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

ONLINE ATTACKS

by Robin M.

Why So Many Feel Big When They Hide Behind A Screen

I’ve often joked that the internet is the last place that beating up women in public is still considered acceptable. Ask any woman who writes online, be it politics, women’s rights, often even parenting and more mundane social issues, and you will hear a nearly universal admittance that she has at some point been attacked for her views by at least one anonymous commenter. Not an “I disagree with you because x, y,z…” response, but a “You stupid bitch, why do you think you can write what you write.”

I used to be amazed by the vitriol. Then I was saddened. Eventually, though, I saw that as just another part of the territory when you open yourself up as a writer online.

I accepted it. We all pretty much accept it. That is the part that should make us all angry — our now inherent acceptance of the idea that if you write online, you will be harassed, especially if you are a woman.

As Nina Funell explains in this piece in the Australian, “The internet has absolutely changed the nature of public debate. The anonymity and the immediacy it gives people who want to indulge in abuse and hate… I don’t know if it actually makes it more or less dangerous [to have a public profile] but when you’re seeing a whole heap of hate speech written about you in separate forums, targeting you via email or in comments, I do know that it has a profound impact on your sense of safety…”

I’ve always been lucky to feel safe, despite opening a great deal of my private life online because of my writing about infertility and reproductive health. Although I have had my own share of comments, both with real names (I assume) attached or sent anonymously, I have learned to ignore them as simply a part of my work. I never stop to question why it should ever be a part of anyone’s “work” to deal with online harassment.

Once, things escalated beyond just comments and insults. It was a shocking realization of not just how exposed you actually do leave yourself online, but how free those who disagree with you feel it is allowable to step beyond the normal bounds of public and private life in order to “teach you a lesson” about how wrong you are about the things you believe.

I learned my lesson well. I learned that to allow someone to silence you online is to lose your power, and that when your personal life goes on line, you don’t go quiet, you identify it for what it is — an attack by someone who wants to intimidate you from acting on your beliefs. You must learn to change that attack into something that can become a positive for you, a chance to show your strength, expand your audience, whatever it is that they are trying to stop you from accomplishing.

The internet may always be the last place for attacks, especially attacks on women, to thrive. But we don’t have to accept it, we have to fight it.

original article here

The Law on (Internet) Harassment

(Indiana) At 9:36 a.m. on Monday, according to the officer’s initial report, a woman filed a complaint against her ex-boyfriend—with whom she’d broken up on Saturday—after he “harassed her extensively via telephone over the past 24 hours” and sent her as well a total of 46 texts.

“She stated that some are just general conversation but in some he makes threats against both her and her estranged husband,” the officer stated and included these examples: “Watch your back the next few weeks”; and “I’m going to put your husband in the hospital.”

The officer duly contacted the ex-boyfriend and strongly advised him to “cease all contact” with both the woman and the woman’s husband. The ex-boyfriend admitted having sent some “stupid” texts and promised the officer that he would so cease.

Then, at 3:25 p.m. on Tuesday, the ex-boyfriend discovered what it’s like to be on the receiving end of threatening texts, the officer stated in her second report on the case. Beginning at 8:30 a.m. that day, the ex-boyfriend complained, he’d gotten a series of threatening texts apparently from the estranged husband. Examples: “Im still waiting 4 u 2 run ur mouth some more”; “Why dont you tell police that u like 2 chase married women”; “Better yet why dont u meet me”; “Whats wrong? U have nothing 2 say now?” and “I will find u!”

The ex-boyfriend advised that he hasn’t responded to the estranged husband’s texts and doesn’t intend to, that at the moment that estranged husband doesn’t know where he lives and he wants keep it that way, and that the estranged husband owns “multiple firearms” and “he is afraid that (the estranged husband) may harm him.”

Then, 4:04 p.m. on Tuesday—less than 30 minutes after the boyfriend had filed his complaint—the woman’s estranged husband also reported receiving from the ex-boyfriend a derogatory text about his wife at 12:05 a.m. on Monday, the officer stated in her third report on the case. This time the officer strongly advised the estranged husband to “cease all contact” with the ex-boyfriend.

The officer told all parties that her reports will be forwarded to the Porter County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office for review.

Harassment
Harassment is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by a term of up to six months in jail and a fine of $1,000.

Indiana Code defines it as occurring when “A person who, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person but with no intent of legitimate communication,” makes a telephone call, sends a telegram, writes a letter, broadcasts over a CB radio, or uses a computer network to communicate with another person or to transmit “an obscene message or indecent or profane words.”

As Porter County Prosecuting Attorney Brian Gensel told the Chesterton Tribune, the key statutory element of the crime of harassment is “no intent of legitimate communication.” He gave this example. Say an estranged husband and wife are talking on the phone about the custody of their child. “There may be cussing and shouting, there may be trash talk, but at the end of the call they make some arrangement or reach some agreement about their child’s upraising. That’s not harassment. If there’s some legitimate communication beyond merely haranguing, then it’s not considered harassment. But if one parent is just calling up the other and screaming for the sake of screaming, then that may be harassment.”

Harassment can be a tricky crime to prosecute, Gensel noted. For one thing, “there’s the difficulty in interpreting a basis for what constitutes meaningful communication between the parties involved. Obscene calls are clearly harassment. But a text or call with a legitimate nugget of communication is not. It has to be wholly devoid of legitimate communication to be considered harassment under the law.”

For another, there really needs to be documentation of the harassment—a recorded call or a text—for a prosecution to be successful. “Otherwise, it’s just one person’s memory of what was said,” Gensel observed.

On occasion, a decision may be made not to prosecute because the harassment “was an isolated incident,” Gensel said. “Typically police officers took at whether the harassment is part of a continuing pattern and so do we.”

For the record, in November 2009 a Porter man was charged with harassment after Chesterton Police said that he e-mailed photos of himself to a Westchester Public Library employee and then left a note for her indicating that he was “waiting” for her.

Harassment as his deputies usually see it, Gensel said, tends to involve ex-friends, acquaintances, and family members in face-to-face or telephonic communication. Cyber-harassment is an altogether different issue. “One of the dilemmas about e-mails is who’s doing it, where are they doing it, and how will you find them?”

In any event, Gensel said, pinpointing the federal agency with jurisdiction in the matter can be problematic.

As it happens, Chesterton Police Chief George Nelson said, his officers spend a fair amount of their time responding to what are classified as either “Harassment” complaints or “Obscene/Harassing Phone Calls.” In 2009 alone, calls for service included a total of 122 of both.

More: according to the logs, the CPD officer who filed three separate reports on Monday and Tuesday devoted a total of 35 minutes of her time to the case or just under 12 minutes per report. If that average is in any way typical, the CPD devoted 24.4 hours or three full eight-hour shifts in 2010 to harassment complaints.

original article here

What is a Cyberbully?

Cyberbullying is sending or posting harmful or cruel text or images using the Internet or other digital communication devices. The stories are heart breaking. It involves Teens or Adults who:

Sending cruel, vicious, and sometimes threatening messages.

Creating web sites that have stories, cartoons, pictures, jokes ridiculing others.
Posting pictures of people online and asking others to rate them, with questions such “Who is the biggest ___ (add a derogatory term)?”

Breaking into an e-mail account and sending vicious or embarrassing material to others.

Engaging someone in IM (instant messaging), tricking that person into revealing sensitive personal information, and forwarding that information to others.

Posting your twisted version of event or smear against your victim on various sites. EXAMPLES OF POSTINGS

Taking a picture of a person in the locker room using a digital phone camera, or taking a photo and re-working (photoshopping) it and sending that picture to others.

Taking any discussion or reasonable criticism (such as the exposes here on EOPC) as an "attack" and then counterattacking by badgering that person/ place that exposed you.. by making a site about them or sending email criticizing them to others, simply as "payback" or to "defend yourself" (cyberpaths 'playing victim') EXAMPLE

Cyberbullying is emerging as one of the more challenging issues as more people embrace the Internet and other mobile communication technologies.

Cyberthreats are a related concern. A cyberthreat is online material that threatens or raises concerns about violence against others, suicide, or other self-harm.

There are two kinds:

Direct threats are actual threats to hurt someone or push them to commit suicide.

Distressing material provides clues that the person is emotionally upset and may be considering hurting someone, hurting him or herself or committing suicide.

from: http://www.cyberbully.org
(Many cyberpaths fall well into the category of cyberbully - especially when caught, about to be caught and exposed. The cyberbullying usually happens as part of a pre-emptive attack and smear campaign in an attempt to throw the honesty and credibility of their victims in a bad light - EOPC)

CYBERBULLYING CAN KILL

The Poor 'Cyberpath' Feels Threatened

by Kathy Krajco

(We have replaced the word 'narcissist' with Cyberpath, since a Cyberpath is usually a destructive narcissist; among other things - EOPC)



Let's take a look at this line that cyberpaths aren't really bad, that they lash out at you because they feel "threatened."

This idea begs the question "Threatened in what way?" and "Threatened by what?"

If you're the victim of a cyberpath, you know that this "threatened" excuse is a farce, because the cyberpath attacks precisely when you are anti-threatening him or her. Like when you are trying please them, when you are saying you love them, when they are already mad at you and you are trying to appease them, when you try to get them to listen to you.

WHAM – you expect the normal reaction to these friendly behaviors, but what do you get instead? The PERVERTED reaction of an attack. It's a shock tactic that takes you aback and makes you have to pinch yourself.

What on earth have you done to "threaten" the poor cyberpath?

Let's look at the last example – trying to get him to listen to you.

By doing that, you ARE "threatening" him, I'm afraid. Yes.

Correction: No, you are not threatening him; you are threatening the imaginary him, the bogus "him." You're threatening his delusions of grandeur.

ANY honesty or reality does. Remember that he is a mental child playing Pretend, and she wants all his 'playmates' to play along. That means you are supposed to follow his script. You are supposed to act unworthy of her attention or regard. When you don't play that part, he stomps her little foot at you and gets mad, throwing a temper tantrum to be so obnoxious that you give in and do what he wants.

In his self-deluding game of Let's Play Pretend, he is so far superior to you that you are beneath his notice, at the relative level of some worm or bug with respect to him. He's something divine; he should look down his nose in contempt at you.

And, you had better act the part or he will go off at you. But here you are, acting like he owes you his attention. In other words, you're acting like God Almighty's equal.

Oh, how horrible an insult to God Almighty!!! Shame on you! You - a mere bug, a mere worm - are "threatening" her majesty by treating him as your equal! Quit "threatening" his delusions of divinity, you mean and naughty person.

The same is true for the example of telling him you love him, for in a profession of love is an implicit call for love in return. Oh, what a horrible attack on his godhead with respect to a mere bug, a mere worm like you! You are treating him as your equal. What an insult!


So, don't let the addle-headed know-it-alls confuse you. You are not threatening the poor cyberpath. The cyberpath is just a pervert = someone who perverts the course of logic to pervert reality. Hence, he pervertedly views love or affection or any call for engagement from him as its very opposite = a "threat."

His Perverted Thinking Machine is not your fault or your problem. It's his fault and his problem. He is not really threatened by you acting like his equal.

In other words, he isn't fighting back against any injury or threat: he is just an aggressor targeting vulnerable prey. That is, he's abusing you to feed his ego.

To blame you for what he does to you, by saying that that you are thus "threatening" him, is as crazy as it would be to blame a lamb for "threatening" a wolf by running away when the hungry wolf feels a need to eat said lamb.

But the so-called experts cannot seem to get it through their thick heads that there is a fundamental difference between fighting others and eating them – between fighting and predation. Though they Play Pretend that they are the only ones qualified to express an opinion on the matter, they are actually the least knowledgeable and qualified, because they know nothing but what they have read in speculative essays by others just as ignorant and whatever lines cyberpaths on their couches have fed these collective speculators. Both individually and collectively they have almost no experience with real cyberpaths, let alone any real-world experience with them. And they haven't even solicited information from victims of cyberpaths. So, how could they possibly know what they are talking about?

Trust your own observations. Reason from facts to conclusions, not backwards, and you will learn what you need to know.

All animals occasionally fight others (including others of their own species) when those others cross boundaries to threaten their interests in some way. You can tell when this is the motive, because the moment the aggressor backs off the fighting stops, and everybody's cool again.


Why? Because when you feel threatened, your motive is to repulse the threat = self-defense. Once you have accomplished that mission, you are done.

But when your motive is to destroy the other, the other party backing down or trying to appease you has the opposite effect. Then it's a sign of weakness that just emboldens the attacker to pour on the attack more furiously than ever.

That's why when an animal attacks to eat another, it doesn't stop till it has ripped that other to shreds. That's what human predators (like psychopaths and other narcissists) do to their prey, as well.

The only way to avoid "threatening" these perverts is to just get and stay far away from them.

ORIGINAL: The Poor Narcissist Feels Threatened

(while this article uses the male gender - your cyberpath can be female)

It's a Crime: Harassment

(INDIANA) Here’s how a Chesterton Police officer spent part of her shifts[].

At 9:36 a.m. on Monday, according to the officer’s initial report, a woman filed a complaint against her ex-boyfriend—with whom she’d broken up on Saturday—after he “harassed her extensively via telephone over the past 24 hours” and sent her as well a total of 46 texts.

“She stated that some are just general conversation but in some he makes threats against both her and her estranged husband,” the officer stated and included these examples: “Watch your back the next few weeks”; and “I’m going to put your husband in the hospital.”

The officer duly contacted the ex-boyfriend and strongly advised him to “cease all contact” with both the woman and the woman’s husband. The ex-boyfriend admitted having sent some “stupid” texts and promised the officer that he would so cease.

Then, at 3:25 p.m. on Tuesday, the ex-boyfriend discovered what it’s like to be on the receiving end of threatening texts, the officer stated in her second report on the case. Beginning at 8:30 a.m. that day, the ex-boyfriend complained, he’d gotten a series of threatening texts apparently from the estranged husband. Examples: “Im still waiting 4 u 2 run ur mouth some more”; “Why dont you tell police that u like 2 chase married women”; “Better yet why dont u meet me”; “Whats wrong? U have nothing 2 say now?” and “I will find u!”

The ex-boyfriend advised that he hasn’t responded to the estranged husband’s texts and doesn’t intend to, that at the moment that estranged husband doesn’t know where he lives and he wants keep it that way, and that the estranged husband owns “multiple firearms” and “he is afraid that (the estranged husband) may harm him.”

Then, 4:04 p.m. on Tuesday—less than 30 minutes after the boyfriend had filed his complaint—the woman’s estranged husband also reported receiving from the ex-boyfriend a derogatory text about his wife at 12:05 a.m. on Monday, the officer stated in her third report on the case. This time the officer strongly advised the estranged husband to “cease all contact” with the ex-boyfriend.

The officer told all parties that her reports will be forwarded to the Porter County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office for review.

Harassment

Harassment in Indiana is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by a term of up to six months in jail and a fine of $1,000.

Code defines it as occurring when “A person who, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person but with no intent of legitimate communication,” makes a telephone call, sends a telegram, writes a letter, broadcasts over a CB radio, or uses a computer network to communicate with another person or to transmit “an obscene message or indecent or profane words.”

As Porter County Prosecuting Attorney Brian Gensel told the Chesterton Tribune, the key statutory element of the crime of harassment is “no intent of legitimate communication.” He gave this example. Say an estranged husband and wife are talking on the phone about the custody of their child. “There may be cussing and shouting, there may be trash talk, but at the end of the call they make some arrangement or reach some agreement about their child’s upraising. That’s not harassment. If there’s some legitimate communication beyond merely haranguing, then it’s not considered harassment. But if one parent is just calling up the other and screaming for the sake of screaming, then that may be harassment.”

Harassment can be a tricky crime to prosecute, Gensel noted. For one thing, “there’s the difficulty in interpreting a basis for what constitutes meaningful communication between the parties involved. Obscene calls are clearly harassment. But a text or call with a legitimate nugget of communication is not. It has to be wholly devoid of legitimate communication to be considered harassment under the law.”

For another, there really needs to be documentation of the harassment—a recorded call or a text—for a prosecution to be successful. “Otherwise, it’s just one person’s memory of what was said,” Gensel observed.

On occasion, a decision may be made not to prosecute because the harassment “was an isolated incident,” Gensel said. “Typically police officers took at whether the harassment is part of a continuing pattern and so do we.”

For the record, in November 2009 a Porter man was charged with harassment after Chesterton Police said that he e-mailed photos of himself to a Westchester Public Library employee and then left a note for her indicating that he was “waiting” for her.

Harassment as his deputies usually see it, Gensel said, tends to involve ex-friends, acquaintances, and family members in face-to-face or telephonic communication. Cyber-harassment is an altogether different issue. “One of the dilemmas about e-mails is who’s doing it, where are they doing it, and how will you find them?”

In any event, Gensel said, pinpointing the federal agency with jurisdiction in the matter can be problematic.

As it happens, Chesterton Police Chief George Nelson said, his officers spend a fair amount of their time responding to what are classified as either “Harassment” complaints or “Obscene/Harassing Phone Calls.” In 2009 alone, calls for service included a total of 122 of both.

More: according to the logs, the CPD officer who filed three separate reports on Monday and Tuesday devoted a total of 35 minutes of her time to the case or just under 12 minutes per report. If that average is in any way typical, the CPD devoted 24.4 hours or three full eight-hour shifts in 2010 to harassment complaints.

original article here

PREDATORS

Punishing narcissists [by exposing them] is not being mean to them. It may be the only thing that can help. And, as for their victims, it is simple justice, the right thing to do for their sake too. - What Makes Narcissists Tick

What is the predator thinking? What's going on in the mystery behind those steely blue eyes? What do they see in you?

Something to love for anything but lunch?

How many tiger-tamers and lion-tamers have fooled themselves into thinking they had developed a relationship with these beasts? Fooled themselves into unknowing that every minute of every day in the cage that tiger was tempted.

That's what tiger-taming is - astounding an audience with the audacity of dangling yourself as bait before a predator.

Until one day, when out of the blue, almost off-handedly, Tiger hops down off the pedestal and eats the tamer to just be done with it already.

How many times have authorities similarly fooled themselves about a child molester, rapist, or serial killer - thinking they can safely be released from prison? Then, out on the street, bait is constantly dangled before their eyes.

Sooner or later....

One might as well expect a wolf to be lovey-dovey with lambs or expect that tiger to roam the streets without hurting anyone. It ain't gonna happen.

It's all because of the way a predator VIEWS you. There is no connection in that look. It's a tiger and you aren't - you are lunch.

A narcissist has no proper relationship with him- or her-self (N's identify with their image instead of their buried inner selves), so how can they have a proper human relationship with anyone else? They see nothing to identify with in you.

Predators - the way to deal with them is simply to get and stay a safe distance away from them. They may resist the temptation today, but if you keep dangling bait before their eyes, sooner or later you know what is going to happen.
So let no one tell you it's mean to divorce one or cut off contact with one. I don't care how much the narcissist cries about it or even if he or she threatens suicide if you leave. People might as well tell you that you have a moral obligation to remain within striking distance of a great white shark because it's mean to stay away and let it go hungry. Absurd.

A predator has no RIGHT to prey, no claim on your life that you must fulfill by allowing them to use you as their whipping boy.

It's just too bad that they will be sad and unhappy without one, because that's THEIR problem: you have a right to pursue your own happiness.

original article here

Case Highlights 'Spoofing' and Other Electronic Stalking

By Nathan Gorenstein

The e-mailed threat was stark. "How would you like it if your sister went missing?" The next message was an insult. "Whore," the writer said, and taunted, "You called the cops but they can't do anything."

Todd Hart, 26, had reason to believe his boast was accurate.

The victim, an ex-girlfriend he threatened for weeks last June, had called police about earlier disturbing e-mails. They immediately asked for copies.

Problem was, the e-mails had all disappeared. Twenty minutes after the woman opened each electronic message, it somehow automatically deleted itself from her computer's in-box.

So a police officer sat down at the woman's computer to see the next threat himself.

By July, the FBI was knocking at the door of Hart, a former SEPTA employee now being held in jail. On Monday, he will be sentenced in U.S. District Court for a string of electronic attacks on the woman, her friends, and her family. He pleaded guilty in November.

"For about a month, when all the harassment was going on, I would sit in my room and pray to God that it would stop," the 24-year-old woman, who lives in California, wrote in a victim's statement. Her name is redacted from sentencing documents.

In the course of a few hours one evening last year, prosecutors believe, Hart dispatched a sewer repairman, a pizza deliverer, and an electrician to her father's house.

After a short relationship - initiated on an online dating site - Hart reacted with fury when the woman announced she was moving from Philadelphia to take an internship at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories in California.

First, he threatened suicide. Then came the stalking.

The self-deleting e-mails were an unusual touch: Even the experienced federal prosecutor in Philadelphia had not encountered it before.

Hart also used a second tactic, called "spoofing," to make harassing calls that recipients could not trace to his telephone number.

Using "SpoofCard.com," one of many Internet services that permit callers to hide their phone number and even change the sound of their voice, Hart made calls warning the woman that she had 10 days to leave California "or else." In another call, he said, "You're going to [obscenity] die."

Thanks to modern electronics, that wasn't all.

Using passwords obtained while they lived together, Hart canceled a doctor's appointment, changed the passwords on the woman's e-mail and Facebook accounts, took control of her bank accounts, and deleted her application to take the Medical College Admission Test.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Levy is asking for a sentence of at least 57 months, a year above the federal guidelines. "To say that this defendant has serious emotional problems when it comes to dealing with women is an understatement," he has told the judge.

He also offers some advice: Completely revise a password whenever you believe it is compromised. And be careful with whom you share a password.

Hart's attorney, federal public defender Mark T. Wilson, did not return messages seeking comment.

Hart pleaded guilty to stalking and unauthorized use of a computer. Such crimes are usually prosecuted in state court, but he is facing a federal judge because the victim worked at a federal institution, Livermore, whose internal police force the woman had initially contacted.

Among other scientific work, Lawrence Livermore is the nation's top nuclear-weapons research lab, though the woman, a biology and premed major, was not employed in that research.

Hart has previous convictions for forgery, and in 2003 he was convicted in Burlington County "for almost identical" stalking charges, Levy said. In 2005, he was convicted for sneaking into a women's bathroom at Immaculata College and videotaping students as they used the toilet. He initially received probation, but within 18 months he was in violation and served time in jail, according to court documents. He is in Chester County Jail for again violating his probation.

When FBI agents searched his Philadelphia apartment, they discovered a telescopelike object called a "peephole reverser."

"The agents tested it and determined that it enabled a viewer to look into an apartment through the peephole," according to court documents.

"The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have counseling programs," Levy said in an interview, "and he clearly needs counseling. I don't know if he would be cured."

Levy, who has wide experience handling computer crime, said it was the first case he had handled involving self-deleting e-mails.

No one from the mail service Hart used, BigString in Red Bank, N.J., returned calls or messages seeking comment.

The company is in financial trouble, according to corporate records, but at least a half-dozen other firms offer such services, according to their websites. Various technology is used. BigString promises that once the recipient clicks on the message sent through its servers, the mail will "self-destruct" within a specified time period.

On its website, the firm adds, "The mail, while looking like every other mail, will print nothing when the receiver clicks print on the computer and show nothing if the receiver tries to save the text or image."

The second technique Hart used is more common. Spoofing has been controversial enough that Congress last year made it illegal to hide the origin of a telephone call "unless a legitimate business reason exists," according to pending Federal Communications Commission regulations.

Meir Cohen, president of SpoofCard.com, said that despite the firm's name, its intent is to provide legitimate services. As an example, he cited an on-call physician who may use a personal cell phone to contact a patient but wants return calls to go to his office or answering service first. The doctor can have one of those numbers appear on the patient's telephone instead.

"The vast majority of our customers use it as a tool to protect their privacy," Cohen said. "A large portion of customers are really women who want to protect their privacy and don't want [stalkers] to have their numbers."

Cohen, who was familiar with the Hart case, said, "My heart goes out to the victim."

SpoofCard.com cooperates with law enforcement, he said, and "we will hand over records if we are subpoenaed."

original article here

Are Online Threats Taken Seriously?

by Jackie Ibanez

Are online threats taken seriously? This question has been raised in the wake of fitness club shooting near Pittsburg.

George Sodini killed three women and himself after bringing in a gun to his health club. Before the shootings, Sodini outlined his plot and reasons for his rage against women on the internet.

Although many said they would dismiss threatening comments posted on the web, others said they would immediately contact authorities.

"I would call the police and let them know because I am very aware of what goes on around me," said Robbin Delgrande of West Stockbridge.

Sodini had a history of ranting about women and his failed love life online.

Post Your Answers Here

Jailed for Facebook Threats

A Fort Myers man is accused of cyberstalking two former co-workers using Facebook – and threatening their lives. Lee County deputies say the suspect created several fake Facebook accounts to make the threats. One of the victims said she feared for her life.

Jacobe Swanson was arrested and charged with threatening to kill or injure two women. The written threats were made on a popular social networking site Facebook.

"He had been threatening me for a long time," said one of the victims.

She said Swanson began stalking her two years ago.

"We were coworkers and nothing more. He showed interest in me and I rejected him and he decided he would start harassing me because I wouldn't give him the time of day," the victim said.

Swanson allegedly left threatening notes on her car.

Then he allegedly began stalking her and another former female coworker online.

"There were pretty horrific threats made against them like they were going to die. They were afraid to go to work and now he's going to face the consequences for that," said Sergeant Stephanie Eller of the Lee County Sheriff's Office.

According to the arrest report, Swanson threatened to chop off the head of one of the victims with a machete, then kill everyone in her house.

Swanson allegedly threatened the other woman saying "She was going to die either at home or at her job" and that she would die soon.

Detectives subpoenaed Facebook for the I.P. address associated with the threatening messages.

That address came back to the Fort Myers home where Swanson lives with his mom.

No one answered the door at Swanson's home.

Swanson is still in jail, where his victims hope he will stay for a long time.

"I hope he gets time for it and I hope he gets some psychiatric help because I believe he needs it," the victim said.

Swanson has been charged with aggravated stalking, intimidation (write, send threat to kill or injure) and contempt of court (violation injunction).


original article here

FREE SPEECH: FROM LEGAL TO LETHAL

by Lori Andrews

Recently, Judge Roger Titus of Maryland declared unconstitutional a federal law that made it a crime to use the internet "with the intent to harass [or] cause substantial emotional distress to a person in another state." In the wake of that decision, legislatures and courts across the country will need to rethink existing statutes on cyberharassment.

In the Maryland case, William Cassidy had been charged with cyberstalking Alyce Zeoli, a former colleague and a Buddhist religious leader, based on his tweets, such as, "Do the world a favor and go kill yourself. P.S. Have a nice day." Zeoli asserted that the tweets made her so fear for her safety that she had not left her house for a year and a half, except to see her psychiatrist. But the judge dismissed the case. His reasoning will animate discussions in legislatures about how to amend state and federal laws.

Judge Titus indicated that "threats of harm" are punishable, but not communications "intending" emotional distress. He also considered it relevant that the medium used (a tweet) was communicated to the public at large rather than just the victim. The target of the harassment could just choose not to follow the tweets. "This," said the judge, "is in sharp contrast to a telephone call, letter or e-mail specifically addressed to and directed at another person, and that difference ... is fundamental to the First Amendment analysis in this case." Judge Titus also seemed to think that it was unreasonable for Zeoli to have such a dramatic reaction; he said that Cassidy's tweets were not a "true threat."

Words are powerful. They can move listeners or readers to action, sometimes even to harm themselves or someone else. But generally, our society doesn't punish the speaker or writer. Think about Ozzy Osbourne. Thirty years ago, he recorded the song Suicide Solution. The song states that "Suicide is the only way out," and contains the barely-recognizable lyrics, sung at a faster speed, "Get the gun and try it; Shoot, shoot, shoot."

When a 19 year old shot himself in the head with a .22 caliber handgun after spending five hours listening to Ozzy's music, his grieving parents sued Ozzy and the record distributor. The California Appellate Court rejected their claims (pdf), noting that speech does not lose its First Amendment protection merely because it "may evoke a mood of depression." The court said the lyrics failed to "order or command anyone to concrete action at any specific time."

But courts have held differently when the speech is directly addressed to a particular person. In a case currently on appeal in Minnesota, William Melchert-Dinkel was charged with pressuring two people over the internet to commit suicide. He posed as a young female nurse who pretended to enter into a suicide pact with his victims. The judge in the Minnesota case pointed out that Melchert-Dinkel's "encouragement and advice imminently incited the suicide of Nadia Kajouji and was likely to have that effect." The judge in the case labeled the instant messages as "lethal advocacy" and held that Melchert-Dinkel's words were "analogous to the category of unprotected speech known as 'fighting words' and 'imminent incitement of lawlessness.'" The judge distinguished messages sent to the public at the large, saying that Melchert-Dinkel had the right to take his pro-suicide message to the public--over the internet, on television, and so forth--but did not have the right to address that message to a single, vulnerable individual. Melchert-Dinkel's attorney is appealing the case, based on the First Amendment.

But how direct does a threat have to be? What if Melchert-Dinkel had just sent Nadia an mp3 file with Ozzy’s Suicide Solution? Courts are already weighing whether people's "likes" on a social network can be used as evidence against them. In a Wisconsin case, a judge admitted into evidence a litigant's MySpace reference to a short story in which a judge was harmed. In contrast, a Mississippi court refused to use a dad's MySpace post of Ronald McDonald being shot in the face to prove that the mom should get custody of the kids.

The "intent" standard is also problematic. As Judge Titus suggested, the standard is too broad, covering speech that is constitutionally protected. But the "intent" standard is also, in some cases, too narrow. It might allow someone to evade legitimate prosecution by claiming they didn't intend harm, they just intended to be funny.

That strategy worked for 40-year-old Elizabeth Thrasher, whose victim was her ex-husband’s new girlfriend’s daughter. Thrasher posted photos, the phone number, and the email address of the 17-year-old girl in the "Casual Encounters" section of Craigslist, in which people expressed their interest in casual sex. As a result of the "Casual Encounters" posting, the 17-year-old girl was swamped with sexually explicit cell phone calls, emails, and text messages that included nude pictures and solicitations for sex. One man even came to the Sonic Restaurant where she worked after failing to reach her on her phone, leading her to eventually quit her job out of fear. She testified that the publication of the information made her feel like she "was set up to get killed and raped by somebody." Thrasher’s attorney argued that photos of the girl and her work location were already available on the girl's MySpace profile. He said the postings were "tantamount to a practical joke"--and Thrasher was acquitted.

The issue of targeting a victim versus the public at large is also a question to be considered. Judge Titus suggests that, to be criminally actionable, tweets and posts need to be sent directly to the victim. But because of the nature of digital communications, Judge Titus' distinction between public tweets and direct communications with the victim may not hold up in future cases. Much of the cyberharassment of women does not involve a direct threat from one person to another. In a Connecticut case, a man posted a YouTube rap video of himself waving a gun while threatening to shoot his baby's mom and "put her face on the dirt until she can't breathe no more." Even though the man was in North Carolina at the time and the woman resided in Connecticut, the court issued a restraining order against him.

Under Judge Titus' standard, such a video might not have been a cause for concern because the woman could just have turned it off. This issue of targeting a private person versus the public at large will be key in cases where the person posts information (such as a Google map to a woman's house with a claim she wants men to act out rape fantasies) and the poster himself does not intend to do violence.

As courts and legislators deal with cyberharassment, they'll be determining what the limits are to punishing people for tweets and posts that threaten violence or cause emotional harm. They'll also have to determine whether the rule that the communication must be sent directly to the victim makes any sense in the age of Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, where public posts--especially those that urge someone else to harm the victim--might be even more deadly than private ones.

Lori Andrews is the author of the upcoming I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did: Social Networks and the Death of Privacy

original article found here

Twitter Stalking is Protected Free Speech

by Andrew Couts

(San Francisco, U.S.A.) Saying mean, terrible, even violent things about someone on Twitter or blogs is free speech protected by the First Amendment, a judge has ruled.

A San Francisco judge has declared that cyberstalking on Twitter and blogs is constitutionally-protected free speech, reports The New York Times. The ruling is a victory for the First Amendment. But like all things worth fighting for, it comes at a price.

Here’s what happened: A Buddhist religious leader in Maryland named Alyce Zeoli became friends with a man named William Lawrence Cassidy. At some point, the two had a falling out. Cassidy took the mature route, and began posting thousands of messages on blogs and Twitter, often using pseudonyms, that aggressively disparaged Zeoli. Some of them even called for her death.

Understandably distraught, Zeoli then worked with the FBI to have Cassidy arrested, which he was, based on interstate stalking laws. Cassidy, the government argued, had caused Zeoli “substantial emotional distress.”

This, however, was not enough to convince Judge Roger W. Titus, who declared that Cassidy’s actions, while distasteful, were not enough to set a precedent that could cause serious harm to the entire foundations of speech on the Internet.

“[W]hile Mr. Cassidy’s speech may have inflicted substantial emotional distress, the government’s indictment here is directed squarely at protected speech: anonymous, uncomfortable Internet speech addressing religious matters,” wrote Judge Titus, in his official order.

Titus ruled that, because no one was forced to read Cassidy’s posts and tweets — as opposed to a “telephone call, letter or email specifically addressed to and directed at another person” — they are considered free speech, not harassment, just as personal bulletin boards of the colonial era fell under the protection of the First Amendment, which “protects speech even when the subject or the manner of expression is uncomfortable and challenges conventional religious beliefs, political attitudes or standards of good taste.”

One of Zeoli’s lawyers, Shanlon Wu, told the Times that Zeoli was “appalled and frightened by the judge’s ruling.” It is not yet clear whether there will be an appeal to the ruling.

original article found here

Man Rapes Girl, then Sets Up Facebook with Her Name

(U.S.A.) Travis Davis is facing stalking charges after he allegedly set up a Facebook account using the name of an ex-girlfriend he raped in Ohio to contact a more recent ex in Pennsylvania. He tried to force the woman he contacted to come back to him by threatening to distribute a secretly filmed sex tape.

The 23-year-old Indiana man was arrested Aug. 15 outside the second ex-girlfriend's home in Delmont, about 25 miles east of Pittsburgh, after someone called 911 to report a man sleeping in a suspicious vehicle outside, police said.

He had a .45-caliber pistol, three magazines of bullets and a box cutter, and the car had a stolen Pennsylvania license plate taped over the Indiana plate on his car, police said.

Davis had created a Facebook profile in the name of another ex-girlfriend, a woman he had raped in Preble County, Ohio, and used it to contact the Pennsylvania woman and her current boyfriend's family, police said.

A week before his arrest, police contend Davis sent the Pennsylvania woman a video of him having sex with her when both still lived in Indiana. The woman "never knew that this video was filmed in the first place and obviously never gave consent to send the video to anyone," a criminal complaint said.

Davis threatened in an e-mail to "send the video to everyone if she did not return to Indiana for him," a criminal complaint said.

A few days later, the Pennsylvania woman received a friend request from the Facebook page Davis created using the identity of his Ohio rape victim. Davis - pretending to be the Ohio woman - threatened to send the video to the Pennsylvania woman's current boyfriend if she did not move to Indiana, the complaint said.

Davis, still posing as the woman he raped, then messaged the Pennsylvania woman and told her he would keep the video a secret if she agreed to a "sexy video chat" with her ex-boyfriend over the Internet. Police say the Pennsylvania woman consented to the chat Aug. 12.

The next day, Davis called the woman claiming that his Facebook alter ego had sent him the video and "advised her, in sum and substance, that it may be in her best interest to return to Indiana," the complaint said.

On Aug. 14, nude images of the Pennsylvania woman were sent from the Facebook page to the woman and her boyfriend's mother, police said. Authorities said they have contacted Davis' accuser in Ohio, who confirmed the Facebook page wasn't hers.

Davis pleaded not guilty and faces charges of violating a protection from abuse order and stalking.

Davis remains in jail on $75,000 bail and his lawyer says he intends to prove his innocence.

original article here

FOR THE VICTIMS: BETRAYAL, YOUR FEAR & THE CYBERPATH

Once you find out what the cyberpath is they may do a combination of any of the following:

• Disappear and/or block you and/or change their nicknames, identity & emails
• Lash out at you
• Smear you
• Belittle you & call you names
• Tell everyone that you both know you are "crazy" or "stalking them" or (the oldest one there is) you're a "scorned man/woman."
• many other nasty, malicious things worthy of a 9 year old
  

This is betrayal. This is what pathological people do when their 'mask of normalcy' is pulled off. You reel from it because you can't understand. You can't imagine what happened to the attentive loving guy you met who seemed understanding. Nothing happened. That wasn't the REAL PERSON. This monster who is out for your virtual heart is the real person.

Everything else? was a lie.

All you will get now is narcissistic rage. Anger that you busted them. And threats of harm to you, your family and so on. Just read through the stories on the right of our exposed predators and see how they treated their victims.

Take a look at Ed Hicks, Doug Beckstead, Dunetz/ Yidwithlid, Brad Dorsky or Dan Jacoby . Look at how they were to their targets once they got bored or angry with them. Watch their rage, their blame-shifting, their guilt tripping and their disappearing acts from the lives of people who people who really loved and cared about them.

The one thing we can tell you here at EOPC is that 90% of the time, the threats are a form of "control by temper tantrum." Like a 6 year old they are mad that you won't play their game or said "NO MORE" to them. Or they got bored and don't want to play with you anymore, so your emails and attention is suddenly ANNOYING. Now they kick, scream, say rude things & stomp away hoping you will be so upset you will let them start up their game again. Either with you or someone else.

Or, that you are so scared of them you dare don't expose them or tell others. DON'T FALL FOR IT!

And don't for a second think they haven't told their online friends, offline friends, partner/ spouse, job... that you are "obsessed with" them or a "scorned" person. So when you send just one more email or make one more call hoping for explanation, closure, something... they say "see!! see how she is!! she's nuts and won't leave me alone! she's trying to manipulate me!"

What childish bull.

If you really want to help them? Expose them. Make them accountable. Don't let them scare you into silence. Help others stay away! Maybe they will get their relationship/ marriage right. Maybe they will go into LONG TERM counseling. The odds are 98% of them don't.

"The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

But don't let them scare you. Stand up to a bully no matter how long or what it takes. Take back what they took from you. Your power, your dignity and your peace of mind. - EOPC

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Betrayal, when realized, is a phenomenal existential feeling. Suddenly, your world is no longer the one you believed in. You question reality, but most of all you question yourself.

How, you wonder, could I have been so naive, stupid, blind, trusting, unseeing, unknowing? It may be difficult to believe, but these questions are good. YOU are the normal person, the one who aligns reality (he was so nice to me, he was my friend) with a cognitive belief: he ACTS as if he likes me, he TELLS me he likes me, I see no reason not to believe him because in my past, people who act and speak this way, CAN be trusted. There is congruency. But not now.

Suddenly, you learn that someone trusted - a spouse, lover, family member, close friend - has been putting you down, lying, manipulating others against you, and yet maintaining a stance of intimacy with you.

The world is not clear, the ground you stand on is wobbly. You will never feel good about this. You will not "Get Over" it. But you CAN move forward. You can do so by realizing that no matter how awful the betrayal, YOU are the normal person and this betrayal comes from rage.

This person envies you in some way, is enraged about it, and MUST put you down behind your back. They MUST harm you.

They have no choice. But you do.

In the world of normals, after we get over the shock, we can use this experience to become stronger, to help others, to learn to avoid this particular toxin, and to calm ourselves that the higher moral ground is ours. It's too bad this person acted as he did, we wish he did not, but we are NOT diminished by their pathology. Wiser, sadder, but never diminished.
~~~~

EOPC believes that cyberpathy is a form of pathology. Either narcissistic or sociopathic/ anti-social. Because its exploitative and the cyberpath has no remorse or guilt. Therefore we publish this article for the victims of cyberpaths.

Don't believe they aren't hurting you on purpose. They are. You are not the 'object' they treated you like. Stand up and tell them. They will probably disappear from your life while painting themselves as the victim - OF YOU!

Stop giving them the opportunity - stop trying to "get through" to them, stand up for yourself and starting healing you!
Hurting You Isn't Something Narcissists Do by Accident
by Kathy Krajco

In all the jabber about narcissism, the worst noise is this idea that hurting you is something narcissists do by accident.

If you get nothing else out of "What Makes Narcissists Tick," get the message that frees you of that ridiculous belief. Which is nothing but a baseless assumption.

I don't ask you to take my word for this. Test what I say when I say that narcissists hurt you on purpose. Anyone can test any narcissist.

Here's how: The next time the narcissist is hurting your feelings or making you feel low, let your feelings show and tell him or her how they are making you feel asking them to stop it.Be prepared for a shock. Any normal human being would soften and let up, but a narcissist will do exactly the opposite.

What does that mean?

Is revving up their engines, kicking in the afterburners, and running you right over an "accident" after you show your soft underbelly and beg them to let up on you?

It's no "accident," that's for sure.

Want to see a narcissistic rage? That's no "accident" either. The test: Just fall to your knees in tears begging them to have a heart and stop kicking you around like dirt.
The narcissist's response? He or she blows up into a rage. Is that rage an "accident" when nothing but how deeply they are hurting you provokes it?

No, it's a willful and wanton outrage.

Now hear this: THEY DON'T DO IT BY ACCIDENT. They aren't just inconsiderate and touchy.

Test their "touchiness" (if you can do so safely, or have somebody not at the N's mercy test it - someone who can defend themselves).

Rage right back in their face. Act just as wild right back in their face. Threaten right back. Speak abusively right back.

Now any normal person would be provoked to rage by your doing this in their face. But narcissists are so UNtouchy that they do the opposite. Watch how instantaneously the raging narcissist becomes meek and mild and switches to his "I-wouldn't-hurt-a-fly-mask."

Don't take my word for it. Test it.

You CANNOT insult a narcissist who isn't in a position to bully you! It's impossible. Try it, you'll see. Your lack of vulnerability gives them skin a foot thick! (Not to mention a rubber spine.)

"Touchy" my you-know-what.

They aren't touchy at all. So perceived slights aren't what set them off. The VULNERABILITY of a TARGET OF OPPORTUNITY is what sets them off - IF there are no witnesses.

That's predation, not touchiness.

Narcissists aren't inconsiderate of your feelings. To the contrary, they are extremely considerate of your feelings. Your feelings are exactly what they are trying to affect. They closely observe how you react every time they do something to hurt you.

And they are like sharks, able to smell a drop of blood a mile away. Why? Because your hurt feelings are their pain killing drug.

They are addicted to it. Ever since childhood.

That's what their mental illness is, an addiction. (In fact, all addictions are classed as mental illness.)

So where do people get the stupid idea that narcissists aren't to blame for what they do?

It's asinine to think that narcissists can't control themselves when we see them controlling themselves perfectly whenever witnesses are present. So, what? being behind closed doors makes them suddenly out of control of themselves? Baloney.

Their problem isn't lack of self control; it's lack of conscience. Conscience is what makes people behave the same in the dark as in the light of day.

Okay, they have an addiction to trampling people. They are hooked on the childish high they get from throwing somebody down, stepping on the victim's back, and thumping their chest with a Tarzan yell.

But since when does an addiction amount to a carte blanche? An addiction is just a TEMPTATION. It doesn't remove the addict's responsibility to resist that temptation.

If a heroin addict sees you with heroin, he will attack and may kill you for it - IF there are no witnesses present.

But do we absolve him of his responsibility for the crime just because he's addicted to heroin? Of course not.

Same with the narcissist. Since childhood he has done this mind-altering drug of abusing people and is addicted to it. He addicted himself.

Yet addicted as he is, he demonstrates the ability to control himself by behaving whenever witnesses are present, misbehaving only when he thinks he can get away with it.

Innocence that is not.

He does what he does because nothing but getting his drug matters to him. So he has no conscience. He lives to get it, whenever he can get away with it.

So, hurting others isn't something narcissists do by accident. It's how they live.

The victims of narcissists must understand this. They must quit falling for the masks predation conceals itself behind.

I don't care how much the poor, little, ole narcissist whines that he didn't mean to, and claims that he has an excuse because HIS feelings were somehow hurt, and weeps about what a miserable childhood he had and how sad and forlorn he'll be if you go away, and all that crap. It's a joke.

Painful as this is to admit, the victims of narcissists MUST understand it. It's the bottom line. It predicates your choices.

Don't take my word for it: test and see. 2 + 2 = 4. Always. Even on Thursdays.

SOURCE

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