business, policy means something. If you're running a scam, policy talk is cheap.

How can a real-life psycho (or scammer, phisher) get your 'protected' data? Ironically, exactly the same way Zada did.

Set-up an app that lets users grant you access to their data, show them a video or offer a game, collect their information, stalk in real life.

In Zada's video you see the psycho is looking at a map to your house. Where do you think that information came from?

What Zada proved is that the Facebook stalker scenario is real-life. The potential psychos you block via privacy settings know your back door is unlocked. A scam would likely run the same as TakeThisLollipop. It sprung up on the Internet, went viral and disappeared in 20 days.

Could it have been sleuth hackers, the Russian mafia, the cliché computer hermit in his parent's basement?

It's an email phishing scam mimicked on the social web. It relies on user habit and social engineering - surfing, prurient interest, etc.

Do users know (or care) Facebook apps by-pass privacy settings? One developer I spoke to said after he wrote his first Facebook app he revoked access to every Facebook application he had signed on to. He was dumbstruck by the amount and depth of user information his app made available to him. When he tested it against his own Facebook account, no matter how tightly he screwed down his privacy settings, the app still had access to just about everything it requested.

TakeThisLollipop.com proves that a fool and his password (and data) are soon parted. Facebook is a ripe audience; unwittingly picked apart.


original article found here

A Fine Line Between Stalking and Searching

by Andrea Bartz and Brenna Ehrlich

This week, we pulled the cotton from our ears and emerged from our dark caves of seclusion to open this column up to user-submitted questions.

Some submissions were inanely obvious (no, don't tweet that picture of your boss, I don't care if he told you about his chinchilla fetish at happy hour the other week), some were boring beyond belief, and, many, oddly, were just plain stalkerish. But not in the way you might think.

In the past, we've covered the topic of how to deal with online stalkers when the attention is unwanted. But more and more, as gaining access to anyone on this rapidly rotting Earth of ours is easier than ever, we Web denizens are wondering: Does using the Internet to check someone out make me a stalker?

Chances are, probably not. Read on for a couple of queries on this issue:

"When I was waiting for the bus the other day, I evaluated the attractiveness of all the people at the stop; there was one obvious winner. Then the seat next to him was the only seat open. Upon sitting down, he immediately engaged me in very adorable and flirty conversation. We exchanged names and we both talked about what we were studying at school, but I didn't have an opportunity to give him my number.

"Anyway, with his name and major, I was able to find him after only 30 seconds of Googling. I want to contact him but I'm not sure how. Especially because it would be like, 'Hey, I stalked you a tiny bit to find your full name.' My question is: What's the appropriate (read as LEAST CREEPY) way to contact this person and what should I say in a message?" - Creepy Crushing in Chicago

I'm going ahead and assume (for the sake of brevity) that you are not an insane stalkery-type person who collects the hair and toenails of her crushes, which she then uses to construct elaborate shrines to their beautiful (soon-to-be-departed) souls. If you are such a person, please cease reading, and, uh, please don't hurt me.

Moving on: It seems like in your case, you don't have that many degrees of separation between you and your bus boy. You attend the same school, take public transportation (i.e. you're poor) and are not, in fact, Luddites. In this case, I say: Be bold. You found him on Google, you say? If you found his Facebook profile (and not some old swim-meet records from middle school), go ahead and send him a brief message ("Hope your meeting on the downtown campus went off without a hitch!") and a friend request.

Such a method is nice and private -- tweeting "Hey! You're freaking hot" might be a little embarrassing -- and if he doesn't respond, you can always chalk it up to the fact that Facebook is cutting down on notification e-mails. Our lives are public nowadays, and if homeboy didn't want to be found, well, then he could always limit his visibility on the site.

(If his profile is indeed hidden but you tracked down his e-mail address, follow a similar tack. Unless, that is, his e-mail address was hidden on page 38 of Google results at the end of an article he wrote freshman year about the campus parade-and-circus club. In that case, give up.)

Furthermore, it's not like the phenomenon of searching out star-crossed potential lovers is anything new (that's what Missed Connections et al are for), so we're guessing your dude will be flattered at the very least that you sought him out. And hey, maybe now you can meet up and compare hair-and-toenail shrines.

"Through some Facebook stalking, I recently discovered my ex had gotten married. (We're no longer FB friends). Although that was a shock for sure, the real heartbreaker was that all my friends (who are still FB friends with her) didn't disclose any of this information to me. ... Not even the engagement! How do I tell them they're backstabbers without admitting I'm a stalker?" - Backstabbed in BK

First of all, Backstabbed, it doesn't really seem like you have been, in fact, backstabbed. You're not Facebook friends with your ex anymore, you say? If you refer to our column on how to deal with breakups online, we recommend unfriending exes after particularly painful breakups, which is exactly what you have done (congrats on your reading-comprehension skills). The fact that you unfriended this girl indicates you don't want her in your life -- and don't want your life in hers -- so we can see why your friends didn't call you immediately after she decided to tie the knot. Still, we get that this is information you would rather get from a friendly face than from a half-sloshed night of Facebook stalking, sandwiched between, "Oh, Laurie has a new baby. ... It's hideous!" and "Joel went to prison again." If you want to call up your pals and -- rationally -- explain that you would rather they not hide your ex's huge life moments from your sensitive (yet manly) gaze, go ahead and do it. Just explain that you were idly clicking through Facebook after a few too many mojitos and decided to check up on a few of your exes. Your friends will understand, because they are likely stalking their exes as we speak. Stalking exes on Facebook is basically akin to a distasteful bodily function: We all do it, but no one goes around bragging about it in mixed company.

original article found here

130 Difference Facebook Profiles?

(U.S.A.) ...this is one situation that takes the cake in “crazy ex” stories. Reported today is the prosecution of 22 year old Los Angeles resident, Jesus Felix, who created — wait for it — 130 different Facebook pages in order to harass his 16 year old ex-girlfriend. Wow.

On facing two counts of California’s new Internet impersonation law — in effect January 1st – and one count of making harassing telephone calls, Felix has pleaded “No contest”. In fact, he has only narrowly dodged a one-year jail time sentence by agreeing to take anger management and sex therapy classes, two things that are clearly in his best interest. He is also now saddled with a five year probation, along with 30 days of road crew service.

Prosecutors say in a news release that Felix created Facebook pages and Craigslist listings using photos of his ex-girlfriend. The girl’s mother discovered online profiles with her daughter’s contact information as well as sexually explicit photos.

original article found here

Could You Be a Stalker's Next Victim?

By Claire O'Boyle

(U.K.) Following a shocking report into the problem of stalking, we look at how police deal with the crime and how in one woman's case, they ended years of abuse from a stranger.


It's a crime that usually hits the headlines when it's linked to A-list celebs, but falling prey to a stalker is something that never crosses most of our minds.

But recent figures show it's on the rise, with a shocking 1 million British women and 900,000 men being targeted by predatory stalkers.

The biggest problem in tackling the crime, according to experts, is that stalking is simply not taken seriously enough in the UK.

Jane Harvey from the Network for Surviving Stalking (NSS) says: "Victims of stalking often try to shrug it off until it is too late, but the main problem is that the authorities don't take it seriously."

A report carried out for NSS found 77% of victims waited until they were targeted 100 times before going to the authorities.

"That's much too long," says Jane. "It's amazing what levels of abuse people will put up with - they don't identify the abuse as stalking.

"They tell themselves that if they ignore it, things will fizzle out. But if something happens or you are contacted repeatedly in a way that causes you alarm or distress, that is stalking."

Jane says around 50% of all cases are carried out by ex-partners, but in the other half of cases, victims have never had particularly close relationships with their stalkers - and many have never even met

them. "It can often be someone known through work, or a friend of a friend," explains Jane. "In other cases it could be someone you pass in the street.

"And with the internet as huge as it is, sometimes people never set eyes on their stalker."

Jane says one of the main problems is that so many of us are brought up to be polite and kind, and rather than rebuff unwanted attention, we often let it go.

"It means sometimes we find ourselves in slightly awkward situations and don't make it clear that we're unhappy," says Jane.

"For example, with repeated text messages from someone we don't know well, we might reply politely to one or two.

"Then after that we might ignore them, when perhaps the best, although not necessarily the easiest, thing to do is say you do not want any more texts." The latest figures relating to the number of victims in the UK are terrifying.

"Victims must get the help they need," says Jane. "Until you speak to someone who has been stalked, you never fully understand how terrifying it is.

"One man I've talked to is being stalked online. The stalker seems determined to wreck his life - he spreads lies about him on forums and chat sites.

"It's extremely distressing, this man is being used as a plaything for the stalker's amusement."

According to the law, if any unwanted or abusive acts happen on two occasions, you can go to the authorities.

Despite this guidance, the police came under fire in light of the report, and one senior officer even said forces have let victims down.

However, according to Jane, the police can be fantastic in some areas, while other victims are left floundering on their own. "It sounds like a cliche, but this is another postcode lottery," she says. "But at least now, the issue is on the agenda, and the good work done by some forces can roll-out across the UK."

One victim who had a positive experience with the police was mum-of-two Alexis Bowater, whose dangerous stalker Alexander Reeve was jailed for four years last April.

"I knew from the very first email this guy wasn't right," recalls Alexis, 39.

"I was working as a news anchor on a local TV station, ITV Westcountry, and these horrible emails came in. Some were so graphic and frightening I don't want to repeat what they said. I told my boss about the first one, and we told the police almost immediately."

The menacing messages, threatening rape and violence, chipped away steadily, telling a pregnant and petrified Alexis, "I'm watching you," and, "I know where you live".

"He was clever in the way he wrote the emails," says Alexis. "You couldn't tell if he really knew anything or if he was actually watching me. Not knowing was the most frightening part."

To the news presenter's relief, the messages slowed down when she went on maternity leave to have her first child.

But when she came back and went on screen, visibly pregnant for a second time, the emails resumed and were more menacing this time.

"It was worse with my second pregnancy," she recalls. "He sent obscene, horrible messages about me, and he was threatening my unborn baby. He said he hoped my baby would die."

Alexis became increasingly anxious throughout her pregnancy as fears about her stalker's intentions grew.

"I sometimes did late shifts at work and would have to drive myself home at 11pm," she says. "I remember taking detours because I thought someone was following me.

"I noticed someone tailgating me a couple of times, but I'll never know if it was him.

"People talk about this state of hyper vigilance you get into when you're being stalked, and I'm sure I was there.

"One night when I was pregnant again, my first baby woke me in the night. My husband was away for work and I went into the baby's room to comfort him. I heard a creaking on the stairs and thought: 'It's fine, I'll just get my mobile and call for help'. But my phone was in my bedroom. I'd have to pass the stairs to get it. I decided I'd crawl through a window to escape."

Luckily, Alexis didn't need to flee. There was no one in her home that night.

But police took her fears seriously and installed an alarm at the news presenter's home.

In many cases of online stalking, tracking the culprit is an enormous task. But in Alexis's case the police found a clue at an internet cafe in Chichester, West Sussex.

Unfortunately, they couldn't trace him any further, and he stopped sending emails.

Then in May last year the messages started again and officers took eight weeks to snare him. "In those weeks towards the end, I was frantic," she says. "I knew the police were closing in on him, but would it make him more angry?"

In April, after two years of harassment and threats, 25-year old Reeve was jailed and given a lifetime restraining order.

"Putting a face to it all should have meant more, but he was just a sad man. He meant nothing to me," explains Alexis.

She says the police helped her cope with the ordeal. "They were very supportive. But it's a pity if it's not that way across the country because it's a scary thing to go through. The police did a good job in my case, so hopefully other forces can follow their example."

For support and information about stalking in the U.K., visit http://nss.org.uk.

Stalking

What you need to know -

• 18% of stalking victims have been sexually assaulted
• 12% say the stalker threatened to harm their children
• 15% say their pets have been abused by the stalker
• 67% of victims were spied on by their stalker
• 40% of stalkers got details from the victim's friends
• 27% got information from the victim's workplace or family
• 77% of victims didn't go to the police until they'd been bothered 100 times

What to do if you're stalked -

1. Show no emotion, regardless of how scared or angry you are. Never confront or agree to meet your stalker.
2. Call local police to find out which officer is running the case.
3. Tell your friends, family, neighbours and work colleagues.
4. Keep evidence like texts, emails, letters and parcels. Record anything that could be proof and keep a diary.
5. If you get calls from a stalker, in the U.K. use 1471 to track their number.
6. If you're being followed, try to stay calm. If you're driving, head for the nearest police station to get help.
7. If you ever feel in imminent danger, call 999. (or 911 in the U.S.)

original article here

Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

By Laura Parker, USA TODAY
(2008) A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."

Legal analysts say the Sept. 19 award by a jury in Broward County, Fla. - first reported Friday by the Daily Business Review - represents the largest such judgment over postings on an Internet blog or message board. Lyrissa Lidsky, a University of Florida law professor who specializes in free-speech issues, calls the award "astonishing."

Lidsky says the case could represent a coming trend in court fights over online messages because the woman who won the damage award, Sue Scheff of Weston, Fla., pursued the case even though she knew the defendant, Carey Bock of Mandeville, La., has no hope of paying such an award. Bock, who had to leave her home for several months because of Hurricane Katrina, couldn't afford an attorney and didn't show up for the trial.

"What's interesting about this case is that (Scheff) was so vested in being vindicated, she was willing to pay court costs," Lidsky says. "They knew before trial that the defendant couldn't pay, so what's the point in going to the jury?"

Scheff says she wanted to make a point to those who unfairly criticize others on the Internet. "I'm sure (Bock) doesn't have $1 million, let alone $11 million, but the message is strong and clear," Scheff says. "People are using the Internet to destroy people they don't like, and you can't do that."

The dispute between the two women arose after Bock asked Scheff for help in withdrawing Bock's twin sons from a boarding school in Costa Rica. Bock had disagreed with her ex-husband over how to deal with the boys' behavior problems. Against Bock's wishes, he had sent the boys to the boarding school.

Scheff, who operates a referral service called Parents Universal Resource Experts, says she referred Bock to a consultant who helped Bock retrieve her sons. Afterward, Bock became critical of Scheff and posted negative messages about her on the Internet site Fornits.com, where parents with children in boarding schools for troubled teens confer with one another.

In 2003, Scheff sued Bock for defamation. Bock hired a lawyer, but he left the case when she no longer could afford to pay him.

When Katrina hit in August 2005, Bock's house was flooded and she moved temporarily to Texas before returning to Louisiana last June. Court papers that Scheff and her attorney David H. Pollack mailed to Bock were returned to Pollack's office in Miami.

After Bock didn't offer a defense, a Broward Circuit Court judge found in favor of Scheff. A jury then heard Scheff's arguments about damages. Pollack did not seek a specific amount for the harm he says Scheff's business suffered.

"Even with no opposing counsel and no defendant there, $11 million is a huge amount," says Pollack, adding that Scheff is considering whether to try to collect any money from Bock. "The jury determined this was a significant enough issue. It's not just somebody's feelings are hurt; it's somebody's reputation is ruined."

Bock says that when she moved back to her repaired house over the summer, she knew the trial was approaching but did not know the date. She says she doesn't have the money to pay the judgment or hire a lawyer to appeal it. She adds that if the goal of Scheff's lawsuit was to stifle what Bock says online, it worked.

"I don't feel like I can express my opinions," Bock says. "Only one side of the story was told in court. Nobody heard my side."

ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

thanks to BETH for this find!

New 'Stalking' App for Mobile Phones Due Out Soon

(UNITED KINGDOM) A new social networking tool allows mobile phone users to identify people just by taking a photo.

The 'recogniser' application gives any mobile phone owner access to almost all online information about anyone they photograph.

IT expert Charlie Brown has expressed concerns about the application, saying it's a walk up start for stalkers and could see an increase in identity theft cases.

'You can pretty much know everything about (a person) that is listed on the internet within about 30 seconds,' he said.

Facebook and Twitter accounts and business cards become available when recogniser matches an image of someone's face online.

Software developer Dan Garden says there is a lot of ways to use the application sensibly.

'During a party, you might want to figure out some more information about the person standing across the room from you.'

Police and government agencies use a similar device to identify criminals.

The application could be on mobile phones around the world by September 2010.


original article here

ARE YOU A CYBERBULLY? - TAKE THE QUIZ

Often our cyberpaths, once found out and/or exposed turn into a cyberbully to silence their victims. We have had threats of lawsuits against victims. (No predator really wants their lies or cover-up exposed!)

Other predators have threatened their victims' families, children, friends, jobs, reputations. Two even started hate sites about their victims, blaming them for everything. Both were even so childish as to think she was US!! (They only see their exposes and not the slew of the rest of them!!)

Our very first exposed predator, Charles 'Ed' Hicks still claims its "all false" and is back online doing the same all over again as well as being WANTED for jumping probation! In fact he tells new potential victims he's suing his ex-wives, Very Bad Men, Dr. Phil and the court system in Virginia for their supposedly false accusations and writing a 'tell-all' book with the 'truth!' LOL. Don't hold your breath, readers.

Of course there's the old "SHE'S JUST A SCORNED WOMAN" or "HE'S A JILTED LOVER" excuses in cyber affairs. Real life affairs use them too when the predator wants to play victim and make everyone feel sorry for him - including new targets. It's a joke. (Our advice? The minute you hear that 'scorned woman' defense? Make it your business to contact this 'scorned woman' or 'jilted man'! Someone with no secrets or destructive agenda wouldn't care if you spoke to their ex! Same applies to women predators.)

So let's find out - did your online love or cyber-friend turn into a cyberbully? Or were they a cyberbully all along?
from: DEATH BY 1000 PAPERCUTS:

Cyber-harassment, cyber-stalking, cyber-group bully, cyber-Gossip: all of these categories fall under the tactics of a cyber-bully.

Here is a quiz, take it and see it you’re a cyber-bully or if you've ever pulled some other cyber-bullying tactics during your time on-line.

Have you ever done this?

1.Signed on with someone else’s nic and password to get information.
While this does not seem like cyber-bullying if this information was to be used for ill-will, then, yes, it is cyber-bullying.

2. Sent an email or online greeting card from someone else’s account.
Again, some may claim that this is not cyber-bullying, if the email or online greeting is used to stalk or harass someone, then it falls under cyber-bullying.

3. Forwarded a private IM or email without permission.
This could be construed as a “grey” area. After all, it’s merely passing on a private email or IM and some would argue as fairly innocuous.

It boils down to intent.

Was the private conversation/email sent to someone or others with the intent to spread gossip or do harm? While most likely the victim may never know their communication has been forwarded to others, this is still harmful to that person. This is not direct cyber-bullying, more like back-stabbing cyber-bullying tactics.

4. Hacked into someone’s PC, website or blog
Not only is this cyber-bullying but also cyber-stalking and illegal. A 33-yr-old man in Florida was just sentenced to prison for 110 years after being convicted of hacking into MySpace teenaged girl’s PC’s. He threatened to harm to them or their families if they didn’t send him lewd photos.

5. Sent a virus or Trojan Horse?
This is malicious behavior with intent to do harm.

6. Posted rude, nasty or vicious (miscontrued) comments about someone online
Back to intent. Some blogs or forums can get heated and contentious but if someone’s intent is to solely post rude, nasty or vicious comments about another poster then this is cyber-bullying and cyber-gossiping.

7. Teased or frightened someone during IM chats
Teasing that goes over the line, that is meant to chip away someone’s self-esteem. The victim cries foul, the perpetrator claims “teasing.” Boo! (Not that kind of fright) Frightening someone can mean making threats to do harm.

8. Joined in a clique on a blog, website or chatroom that enjoyed driving other posters offsite
Not often talked about are the “community” blogs or chatrooms where “like-minded” posters form cliques. Part of their activities are to single out other posters for the sole purpose of driving the target off the site. This is often done in the guise of “for the good of the blog or chatroom.”

9. Accused someone of a crime online without proof
The person who is unfairly accused of committing a crime online usually has nowhere to turn. The accusers are for the most part, anonymous, the “accusation” gets spread without proof.

10. Followed someone across the Web
Kept track of other online posters, following them from blog to blog, chatroom to chatroom, site to stie. This is a form of soft-core Cyber-stalking. Not the same as showing up at their door but enough to creep anyone out. (Cyberpaths do this to see if any of their victims are "talking about them" to anyone else and then raging on as "being the victim" themselves!)

(many of our victims feel that they need to find out if their cyberpath is "doing it again" or "harming anyone else." EOPC does NOT consider that cyberstalking but accountability as well as compulsory in order to stop these predators from throwing one life away to start destroying another)

Did you answer "yes" to any of these?

Only you know the answer to that question. If you did, maybe it was a one-time occurrence. Only you know the answer to that one, too.

If you were guilty of any of these actions, you should think about changing your behavior.

Unless you want to be a cyber-bully.

ORIGINAL (and more great posts!) HERE

A Form of Partner Violence: Cyberstalking

Violence in intimate relationships is all too common -- just ask any cop who's responded to the calls. But younger generations who grew up with computer technology have more to worry about than a punch or slap. Cyberstalking is emerging as a form of partner violence that differs from traditional domestic abuse and is troubling in the ease in which it occurs.

Cyberbully stalking harassment In a study published this month, Kansas State University researcher Lisa A. Melander shines a light on how cyberstalking impacts college-age students. Gathering data in male-only or female-only focus groups, Melander found a range of cyber harassment, including sending unsolicited or threatening e-mails, posting hostile Internet messages and obtaining personal information about the victim without his or her consent.

The study found some differences in cyber harassment compared to face-to-face domestic violence. One, the conflict is quick and easy, so flare-ups occur in cyberspace when they might have blown over if people were only communicating in person. Two, matters that would typically be private become public very quickly -- meaning friends, relatives and others can be pulled into the situation and also suffer from the conflict. And, three, geographic location has no bearing on the situation. Victims can't always escape by changing their physical location.

Melander also found that, contrary to traditional violence where there is likely one abuser and one victim, cyberharassment can often involve both partners because of the back-and-forth that takes place. Moreover, when people communicate via computer they are less inhibited and don't have visual cues, such as facial expressions or tone of voice, to guide their interactions. That too can aggravate conflict that is being played out in cyberspace.

Melander concludes that computer technology "may change how relationship violence occurs among younger generations." A previous study suggested that about one-third of college students reported some form of computer-based harassment. But much more research is needed on the impact of the "darker side" of technology, she said.

The study is published in the June issue of the journal Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking.

-- Shari Roan

original article here

Ex-Blocker Helps You in the Aftermath

by Amanda Lily



While we used to simply look through old photos or listen to sappy love songs after a break-up, we can now spend hours online, scrolling through old memories, or more importantly, checking up on what new memories our ex may be creating post-"us."



To help eliminate the painful practice of Facebook-stalking the former-love-of-our-lives, creative agency JESS3, with inspiration from "Stuff Hipsters Hate," has developed the "Ex-Blocker" (http://blockyourex.com). This plug-in for Firefox or Chrome essentially erases any trace of our ex (or exes) from the Internet. Simply type in the culprit's first and last name, and your browser will block his or her Facebook and Twitter accounts, as well as eliminate them from your overall www browsing experience.



In case there is more than one skeleton in your closet, you can add up to five exes, thus swearing them off forever ... or at least until you uninstall the software if you guys ever get back together.



Sure, this software seems to imply that none of us have self-control, but in the immediate aftermath of having our hearts broken, it is easy for curiosity to get the best of us. The "Ex-Blocker" can simply play the part of our "digital best friend" and stop us from torturing ourselves with what once was.

original article here

You've Got H@TE MAIL!

Remember the time when new netizens were discovering the joys of e-mail and chat? When we watched Meg Ryan in You've Got Mail log on and send messages to Tom Hanks. That was cool, way back in 1998, when that film was released. It explored the concept of what happens when the virtual world and the real world intersect at some point.



All that is old hat now. We send emails, we chat, we message, we scrap, we follow each other on Twitter, we scribble on Facebook's wall. We have SecondLife. The possibilities are endless. Your gmail inbox could be an excellent pointer. "Where are you now? I'd like to add you to my travel network”, says one mail. “XXX added you as a friend on Facebook” says another. There are join-us requests from at least three other social networking sites. And then, some blog comments that you have to moderate. So, cleaning the inbox could well take up an hour or two of your working day. All thanks to social networking. We live in an over-connected world, you see. Everyone's connected to everyone else and their cousin, thrice removed.



So, what's wrong with being connected? Nothing, except that we tend to lose perspective on who's a friend, who's not, and how much of our emotional investment needs to go into all this. Benign, harmless scraps, blog comments and messages are still tolerable. All you need to do is hit the delete button. But then, what about hate? What about those comments that hurt? What happens if there’s a sensitive person on the other end, who takes the hate personally?



Out of sheer curiosity, I log on to my Orkut account, and check out the hate communities. There are harmless "I hate to wake up early" to "I hate rain"communities. Soon, it turns ugly. And scary, if one may add. Take "Kill me, I'm fed up of my life" It had a whopping 3,000 members when one last checked. There's “Guns n Guts”, there's “I hurt myself; so you can't” with 7,000 members.



A web of distrust

One of the communities even suggests various methods to commit suicide. This community has a whopping 2,000 members at last count. Isn't this hate reflective of society itself? Surely, something's gone wrong somewhere.



According to psychologist Sonali Nag of the Promise Foundation, "Hate is a fundamental human emotion. As most other emotions, it is neither negative nor positive. It could be generated in response to something strongly repugnant to oneself and one's values. It could also be born from a sense of inadequacy. Both forms are seen on the Internet. It provides a screen to one's identity and offers a medium to express emotions with lower levels of restraint. ‘Snarking’ is an example of using the anonymity that the Internet provides to be snide and unrestrained in one's responses to someone else's postings. I would suspect that if one examined the personality of a 'snarker', one would find a sad, unfulfilled and frustrated person hiding behind his or her snarks."



There are hate communities directed at individuals and some very respected personalities at that. And then, countries. There was legal trouble when a ‘We hate India’ community was set up on a social networking site.



Omar Abdullah’s ‘alvida’

Social networking was also held responsible for the death of 16-year-old Adnan Patrawala from Mumbai, who was kidnapped and murdered by his Orkut friends. While social networking sites and blogs are excellent platforms for celebrities like an Aamir Khan or an Amitabh Bachchan to put across their points of view, they also make them vulnerable to hate comments.



You only have to check out Ram Gopal Varma's blog to see the kind of comments his posts elicit. But RGV blogs on, undeterred, responding to his readers sharply. But, then, it could get very serious.



Take the case of politician Omar Abdullah, who used the blog http://jknc.org/blog/ to air his views on Kashmir. He started his blog in mid-April, but by August, the comments and the hate got to him. His last post, titled 'Alvida' says it all. Sample this:

"Last night as I finished my last post I realised that I was filled with dread at the heap of personal abuse I was expecting when I logged on this morning and I was not wrong. We truly are a bunch of intolerant people. We want to be heard but do not have the strength to hear, we want to have an opinion but do not believe anyone else is entitled to one. So after almost 42 posts from me and more than 900 comments from all of you I am signing off and I will not be coming back."

Faceless dread

A clear case of cyber harassment. The nature of the Internet, as it is evident now, is that it is an open, free world, where everyone has the right to vent their views, or form communities without much social responsibility. The very fact that the bully is a faceless, unknown person, adds to the helplessness of the victim. Terror too, has spread its scary shadows on the Internet. Terror mails are sent from random IP addresses. As recently as September 2008, newspapers reported that a community called 'Indian Mujahideen' was banned from a social networking site, following the blasts in Delhi.



A presentation on 'Tracking terrorists in cyber space' made by J Prasanna, an Information Security Consultant, at a seminar organised by Digital Society Foundation of India, in Bangalore, acknowledges that most terrorists and spies indeed use the Internet. They use the Internet to leave a message on a website like orkut, Linkedin or a matrimonial website that looks normal. Only they understand where to look and what to read and it's difficult for others to find out. This is called a covert channel. Also, terrorists use anonymous proxy (with encryption) to transmit messages.



So, do we regulate the internet?

According to Na Vijayshankar, cyber law campaigner, the police are supposed to monitor any anti-social activities in society and can take action on their own. Vijayshankar, who is also the Chairman of the Digital Society Foundation of India, says the organisation proposes to act as a vigilante unit. He points out that his organisation even filed a PIL in connection with denigration of Gandhi on You Tube. "I personally try to keep the police informed. I strongly feel the police should maintain contact with voluntary organisations to act as cyber informers."



But does this not infringe upon freedom of expression and privacy? Agrees Na Vijayshankar, "It is a fact that sometimes privacy interests conflict with law enforcement."



However, Naavi cites a India Supreme Court judgment, which says “that the person’s ‘right to be let alone’ is not an absolute right and may be lawfully restricted for the prevention of crime, disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of rights and freedom of others.”



During the seminar on Privacy Rights and Data Protection in Cyber Space, he expressed the need for balancing the Privacy and Data Protection legislation with law enforcement and suggested that the forum would collect the opinion of experts and forward it to the government for necessary action when the Personal Data Protection Bill 2006 and ITA Amendment Act Bill would be taken up for discussion in the Parliamentary session.

“What the ITA 2000 fails to protect are cases such as 'cyber stalking' where privacy intrusion through e-mails or SMS messages creates problems for individuals. If such messages can be brought under "Obscenity" then it may be covered under Section 67 of ITA 2000. If it is indecent or threatening, it may be brought under IPC. This is essentially the protection that is available,” he points out in his presentation.

However, there is the issue of what constitutes privacy rights. When the police on a crime trail end up on a social networking site , there are commercial interests that try to block the police from accessing information which may be vital to solving the crime. Often the defense put up by the sites is that the information is protected by the ‘Privacy rights’ of someone else or that they are to be treated as ‘Intermediaries’ and should not be harassed, explains Naavi.



Which brings us back to that old question of freedom and responsibility. Particularly so, with reference to democracies, where one’s rights cannot be divorced from one’s responsibilities. Where there’s freedom, there’s responsibility. Now, if only those hate mongers understood.



Impact on children

As with all other aspects of helping children learn to live life completely, shielding them from cyber bullying is not an effective answer. An emotionally secure home environment that allows exploration and experimentation constantly backed up by support and introspection, would help them develop strong identities. A strong, self-accepting identity, would neither bully or be bullied, the psychologist explains.



The bullies and their victims

• In March 2007, high-profile technology blogger Kathy Sierra of the United States became a victim of cyber bullying. She received anonymous death threats on her blog and violent comments were made against her. Kathy was so scared that she stopped blogging. The incident triggered a movement in cyberspace, and hundreds of bloggers reported to have been victims of cyber bullying at some point in their online lives. An Anti- Cyber bullying Day was observed on March 30 that year, in protest.
• Another American citizen, Megan Meier, a 13-year-old girl committed suicide in October 2006, when personal comments on her looks and appearance got to her on a social networking site.
• Not many Indian bloggers would have forgotten the vicious personal comments and washing of dirty linen on the blogosphere, when a noted youth blog (youthcurry.blogspot.com) had a post about a management institute.
• Ironically, the Internet is also an excellent resource for parents who are worried about their children becoming targets of vicious attacks. There are websites dedicated to cyber bullying. Some of them include: http://www.cyberbullyalert.com/blog/ stopcyberbullying.org.

Stand up to a bully!

According to psychologist Sonali Nag, “It is an extension of the bullying that seems to be integral to the human predicament, be it on the school playground or between countries. The only difference between the school bully and the Internet bully, perhaps is that anonymity allows the cyber bully an easier chance of getting away. The bully is usually a coward who melts away when confronted.



Here again low self-esteem and deep feelings of inadequacy seem to characterize the bully. Interestingly though, the bullied sometimes, want the relationship with the bully to continue. For the price of being bullied, they gain the reward of being the bully's protege and of being protected by the bully. However, for those who want to be released from this form of abuse, the bullied can be empowered to stand up to a bully.

original article here