UPDATE

AS OF JANUARY 1, 2013 - POSTING ON THIS BLOG WILL NO LONGER BE 'DAILY'. SWITCHING TO 'OCCASIONAL' POSTING.

Tuesday, July 01, 2014

WHY DO CYBERPATHS PREY ON OTHERS?

(This is merely an attempt to answer the question "WHY did they do this?" This explanation is speculative & by no means final or complete. - EOPC)

excerpted from: "Why Do People Abuse?"

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Understanding Abuse
People have difficulty understanding the motives of people who are involved in abuse. Why people choose to abuse other people is a common question.

Abuse situations must be lived in and experienced before their internal logic makes any sense. However, we can try to do our best to understand.


Why Do Cyberpaths Abuse?
The first question, "Why do people abuse other people?" has multiple answers. Some people internalized a particular relationship dynamic, namely the complementary roles of "abuser" and "victim". They are familiar with and fully understand the terror of being the helpless victim from their own childhood experience. The opposite of being a victim is not simply opting out of abuse; it is instead, to be abusive. Given the choice between being the out-of-control victim, or the in-control abuser, some of these people grow up to prefer the role of the abuser.

As they become adults, they simply turn this relationship dynamic around and start acting out the "abuser" side of the relationship dynamic. By choosing to be the aggressor and abuser, they may get their first sense of taking control over their own destiny and not being at the mercy of others. And the anonymity and disinhibition the internet provides feeds that.

Besides, online - others are only objects, not real people.



Still other people who abuse end up abusing because they have an empathy deficit, either because of some sort of brain damage, or because their innate empathic abilities never developed properly.

Such abusers cannot or will not relate to other people as people, choosing instead to treat them as objects. In effect, they confuse people for things. They treat people as though they were there solely for their convenience and do not otherwise have an independent, important life. Far too easy to do online!

Abusers who treat people in this manner are very likely psychologically ill, incurably so. They may have an antisocial, sociopathic or narcissistic personality disorder, and they may have anger or impulse control issues and addition (internet, sex, love & drama) issues on top of that!

Such cyberpaths may abuse via the net because of the benefits they receive from doing so, for instance, sexual or financial gratification, or the simple allure of power over other people's lives.


Wednesday, June 25, 2014

SCAM ALERT: Stephen Perez AKA Norita Binti Yakob in Malaysia - Affection Love Scam # MY004598HT6


Are you a victim of the affection scam run from Malaysia under the name of Stephen Perez AKA Norita Binti Yakob?

DId you send money to the bank account of Norita Binti Yakob? If so, please email me as we are putting together a group of victims so that the Malaysian Police will take the matter seriously. So far more than $400,000.00 has been scammed, and that number is growing.


Saturday, June 21, 2014

MAN CHARGED WITH REVENGE PORN, IDENTITY THEFT & EXTORTION CHARGES


(USA) -- A San Diego judge determined prosecutors have enough evidence against the alleged operator of a revenge porn site for him to face trial on conspiracy, identity theft and extortion charges, a state spokesman said Monday.

Kevin Christopher Bollaert, 27, appeared before San Diego County Superior Court Judge David M. Gill on Monday and returns to court July 16 for what's being heralded as the first case against a revenge porn site operator, said Nicholas Pacilio, a spokesman for California Attorney General Kamala Harris. Bollaert has pleaded not guilty to 31 felony counts.

His attorney Alexander Landon did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Authorities say Bollaert earned tens of thousands of dollars operating two websites for the scheme.

Prosecutors say at one site, people uploaded nude pictures without permission of those photographed and listed their names, cities and links to their Facebook profiles. When asked to remove photos, Bollaert allegedly contacted victims from a separate website and charged them up to $350. Bollaert voluntarily took the sites both offline when contacted by investigators last year, Pacilio said.

The term "revenge porn" is used because most of the explicit images have been posted online by former lovers in attempts to shame their former partners after a breakup.

The images used can be obtained consensually during a relationship or can be stolen or hacked from online accounts.

The practice resulted in a new California law that makes it a misdemeanor to post identifiable nude pictures of someone else online without their permission and with the intent of causing serious emotional distress or humiliation, though that law was not cited in the charges against Bollaert.

Unlike most revenge porn sites, investigators said Bollaert's requirement that a victim's personal information be included is what led to the identity theft allegations.

Bollaert's also charged with obtaining identifying information with the intent to annoy or harass. The extortion charges are for allegedly charging women to remove those photos through the second website. Victims were unaware that Bollaert was allegedly operating both sites and investigators determined the connection during the probe, Pacilio said.

Authorities say he told investigators during a six-month investigation that he received about $900 each month from online advertising. But PayPal records show he's received tens of thousands of dollars.

In addition to Bollaert, the attorney general has arrested another alleged operator of a revenge porn site. Casey E. Meyering, 28, of Tulsa, Oklahoma was extradited from Oklahoma to stand trial in California two weeks ago, Pacilio said.


ORIGINAL ARTICLE FOUND HERE


Tuesday, June 10, 2014

SUED FOR $10MILLION OVER A BLOG


UPDATE: LAWSUIT WITHDRAWN!  Blog still up.  (see the comments)


(example of what can happen when you go after the cyberpath or ex online)

by Terence Corcoran

(U.S.A.) A Bedford man is suing his ex-wife for at least $10 million over her blog posts on the physical and emotional abuse she claims to have suffered at his hands during their 25-year marriage.

Robert Levine, who owns a Bronx-based business called Foodirect, calls Julie Levine’s many blog entries “false and defamatory” in the libel suit filed Dec. 3 in federal court.

“He absolutely denies all the claims,” said Robert Levine’s attorney, Mona D. Shapiro of Mount Kisco.

His ex, who lives in West Orange, N.J., launched a blog called “Until You Say Uncle” in 2008. It describes harrowing abuse she says her husband perpetrated: knocking her out, holding guns to her head and sexually assaulting her.

The couple, who were married in 1980 and raised two sons in Westchester County, had a contentious divorce, which began in 1999 and was finalized in 2005. Julie Levine was granted the divorce on the grounds of cruel and unusual treatment.

She said by email that she may might her lawyer, Robert Leino of Manhattan, comment for her. Earlier Tuesday, he declined comment, saying he was not authorized to discuss the matter.

Although an ugly divorce in the suburbs is hardly a new or recent phenomenon, the public nature of the Levine split is a reflection of a new trend: the use of social media to air a grievance, even one as personal as a divorce. The Internet is the new backyard for angry ex-spouses.

“Facebook, YouTube, Twitter — they’ve made us producers, not just consumers. That means we’re ever-eager to put up a story and talk about it. The success we see with reality television, it’s related to the same part of human nature,” said a Fordham University professor of communications, Paul Levinson.

Levinson, of Greenburgh, said there has been an explosion of personal material posted onto the Internet that would have only been whispered about in a previous age. “People tweet everything they’re doing,” he continued. “Until we learn — and this is all new — we’re going to see an erosion between the public and the private.”

A disclaimer on Julie Levine’s blog says, “I do my best to try not to knowingly injure, defame or libel anyone. But bear in mind, I am writing what is the truth — and I was married to a real bad dude.”

Some of the abuse, she wrote, happened in front of their sons, Jason, now 30, and Jared, 27, while they were growing up. The sons, however, are very close to their father,” Shapiro said. “They have a good relationship with him and they work with him in the family business.”

Shapiro said Julie Levine wants more money from her ex and has taken him to court despite the 2005 divorce agreement.

Julie Levine acknowledged the lawsuit in this blog post last week:

“I do not want to lose my voice, my blog. As you probably already know, my ex husband (the ex abusive husband) is suing me for $10 million, but I am fighting it in court. I already had the case transferred from the Westchester county court to Federal court. Problem is that legal fees are killing me.”

Sunday, June 08, 2014

Are Online Threats Crimes or Free Speech?

(U.S.A.)  The Supreme Court of the United States may soon decide whether or not to hear appeals of two cases in with people were convicted and sent to jail for making online threats, even though they later said they didn’t mean any harm.

In one case, Anthony Elonis of Pennsylvania, wrote on Facebook about killing his estranged wife. According to the Associated Press, he said:

 “There’s one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you. I’m not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts.”

The woman testified in court that she feared for her life. Elonis was sentenced to almost four years, and was released on February 14, 2014, according to The Express-Times. 

Email to talk show 

 In the second case, Ellisa Martinez of Florida sent an anonymous email to a talk show host. According to the Connecticut Law Tribune, Martinez said she was:

“planning something big around a government building here in Broward County, maybe a post office, maybe even a school, I’m going to walk in and teach all the government hacks working there what the 2nd amendment is all about.” 

As a result of the email, Broward County schools were locked down for three hours.

Martinez pleaded guilty. The judge sentenced Martinez to two years in prison, and ordered her to pay more than $5,000 as restitution to the police.

In both of these cases, the appellants are arguing that their statements, regardless of the threatening nature, should be protected as free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Threats and custody battle 

A similar case was appealed to the Supreme Court last year. Franklin Delano Jeffries II, an Iraq war veteran from Tennessee, posted a YouTube video in which he played a guitar and sang a song that he wrote about his 13-year child custody battle. The lyrics included:

The best interest ain’t of the child anymore. The judges and the lawyers are abusing ‘em. [Pointing at camera]. Let’s get them out of office. Vote ‘em out of office. . . . ‘Cause you don’t deserve to be a judge and you don’t deserve to live. You don’t deserve to live in my book. 

Watch Jeffries video on Wired.com.

Jeffries posted a link to his video on Facebook and sent links to 29 Facebook users, including a state representative, a TV station. Twenty-five hours later, he removed the YouTube video.

Jeffries was arrested. According to KnoxNews.com, the Knox County Sheriff’s Office determined that Jeffries made “veiled threats” to the Knox County chancellor, his ex-wife and her husband.

Jeffries was convicted for using the Internet to transmit a death threat and sentenced to 18 months in jail, KnoxNews.com stated. Although he had been freed in 2012, he was in trouble again for using cocaine and making threats of suicide and murder on Twitter.

Read: Tweets land ex-soldier convicted in YouTube case behind bars, on KnoxNews.com. 

 Jeffries appealed his conviction for making the YouTube video and lost. Last year he appealed to the United States Supreme Court. His appeal was rejected.

Threatening language online 

In the two new cases, according to the Associated Press, “the Supreme Court is being asked to clarify the First Amendment rights of people who use violent or threatening language on electronic media where the speaker’s intent is not always clear.”

The American Bar Association has published more detail about the Anthony Elonis case, and it’s pretty scary:

After his wife of seven years and two children left him, Anthony Elonis was having a tough time at work, and was even sent home on a few occasions for being too upset to work. He was employed at Dorney Park and Wildwater Kingdom. One of the employees that Elonis supervised, Amber Morrissey, had filed several sexual harassment complaints against him. Elonis then posted a photograph on his Facebook page, taken at the Dorney Park Halloween Haunt, of him holding a knife to Morrissey’s neck with the caption, “I wish.” A supervisor saw this and immediately fired him. Two days after he was fired, Morrissey began posting violent messages about his former employer on his Facebook page. He also posted Facebook messages about killing his wife. Based on these statements, a state court issued Elonis’ wife a Protection From Abuse order. Ms. Elonis testified at trial that she took the threats seriously, and feared for her own and her children’s lives. Elonis’s Facebook threats kept escalating to a point where he was threatening police forces and elementary schools. By this point, the FBI became involved and, when they went to his home to interview him, Elonis refused to speak with them, and posted a message about it later on Facebook. 

I hope that the Supreme Court understands that online threats can be precursors to serious violence.

By declining to hear the Jeffries case, the Supreme Court let his conviction stand. It could do the same thing with the Elonis case, which would mean his conviction would stand as well.

But perhaps the Court should hear the arguments, and then declare, once and for all, that online threats are crimes.


Sunday, May 25, 2014

E-Stalkers On the Prowl

by Rizanuzzaman Laskar

While conventional stalking has received much attention lately, harassment through mobile phones and the internet has grown to be a silent epidemic in the last few years.

The Daily Star has recently interviewed 30 women at random about the issue, and found every one of them has been harassed electronically by ex-boyfriends or strangers.

"It is sexual harassment of the new millennium," said Sultana Kamal, rights activist and former adviser to the caretaker government. “And almost all the victims are women."

Kamal said the anonymity of the electronic communication devices makes it more likely for a person to indulge in stalking. “Some people are turning to these tools to do and say things they otherwise would not do.

The women interviewed were middle and upper class professionals, students and a housewife.

One was a schoolgirl who spent sleepless nights because of crank calls; another was an industrialist's daughter who stumbled across obscene pictures and her personal details on a Facebook profile someone else had opened in her name.

Naima Hossain, a college student, was taunted and teased over the phone for a week by a person she had never met. The stalker, who asked her out several times, threatened to throw acid on her face for refusal.

"That they [stalkers] do not have a face makes it even more traumatic for the victims," said Shamim F Karim, a psychology professor at Dhaka University.

Getting stalked by someone the victim knows can be no less unnerving.

Shamrin Afia Adiba, a BBA student, knew her stalker. For three years, she got taunting phone calls almost every hour.

About the nightmare she had gone through, she said it felt like her life was being slowly poisoned.

The stalker, a jilted male friend working at a telecom operator, used her cellphone number to track her location in real time. He let her know he was watching her, and threatened several times to kidnap her.

Switching to a different operator did not help, as he managed to trace Shamrin's new number through a friend working there.

While no statistics are available to confirm the number of electronic stalking victims, social experts point out that almost every woman using a mobile phone or the internet has suffered abuse at one time or another.

From January to July this year, 44 women reported harassment to the cyber crime prevention cell of the police's detective branch. In response, the police have blocked 46 SIM cards.

The law enforcers however admit that blocking SIM is not enough, as most people own multiple numbers, and a new subscription is only some cash away.

They said the existing laws appear toothless when it comes to fighting e-stalking, as some of them are more than a hundred years old.

Mustafizur Rahman, officer-in-charge of the New Market Police Station, said, "The laws require us to know the stalker's identity to take action against him. This is a major problem since in many cases the perpetrator remains unidentified."

Supreme Court lawyer Nina Goswami, director (mediation) at Ain O Salish Kendra, the rights group which has received two cyber-stalking cases this year, stresses the need for a law against cyber crimes.

"It is difficult to take action against the stalkers as there is no specific law,'' said the lawyer, herself a victim of mobile phone harassment.

A proposed act to curb cellphone-related crimes and harassment promises some respite. The draft law defines stalking, both physical and digital, as sexual harassment, and prescribes punishment.

Experts, however, fear the new law may prove ineffective, as most of the stalking incidents tend to go unreported.

Arifa Hossain says she perhaps knows why victims are reluctant to complain to the police. She went to the local police station to report abusive phone calls but thought better of it.

"You won't expect much from the cops once you see how they fumble with the mouse and eye the computer as if it's an alien thing."

A police representative admitted there is a lack of tech-savvy officers needed to hunt down high-tech criminals. He said this is a reason why the detective branch's cyber crime cell, set up in 2008, exists in name only.

Exceptional cases, however, receive special attention from the police. When a youth posted offensive materials on Facebook to taunt politicians in May, he was arrested within days and the whole social networking website was banned for a week.

"Banning an entire website is out of the question. But there should be some sort of a law or policy to safeguard our young women," said Dr Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, a professor at Shahjalal University of Science and Technology.

Experts believe fear of social stigma is another reason why victims are loath to file complaints with the police.

"Forget police, women do not tell anyone about being harassed for fear of being stigmatised," said Shamim F Karim, psychology teacher at DU. "Women, especially those in the city, have become somewhat accustomed to harassment in everyday life."

She suggested that anyone experiencing harassment over the phone or the internet should inform her family members immediately. "The family members can go to the police if necessary."

She noted that some young women, who are actually unaware that they are being subjected to a form of sexual harassment, try to laugh off the matter.

Some do not.

Trisa Gloria Rodriguez, for one, has been receiving irritating phone calls for some time. The stalker calls from different numbers and makes loud smooching noises.

She tried to reason with him, but it did not work. Yelling did not bring result either.

"Disgusting. I feel like kicking him,” says an irate Trisa

Monday, May 19, 2014

How to find the sender of an anonymous email message



how-to-identify-anonymous-email-sender 

by Michael Roberts


 Whether it be done for right or wrong reasons, anonymous emailing is a part of life today. But that anonymity is not absolute if you as a receiver, have good reason to identify the sender, and have the patience to follow through.

Sometimes it can be very difficult, if not impossible to identify the sender of the message if they took careful steps to obfuscate their identity, such as using a proxy server. But even then it is not impossible, now team have been able to circumvent the countermeasures taken by criminals, and by civil wrongdoers, in order to positively identify them in the full light of day.

We have published a few case studies that show the practical results of our work in this respect:
http://www.rexxfield.com/case-studies.php

If you have fallen victim to threats, harassment or otherwise offensive behavior by someone through anonymous email, we can help you. 

Contact us by completing this form and we will respond and give you some idea of the options available to you.