YOU ARE NOT GOING CRAZY!

In the introduction to the 25th Anniversary Edition of her book, Women and Madness, Phyliss Chesler, M.D. writes:

We now understand that women and men are not "crazy" or "defective"when, in response to trauma, they develop post traumatic symptoms,including insomnia, flashbacks, phobias, panic attacks, anxiety,depression, dissociation, a numbed toughness, amnesia, shame, guilt, self-loathing, self-mutilation, and social withdrawal.

Oppression causes bodily changes. These changes make you think you are going crazy. There is a difference between a mental illness and a psychological injury.

Victims of abuse are not mentally ill, they have been injured.

ORIGINAL POST

ONLINE PREDATORS/CYBERPATHS CAUSE EMOTIONAL TRAUMA!! Serious mental & emotional distress. Do not let others minimize what has happened to you! Telling you things like "get over it; move on; it was a game; it was just online" etc, is FURTHER ABUSE! - Fighter

Top 5 Technologies used to Cyberbully

Cyberbullying is a growing problem in the United States and throughout the world. The act of Cyberbullying occurs when individuals use the Internet to harass or embarrass other people.

But what are the tools of cyberbullies that allow them to hold such sway over their peers? The following is a list of five technologies currently employed by cyberbullies to intimidate other kids.

1. MySpace, Facebook and other social networking sites - Currently the leading medium for cyberbullying incidents around the United States, social networking sites have become the instrument of choice for those kids and teens who look to humiliate other young people. These sites provide a means for individuals to post embarrassing photos, conduct mean-spirited online polls and other forms of cyberbullying. Another growing concern in this area is the theft of user IDs and passwords. When one individual steals another’s login information, they can go into their account and make statements in that person’s name. The results can be socially devastating to a teenager or adolescent.

2. Instant messaging - Instant messaging is a staple of major Internet companies such as AOL, Yahoo, Google (through its Gmail service) and MSN. Unfortunately, it is also used as a means of harassment. Many have adopted fake screen names and then used these account to “ping” their enemies with profanity and threats of violence.

3. Email – Email is a relatively anonymous act, especially if an individual goes by a screen name that bears no resemblance to their actual name. Email is used to send threatening letters and images, and can be the delivery device for rumors and falsehoods about an individual. Although many have moved on to social network sites as a means for their cyberbullying, email remains an “old school” way of performing this hateful act.

4. PhotoShop – Surprisingly, the world’s most popular photo editing software is also a device used in many cyberbullying cases. In most cases, one individual will take a photo of another person and alter it so that the victim appears to be in a compromising position, or doing something they should not be doing. Digital camera and camera phones in general have been a problem in Cyberbullying cases – as they give individuals the power to take hidden or unwanted photos of another person, and then spread them instantly across the Internet.

5. Blogs – Many have gone so far as to create entire blogs focusing on their rivals or enemies. These blogs invite user participation via comment posts and create a permanent entity that intimidates the individual in question. Blogs are easy to set up and can be created anonymously, which only serves to make the problem that much worse. With little accountability, the bully is free to let loose a stream of destructive and hurtful language.

(from EOPC: though the majority of his hate speech has been removed, one of our sociopathic predators created such a hate site against one of his victims whom he is trying to portray as a 'scorned woman' and 'obsessed with & stalking him' for telling EOPC her story - Click Here)

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

TO FIND OUT HOW TO IMMEDIATELY DOCUMENT & REPORT A CYBERBULLY - CLICK HERE

Meeting with Women from Internet Turns Into a Death Trap

A man was shot and killed early 8/24/08 after being lured into a building in Brooklyn, N.Y. Police say officers found Daniel Brandt, 24, on the fourth floor of a building on West 33rd Street in Coney Island early this morning.

According to police, Brandt believed he was meeting a woman he had been communicating with over the Internet. Instead, he ran into two armed men who robbed and then shot him.

Brandt was taken to a local hospital, where he later died.

As of Sunday evening no arrests had been made, and the investigation continues.

ORIGINAL

Revenge -- Campaign of Hatred

When Elvis Kovacic discovered his girlfriend was still friends with a former boyfriend he had never met, the 30-year-old accountant set out to destroy the man's reputation in an anonymous hate campaign of phone threats, pamphlet letterbox drops and emails.

His target, Richard Gazzard, was a happily engaged co-director of Prestige Auto Traders in Rozelle. Kovacic falsely accused him of being a rapist and local police of covering up the crime.

The extraordinary tale of one man's blind jealousy was detailed by police when Kovacic stood trial in Central Local Court.

Prosecutor Sergeant Brad Scanlan told the magistrate, Gail Madgwick, that Kovacic, of Chiswick, could not handle the thought his now former girlfriend, Meje Tran, had kept in touch with Gazzard, who she had once dated.

Kovacic waged his hate campaign between 2004 and early 2006, distributing pamphlets with Mr Gazzard's photo under the heading "Buyer Beware" to letterboxes in the inner west.

His campaign came unstuck in an investigation that involved police retracing phone records and internet sites to Kovacic's home and work computers.

Kovacic pleaded not guilty to the charges, for which he faces up to five years' jail and fines of up to $5,500. But last Thursday Ms Madgwick found Kovacic guilty of two charges: using a carriage service to menace, harass and offend, and stalking with intent to cause fear, physical and mental harm.

In evidence at his trial last April, Sergeant Scanlan said the hate campaign began in April 2004, when Mr Gazzard received two anonymous calls from a man that were later traced to the home of Kovacic's father.

The caller told Mr Gazzard "you are f---ing dead. I know where you live" and later "I know where you work". By the end of the year, Kovacic had produced the first of three pamphlets.

Ms Madgwick granted Kovacic continuing bail to reappear before court for sentence on September 5.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

If It's Online, Is It Cheating?

IS IT CHEATING?

In our technologically advanced world, computers and the Internet are becoming a part of life. We use the Internet for information, email and now even dating. With thousands of dating sites out there, it's easier than ever to hook up with someone across the country! The popularity of online dating has skyrocketed and the statistics are astounding.

With that comes the increased ability to cheat with anyone, anywhere. Married people all over the world are starting to use the internet to carry out full-blown affairs. The question is, is it really cheating? If you never see the person or have physical contact, should it be frowned upon? Those doing the act of cheating of course see nothing wrong with it, but those being cheated on have a different opinion.

As some background, online cheating is much more common than one may think with about 30 percent of visitors to online dating sites identifying themselves as married. There are even online cheating sites specifically for married people which describes themselves as discreet dating sites for married people with no excuses and no explanations. Though many may not think of innocent chatting and cybersex as cheating, it usually leads to more. In an article written by David Koeppel, online cheaters describe it as "exciting and addicting." One person says,"Its power can be trance-inducing." These people use the internet as their outlet to escape from reality.
Again, the big question is, is it really cheating? John LaSage, a California man was left by his wife for an internet boyfriend. He says, "chatting is OK, cheating is not." That’s where he draws the line. However, there are others who may be hurt by chatting alone. If a spouse is online chatting day and night, it takes valuable time away from the spouse. One woman who has been cheated on says, "he swears he loves me but shows more emotion for these online women than me." This illustrates that even with the absence of physical contact, online cheating can still ruin the emotional factors in a marriage. Health, Beauty and Fitness magazine says, "we believe that sharing your emotions with anyone other than your current partner is adultery whether the relationship is physically consummated or not." The emotional aspects are often stronger and more important than the physical. This can lead to a very hurt spouse if he or she finds out about the affair. With this comes the other big reason why people think online affairs are easier, the ability to hide them.

Many see online cheating as the easy way out, but it may not be so easy. It's easier to chat online at work or have cybersex on the computer rather than in a hotel, however, everything can be traced on a computer. It's always lingering in cyberspace somewhere. Many businesses are starting to make a living off of tracing devices for the internet. They sell these packages to people that are suspicious of a loved one or family member and they allow them to view chat conversations and much more. Along the same lines with chatting and cheating online is the viewing of internet pornography. As people experiment with online dating sites, they are bound to come across pop-ups and links to pornography.
Internet pornography is of course another touchy subject with married couples. It leads the other spouse to feel inadequate and unimportant. But again, is that cheating? Nielsen Net ratings have found that 17.5 million people have visited pornography sites in their home each month. That's a very high number, so is there something wrong with it or is it normal? Dr. Phil has his opinion on this matter. For more, go to Dr. Phil's Homepage.

Of course everyone has their own opinion on internet dating, pornography and other related topics and no one will ever know for sure until they are put in the situation. However, anything as time consuming and personal as some of these online relationships seems to be as bad as cheating in real-life with a real person. Not to mention the fact that most online affairs develop into something else. As they say, once a cheater, always a cheater. So don't rule out the possibility that your spouse has an online lover. Many who aren't computer savy see it as the easy way out so it's becoming more and more common. But as for the question, is it cheating? I say it most definitely is. It makes the other partner feel lonely and unappealing just as in a real-life affair. So beware, the internet is becoming more and more dangerous.

U.S. Congress has Web Privacy in Their Sites

Here are some things Internet users can discover about Kiyoshi Martinez, a 24-year-old man from Mokena, Ill., from some of his recent posts online. He watched “The Colbert Report” on Tuesday night, he likes the musician Lenlow and he received bottles of olive oil and vinegar for his birthday. Mr. Martinez has Facebook and LinkedIn pages, a Twitter account and a Web site that includes his résumé.

So it is surprising to learn that Mr. Martinez, an aide in the Illinois Senate, is also vigilant about his privacy online.

“I’m pretty aware of the fact that ANYTHING you do on the Internet pretty much should just be considered public,” Mr. Martinez said. While he knows that companies are collecting his data and often tracking his online habits so they can show him more relevant ads, he said, he would like to see more transparency “about what the company intends to do with your data and your information.”

“Like all privacy matters, it’s something that people need to be informed on,” Mr. Martinez said.

Those same questions of data collection and privacy policies are attracting the attention of Congress, too. There is no broad privacy legislation governing advertising on the Internet. And even some in the government admit that they do not have a clear grasp of what companies are able to do with the wealth of data now available to them.

“That is why Congress, at this point, is wanting to gather a lot more information, because no one knows,” said Steven A. Hetcher, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School. “That information is incredibly valuable; it’s the new frontier of advertising.”

Beyond the data question, there are issues of how companies should tell browsers that their information is being tracked, which area of law covers this and what — if anything — proper regulation would look like.

On Aug. 1, four top members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce sent letters ordering 33 cable and Internet companies, including Google, Microsoft, Comcast and Cox Communications, to provide details about their privacy standards. That followed House and Senate hearings last month about privacy and behavioral targeting, in which advertisers show ads to consumers based on their travels around the Web. If an advertiser knows that Mr. Martinez watches “The Colbert Report,” for example, it might show him an ad for “The Daily Show.”

As advertisers become more sophisticated about behavioral targeting, and online privacy standards become increasingly varied, regulators and privacy advocates are becoming concerned. A few companies have taken precautionary measures to try to fend off criticism; in the last few days, for instance, both Yahoo and Google have made it easier for people to opt out of targeted ads on their sites. But that may not be enough.

“Some type of omnibus electronic privacy legislation is needed,” said Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, “regardless of the particular technologies or companies involved.”

He and the other members of the House expect to receive responses from all of the companies by early this week. With the responses to the House letters, “we can understand exactly what each sector of the communications industry is technically capable of doing, and how they use the information once they do get access to it.”

One of the controversial new behavioral-targeting technologies is called deep packet inspection, and a company that does it — NebuAd — was a focus of the July Congressional hearings.

In NebuAd’s version of deep packet inspection, a hardware device is put into an Internet service provider’s network that can track where users are going online. NebuAd looks for categories that the user will be interested in. If the device notes that a user is browsing or searching for sites about German automobiles, it can deliver an ad about German automobiles later that day, even when the user is on a site about pets.

NebuAd’s chief executive, Bob Dykes, who testified at the hearings last month, said his company protects privacy.

“We don’t have any raw data on the identifiable individual,” Mr. Dykes said in an interview last month. “Everything is anonymous.”

He said NebuAd took several steps to ensure that the information could not be traced back to an individual or an Internet protocol address. The company avoids sensitive categories, he said; someone making a search about H.I.V., for example, would not see related ads. And NebuAd cannot gain access to secure sites.

Mr. Dykes came under scrutiny at the hearings for NebuAd’s technology and for how the company notified consumers.

The ways that some Internet service providers told consumers about their tracking were vague or too subtle, some privacy advocates and congressmen said.

NebuAd lost several customers this summer amid all the scrutiny, including CenturyTel, Charter Communications, WideOpenWest Holdings and Embarq.

“We will not be using this technology again until such time as all the privacy concerns have been addressed,” said Charles Fleckenstein, an Embarq spokesman.

Mr. Dykes said, “We are perfectly O.K. for some of our partners to wait until we have a better, more informed education of the public and folks in Washington before they resume their rollout.”

The NebuAd controversy illustrates the difficulty of regulation in online advertising, when new ways of tracking users arise regularly and companies have different ways of handling data.

The Federal Trade Commission has made some tentative steps toward standards, including a December proposal on behavioral-advertising practices. The proposal suggested that companies provide a clear notice to consumers that lets them opt out of tracking, notify consumers if the company changes the way it uses the data and use reasonable security measures. It also sought comment on several matters.

But Lydia B. Parnes, the director of the F.T.C.’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, has said she supports industry self-regulation, saying that it isn’t yet clear that the consumer is being harmed and that regulations might be too specific to current technologies. Laws have been made on slices of the privacy pie, including data about finances or children. But complying with various pieces of legislation is difficult, companies said.

“Compliance is becoming very complex and not very clear in terms of what applies to a new and emerging business model,” said Mike Hintze, the associate general counsel at Microsoft. “From the company’s perspective of trying to comply with these laws, we thought a comprehensive federal privacy law made a lot of sense.”

There is some industry support for a comprehensive law, but any wide-ranging law would require some legal wrangling.

“They’re raising these bigger-picture questions, and those questions are inherently intertwined not just with privacy laws, but also with contract law, computer-intrusion law, consumer-fraud law,” said Andrea M. Matwyshyn, an assistant professor of legal studies and business ethics at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

“When legislators are trying to regulate in this area, they’re always caught a little bit between a rock and a hard place,” she said. “You don’t want to adopt a technology-specific standard that’s destined to fail as technology advances faster than the law can ever hope to embody. At the same time, you need to allow adequate specificity in the law to allow companies to comply with it and allow consumers to know what their rights are.”

Some advertising industry groups say self-regulation is enough. The most prominent programs are the Online Privacy Alliance and the Network Advertising Initiative. Both ask members to follow principles on notifying consumers and avoiding personally identifiable information.

Regulation is “certainly going to have unintended consequences and unintended impact,” said Mike Zaneis, the vice president for public policy at the Interactive Advertising Bureau, a coalition of online advertisers.

Some civil liberties groups disagreed.

“There’s a self-regulatory program out there which hasn’t been very effective,” said Alissa Cooper, the chief computer scientist at the Center for Democracy and Technology. She said her organization was concerned about NebuAd’s technology. As for general federal privacy legislation, she said, the center supports it but thinks more information is needed about data-handling.

The letter from the House committee, she said, was “a really welcome development in the absence of any kind of regulation.”

“The companies don’t feel the need to explain everything they’re doing,” she said, “so a little bit of pressure from Congress or the F.T.C. can go a long way.”

As government representatives think about legislation, they are also trying to gauge how aware and concerned consumers are about online privacy. A recent study of about 1,000 Internet users asked them if they agreed with the statement that they were comfortable with advertisers’ using their browsing history to decide what ads to show them. Thirty-nine percent strongly disagreed; only 6 percent strongly agreed. The study was conducted by TNS Global, a research firm, and TRUSTe, an online privacy network.

Is privacy a concern for younger consumers, who are splashing personal details all over MySpace? The sparse data available suggest that it is. A study last year of 2,274 British adults showed that people ages 18 to 24 considered privacy tied with “avoiding hate and offense” as the most important consideration in digital technologies. For older people, privacy was second to “avoiding hate and offense.” The study was conducted by YouGov, a British research firm.

“People my age — in their 20s or in their 30s — a lot of them are very clued up on protecting privacy on the Internet,” said Ben Saxon, 23, a student in Cambridge, England. He has started a Facebook group objecting to Phorm, a NebuAd-like company that is working in Britain and is starting to court the United States market.

Still, he said, “I don’t think complete privacy on the Internet is actually possible anymore.”

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Cybersex: The Electronic Homewrecker

Think an online rendezvous may involve physically 'safer' sex? Find out what the consequences can be.
By Ian Mulgrew

The family computer - purchased to help the kids with their education, or to help a stay-at-home partner with his or her small business - is quickly becoming a conduit of temptation for the lonely, the unhappy, the bored and dissatisfied.

Among the estimated 90 million or so North Americans who log on daily, increasing numbers are actively exploring sexuality in ways that were unheard of until now. The workplace, where temptation is just a click away, is a particular hotbed of activity: recent data indicate that 70 per cent of the traffic to sexually explicit sites occurs between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. In fact, 20 per cent of men and 12 per cent of women online in the workplace use the Net for sexual pursuit.

Basically, cybersex is like phone sex: flirtation leading to arousal leading to masturbation. But with way more bells and whistles: there are chat rooms for every type of sexual proclivity, including "married but sinful," and cheap, digital see-you, see-me technology to satisfy the most ardent voyeur. You can do just about everything on the holodeck of online lust that you can do in person - send virtual flowers or a cyber-kiss, commit to each other in an electronic wedding, honeymoon in a cyber-dungeon in front of an e-family. In the works are full-immersion sex suits transmitting sensory information back and forth between or among partners. With new scent-emission technology, the online sexual experience will be heightened even further.

The new technologies have made it easier to find a date, begin an affair and engage in great sex. But what Hollywood has presented as a cute lure for attracting a mate - even Ally McBeal succumbed last year - also has a seamier side. Those who study and treat the survivors of adultery say the Internet is a breeding ground for cyber-infidelity. Online cheating is mentioned in a growing number of divorce cases, and therapists say the nature and scope of marital collapse are caused by virtual infidelity is greatly underestimated.

The powerful draw of online sexual relationships can easily scuttle a relationship drifting toward the shoals, but it also threatens stable marriages and people with no history of dysfunction. Women appear to be at the greatest risk because they've found a private, anonymous and safe place to look for company in the new millennium. They're trying all kinds of sexual behaviour that they would never engage in off-line. And those who find themselves online for more than 11 hours a week (the putative threshold for addiction) may face even greater risks than men do. Data suggest they are more likely to progress toward consummating the cyber-affair with an old-fashioned, off-line rendezvous.

Online romances can also lead to cybersex addiction. At first, only one or two people in a hundred were thought to be at risk, says Dr. Kimberly Young, founder of the Center for Online Addiction (www.netaddiction.com) in Bradford, Pa. But, she says, the most recent studies indicate a much higher figure: eight to 10 per cent, or maybe even more. "Whether or not this is a big phenomenon, whether or not there are hundreds of thousands of people involved and it's ruining lives - there's no question about that," says Dr. Alvin Cooper of Stanford University, Ca., who led the research team on the Net study. "We suspect that those numbers will only increase over time."

Dr. Jennifer Schneider, a physician and researcher based in Tucson, Ariz., recently conducted a survey among the partners of cybersex addicts. "I asked about what's the big deal with online sex - each person is sitting masturbating, talking online. Almost all the respondents to my survey said that's as much cheating as if they are having physical sex.

To women, at least, it's not the physical sex that matters, it's this relationship thing. It's the intimacy, spending time with somebody else. It isn't about sex, it's about the betrayal of intimacy."

The specialists say anyone contemplating a cyber-affair should remember that it can be much harder to survive than a conventional affair because it reaches into the home, perhaps even into the bedroom itself-while the partner lies sleeping.

Cyberstalker Arrested in Indiana

FORT WAYNE -- Police in Wabash arrested a man for cyber-stalking two sisters -- one of them underage -- and using their identities for sex for two years before he was discovered.

Prosecutors charged the man -- who worked at the family's church -- with felony stalking and misdemeanor harrassment.

Police say he created Facebook pages under the young women's names, then pretended to be them -- posting pictures of them, displaying their addresses and phone numbers, and even detailing their after-school activities and work places.

Using those fake identities, he had virtual sex with men around the world, using language so graphic, we can't share it with you.

The ruse was discovered by their pastor, who was compiling an Internet list of his congregation to take to his new position out of town.

And since their personal information was in cyber-space for two years, the young women now fear for their safety.

Haley Flanagan\Had Identity Assumed:

" Me and my sister have both taken a self-defense class. We carry Mace on our keychains with us. And I don't go anywhere by myself."

Cindy Flanagan\Daughters Had Identities Assumed:

"These laws need to have some teeth to them, and not just a general law. They need to be substance, they need to be basic enough that it's okay if the Internet changes that they can still apply it to whatever the new technology would be."

The best way to protect yourself and your children? Google your name and see what pops up. If there's anything fishy, call the police.

The man is scheduled to be in court August 20th.

But even if he's convicted of stalking and harrassment, he still wouldn't have to register as a sex offender, which would restrict his Internet use.

That's partly why the family is working with state and federal legislators to draft some stricter laws.

MAIN ARTICLE - CLICK HERE TO LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS

Michigan woman charged with cyber-stalking

Police say messages posted to a blog were threatening, harassing

In an electronic age which makes every text-message, e-mail and blog entry part of cyberspace permanent record, a particularly vicious break-up can lead to criminal charges as well as broken hearts.
Frances Boensch, 28, of Essexville (Michigan), found that out the hard way. After contacting police ...about what she said were threats from a former lover, Michigan State Police launched an investigation that lead to cyber-stalking charges filed against Boensch.

Boensch was free on a $5,000 bond after being arraigned last week in Bay County District Court on a charge of stalking via posting a threatening message on the Internet.

If convicted of the felony, she faces up to two years in prison.

Boensch works at Delta College, teaching her colleagues to avoid sexual harassment.

But police and prosecutors have decided that entries in Boensch's blog, along with content of text messages and e-mails to the alleged victim, amount to Internet stalking.

In 1993, Michigan became the first state to make "electronic stalking" a crime, but Bay County Chief Assistant Prosecutor Nancy Borushko said this is the first case that she personally has been involved in.

"As more people have access to the Internet and get more comfortable online, I think we may see more charges like this," Borushko said. "We're not talking about protected speech here, we're talking about things that make the victim feel terrorized, threatened or molested."

The Times was unable to reach Boensch, of 886 N. York Drive, for comment.

Her defense attorney, Joseph S. Scorsone, said he advises his clients not to make statements while charges are pending, but that he will be prepared to make a statement on her behalf after the preliminary evidence hearing, set for Aug. 12.

The blog - frandazzel.com - has been cleared of the previous content, and the lone page at the address [used to show] a photo of Boensch's face, wearing sunglasses, in a cemetery full of white crosses.

"With much sadness, I have to report that frandazzel has died," the message said. "She was brutally raped and murdered for reasons unknown to us at this time."

The police report prepared by Michigan State Police Trooper Elizabeth Hunt, however, contains copies various blog postings, e-mails and text-messages. A blog - short for Web log - is like an online diary.

Hunt launched an investigation after Boensch, herself, called Delta College police to report that she was being threatened by someone via e-mail who claimed to have semi-nude photos of her that were about to be printed and distributed.

While no criminal charges stemmed from that incident, Hunt spoke to the person identified as the suspect, a former lover of Boensch, who provided additional information about the blog and other communications from Boensch.

"With technology," Borushko said, "things can be saved for a very long time."

Ironically, in literature distributed by Boensch to Delta employees, she urges her colleagues to "record the date and time" of any threatening actions by another and to "save all e-mails, voicemails, and messages that relate to the complaint."
~~~~

What is Internet stalking?

Michigan Compiled Law 750.411s forbids a person from posting a message 'through the use of any medium of communication, including the Internet or a computer, computer program, computer system, or computer network, or other electronic medium of communication, without the victim's consent' if several other factors are present.

Those factors are:

• The poster realizes 'that posting the message could cause two or more separate noncontinuous acts of unconsented contact with the victim.'

• Posting the message is intended to cause conduct that would make the victim feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested.

• Conduct arising from posting the message would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress and to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested.

• Conduct arising from posting the message causes the victim to suffer emotional distress and to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested.

Conviction is punishable by up to two years in prison and $5,000 in fines.

However, if the posting results in a credible threat against the victim, violates probation or a restraining order or if the victim is under 18 and five years younger than the perpetrator, the crime in punishable by up to five years in prison.

The section does not prohibit constitutionally protected speech or activity.

FROM THIS RESOURCE

YOUR PERSONAL INFO - JUST A CLICK AWAY?

Nearly two years after the launch of a Web site offering instant access to addresses, ages and telephone numbers, consumers remain outraged over the open access to their personal information.

The site (ZabaSearch.com) is one of the most widely known of numerous online databases that allow anyone surfing the Internet to confirm the birth month and year, address and phone number of just about anyone, free of charge. With a single click, the site puts select data about friends, relatives and strangers right at your fingertips.

It also provides links to even more comprehensive sources of information that are available for varying fees.

"I don't understand how this site can post information without the individual's consent," complained New Yorker Velma Baker. Tom Mugan of New York called the Web site "very scary," adding, "With very little effort, someone can steal your identity."

Zaba Inc. launched the site in early 2005 with little marketing or publicity. Within weeks, it emerged as one of the most comprehensive personal-data search engines on the Net. Since then, both traffic to the site and concern about the information it offers has apparently multiplied.

As word about the site circulates in one unsolicited e-mail after another, consumers rush to the site to check out what data the company has on file about them. More often than not, they don't like what they find.

As Diane and John McCarron of New Jersey explained, "This is an invasion of our privacy, and we don't know what we can do to stop it."

The concern, of course, is understandable. It's unnerving to realize that your address or age is a click away from anyone with the curiosity to uncover it. However, all of the information provided by Zaba and other online databases is from publicly available government records and commercial sources.

These online people-search companies use a mix of public records - everything from court records to the change-of-address cards you file with the post office - to generate digital dossiers that are legal to post under existing state and federal laws.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

Man Held his Internet Lover Prisoner when She Tried to End It

[United Kingdom:] Paul Peccioli, 55, "reacted badly" when Julia Pickup, whom he met online, told him she thought they should stop seeing each other, a court heard.

When Miss Pickup, 51, told him that their six-month relationship was over he banged his head against a wall then held up an airgun, telling Miss Pickup he would "deck her if she was a man", Leicester Crown Court was told.

The court heard that over the next few days Peccioli, a former Conservative member of Daventry District Council, slapped Miss Pickup's legs and threatened to take an overdose.

When she tried to go to work one morning, four days after she had ended their relationship, Peccioli blocked her path.

But he allowed her to call in to explain her absence. Two workmates realised something was wrong and went to her home.

When they arrived at the property in Ullesthorpe, Leicestershire, Miss Pickup escaped but Peccioli chased after them in his own car.

Mr Thatcher told the court: "She ran out to the waiting car. When Peccioli realised what was happening he ran out after her, screaming."

Miss Pickup's colleague did not know the village and turned into a cul-de-sac.

Peccioli tried to open the doors of the car, forcing Miss Pickup's colleague to mount the pavement. They managed to drive away, but Peccioli was following at high speeds.

Miss Pickup's colleague drove to the nearest police station where Peccioli was arrested.

He pleaded guilty to putting a person in fear of violence by harassment and blamed his driving on "emotional upset".

The couple met via the internet in March last year, but Miss Pickup ended the relationship in September after Peccioli became "possessive and overbearing".

Peccioli was given a 12-month suspended prison sentence and a restraining order that prevents him from going within 50 metres of Miss Pickup's home or contacting her.

Judge Michael Pert QC said: "I am prepared to accept that at this late stage of your life you have made a fool of yourself rather than being an inherently dangerous person.

"But that is of little consolation to your victim, and I have to take steps to protect her. Your behaviour during this incident was disgraceful."

READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

Please contact the ORIGINAL writer and source of this article if you have any problems, or corrections.

Complete Privacy Does NOT Exist

Arguing that technology has ensured that "complete privacy does not exist," Google contends that a Pennsylvania family has no legal grounds to sue the search giant for publishing photos of their home on its popular "Street View" mapping feature.

Responding to an invasion of privacy lawsuit filed by Aaron and Christine Boring, Google has countered that the couple "live in a residential community in the twenty-first-century United States, where every step upon private property is not deemed by law to be an actionable trespass."

In a motion to dismiss the Borings's federal complaint, Google's six-lawyer team asserts that,

"Today's satellite-image technology means that even in today's desert, complete privacy does not exist. In any event, Plaintiffs live far from the desert and are far from hermits."

An excerpt from Google's U.S. District Court motion can be found below. The company asserts that the images of the Borings's Pittsburgh-area residence were "unremarkable photos of the exterior of their home," and were taken during a "brief entry upon their driveway."

In their lawsuit, the Borings charged that a Google vehicle -- outfitted with a panoramic camera on its roof -- drove down a private road to take images of their Oakridge Lane home.

In its dismissal motion, Google noted that it intends to prove that there was "no clearly marked 'Private Road' sign at the beginning" of the Borings's street. Google removed its "Street View" photos of the Boring residence and swimming pool after the couple filed its lawsuit in April.

READ THE REST HERE

DO THEY EVER ADMIT THEY ARE LYING OR TWISTED THE FACTS?

The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor
is the mind of the oppressed." - Stephen Biko

DO THEY EVER ADMIT THEY ARE LYING OR TWISTED THE FACTS?

from this group

(EOPC believes Cyberpathy is an expression of Narcissism - Fighter)

We work to try to understand the essence of the [cyberpath]. When I was trying to explain the N to a friend, she understood an N as someone not "able to face the pain of imagining they did something wrong". I wasn't sure about this so did a quick internet search on narcissists and admitting wrong and accepting fault, and got these quotes:

- The [cyberpath] often notices that something is wrong with him and with his life -- but he never admits it.

- ... the [cyberpath] is incapable of admitting that something is wrong with HIM

- They will never admit fault, they will never say they are sorry. If something goes wrong, they will play the victim. They will blame others.

- Remember they will never admit they are wrong, they will never debase themselves with an apology. They will never laugh at themselves.

"[I suspect my husband is a narcissist]. Last night we got into an argument over our daughters homework and he was absolutely livid because he was wrong and he knew he was wrong but could not admit it. He try's to place blame on anyone and everyone but himself."

- Narcissistic Cyberpaths adores themselves. They live for themselves, they think they can do no wrong and will not admit to wrongdoing [re: traits common to 6 year olds and adult narcissists]

- [For the cyberpath] to admit to one failing, to acknowledge a mistake, even a simple human error of judgement, would be to open the door to the deep internal lack within. ... Such feelings of worthlessness are like an ocean being held back by a fragile dyke. The illusion of perfection, maintained by projecting faults onto someone else, is a barrier to be constantly tended, mended and shored up. To admit any feelings of deficiency would be the equivalent of poking a hole in the dyke, an event to be feared as a total disaster.

[Cyberpaths] blame all problems on the "all-bad." It's never the cyberpath's fault; it's always someone else's.

The last paragraph speaks truly from a cyberpath's perspective. It's the victim's fault.

If the two of you have a conflict, he'll tweak the facts as much as he has to to make it all your fault.

His perverse way of turning everything into my fault and his blaming left me battered and exhausted.

Cyberpaths who were children of entitlement:
Externalization of Blame -- The child cannot allow the bad feelings of being at fault for anything. He/she/they/YOU are the problem! He avoids feeling vulnerable by blaming others. The fragile self esteem cannot be punctured by taking responsibility for behavior. His script is "Do not expose me to those intolerable feelings inside. I can't handle it."

Since the false self is grandiose and perfect, relationship problems are never the fault of the narcissist.

For making a change (whether great or small) implies that the narcissist has been two things they "cannot stand": imperfect (something is actually wrong with "them") and at fault ("they" actually were wrong, weak, or inferior somehow).

It can't be HIS fault - he is perfect.

The cyberpath says in effect, "Something doesn't feel right. I'm too special to be the cause, therefore it must be your fault."

HOW NOT TO BE STALKED

Many cyberpaths probably have personality disorders. Destructive Narcissism, Borderline Personality Disorder, Sociopathy, etc. The article below is on how to AVOID being stalked... it deals with a lot of real life relationships but can be extrapolated to deal with online relationships as well. Cyberpaths tend to have very poor impulse control and be obsessive or addictive personalities as well. - Fighter

By Tim Pheil L.P.N.

This article is for those who may be in relationship with an obsessive person. Many times those with disorders become involved with those who also suffer. We have had marriages thru our chat room. We have also had bad relationships that ended in stalking, even across continents.

Lets face it, for every marriage there are 10 failed relationships. And those who suffer from the BPD (like myself) can obsess about relationships. As a sufferer I know the best thing you can do is learn to accept the end of a relationship and let go.

I will use myself as an example. Because of the book “Stop Walking on Eggshells” and sites like www.nonbpd.org . Some may find this to be “anti-BPD” but I am living nightmare these resource's talk about.

I’ll go in to my story and then finish with the Do's and Don’ts of an successful break–up with an obsessive person whether they suffer from the BPD or not.

One of the biggest factors of deterring whether a relationship is over is abuse. Physical, Mental or Emotional. I know that as an untreated sufferer can be very verbally abusive when dysporic. But you need to know what your limits are. After coming from a physically abusive relationship, I knew my breaking point was physical abuse.

Unfortunately I let my SO (Significant Other) because of more advance degree believe after 1st incident was that physical violence was a part of a normal relationship, thus I never called the police the first time. The second time I did. Unfortunately nothing was done, probably because after learning the abuser was a mental health consumer (despite fully acknowledging that she had used violence) nothing was done because they didn’t want to spend the night in the ER waiting for mental health to come take over. There was already a precedent of them being called to take this person to the Crisis Center for violence against objects (furniture).

A counselor at Mental Health suggested if the abuse got to bad that I should call relatives to see if they could help. So the mourning after the incident I called my daughter. But It was going to be 5 days till she could come get me. So I placated my SO. MY SO decided to go to her relatives in a near by town 3 days later. I called my daughter. Even after working 8 hrs she drove 4 hrs down to get me. As per instructed by the resources I had notified the local police that I was leaving and that there may be trouble and had programmed 911 into speed dial on the phone. Unfortunately she came home 2 hrs before my daughter got there. I had to do some really fast-talking to leave. I let my daughter know she was there and she drove as fast as she could fearing for my safety.
I took only what I prized most (computers). I made sure that everything was still working when I left (Telephone, VCR, Internet, Etc). I left everything else. Remember its only things.

After moving I tried to keep working with her on the site but her decision was to start her own. After numerous phone calls, obscene messages on my answering machine and horrid emails I did as instructed and got a restraining order and changed my phone number. I though everything was fine till I learned she had simply changed her targets by harassing those who volunteer for the sanctuary (sending up to 10 emails a day) and even to those who followed her to her new site. Also the smear program toward me had started.

Some one had described the smear campaign as akin to the “I hate you, Don’t leave me” scenario. It becomes “if I can’t have you, no one can” to “I’ll make sure no one will want you because of the smear campaign."

Unfortunately when she was served the restraining order they gave her the police copy.

The one that says “Do Not Give to Respondent”. So we’ve moved. Changed both our phone number and my cell number.

I say we because after being here a short while my daughter introduced me to a wonderful woman whom I married.

Recently my ex sent me 4 emails despite the restraining order. The sheriffs Dept. came out and collected them. After reading them the deputy noticed one threatening to harass my fiancée at her job. He advised me to back to court and had her to the original restraining order. This I did, another long day in court. She learned of my wife's work place from our engagement and wedding announcements in our local newspaper. The local DA has receive the incidents and will issue warrants which will then be transferred to the state and city where she resides. 4 emails equals 4 violations. So now its not a mater of if she's going to jail, but when. We did take precautions at our wedding.

My ex has since been to court twice having to go 200 miles to do so. She is on severe probation and will automatically go to jail for 1 year if she contacts me again.

Dos and Don'ts
Don’t have joint checking, credit cards, or vehicles with someone you’re not married to.
Do let your bank, electric, gas, insurance and phone companies know you just had a nasty break-up and password protect your accounts.
Do, if you rent get renters insurance.
Do get a P.O. Box for your mail.
Do reformat your computer if you leave it at the end of a relationship, especially if you use online services.
Do change all your passwords to all the services you use on and offline and have them sent to a secure email.
Do expect a smear campaign against you to all your joint friends and acquaintances. What will be told will not be the truth, but what will get your partner the most sympathy towards them and hatred towards you.
Do let your employer and friends and family know you expect it.
Do expect the unexpected.

Restraining Orders 101
Do call your local court and get the needed paper work filed out before going to court.
Do take any evidence of harassment with you to court.
Do expect to have to come back to court get a permanent restraining order.
Do expect to have to file multiple restraining orders if others are involved. In some states you can get an others added, in most you can get minor children added.
Do expect to wait in court.
Do get caller id on your phone.
Do make sure your phone number is unlisted if you change phone numbers.
Do remember any contact whether you receive it or not constitutes a violation. In my case 4 emails equals 4 violations. Even if you don’t pick up the phone and the caller IDs them the respondent is in violation.
Do call your local Police Dept or Sheriffs for any violation.
Do call your local Police Dept or Sheriffs if the respondent tries to use a 3rd party to convey messages or threats to you.
Do remember the laws are there to protect you, not your tormentor.

ARTICLE FROM THIS SITE

STALKING VICTIMS SANCTUARY - CLICK HERE


CYBERSTALKING: Obsessional Pursuit

Adults Responsible for Internet Abuse, Too

In the case of Lori Drew, we disagree - shaming her is totally appropriate and EOPC did not cross the line. Additionally, almost all of our cyberpaths bully and torment their victims when they find out they have been busted & exposed. Victims who are already physically and emotional sick with PTSD and trauma. However, shaming the only justice they will recieve until laws change. Vigilantes? We think not. - Fighter

Cyberbullying isn't just a problem among adolescents. Adults engage in it, too. From online vigilantism and angry blogs to e-stalking and anonymous ranting on newspaper Web sites, grownups can be as abusive as the meanest schoolhouse tyrant.

The suicide of 13-year-old Megan Meier in 2006 thrust adult cyberbullying into the open. The Dardenne Prairie, Mo., girl killed herself after receiving cruel messages on MySpace from impostors posing as a 16-year-old boy named "Josh Evans."

Lori Drew, the mother of one of Megan's friends, was accused of participating in the hoax along with her teenage daughter and a former teenage employee. Drew has denied sending messages to Megan.

While questions remain about Drew's role, the case has left no doubt that the Internet is rife with adult cyber passion.

After the suicide came to light, an outraged mother several states away ferreted out Drew's identity and posted it on a blog.

Soon, "an army of Internet avengers ... set out to destroy Lori Drew and her family," forcing them from their home and "vowing them no peace, ever," newspaper columnist Barbara Shelly wrote. "Who are these people who have made it their business to destroy her? They are a jury with laptops, their verdict rendered without insight into the dynamics of two families or the state of mind of a fragile 13-year-old girl or even a complete explanation of what actually occurred."

Internet shaming is a growing cultural phenomenon, but Daniel Solove, a professor of law at George Washington University and author of the 2007 book "The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor and Privacy on the Internet," said it can backfire.

"Internet shaming is done by people who want actually to enforce norms and to make people and society more orderly," he said. But instead, "Internet shaming actually destroys social control and makes things more anarchic, and it becomes very hard to regulate and stop it."

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Do a Criminal Search on Them!

Confirm your worst suspicions about the one that got away

“Do you really know who people are?” That’s the slogan for pay site PeopleFinders.com's freshly launched (and totally free!) companion site, CriminalSearches.com. Do you want to know? Everybody has something to hide — so the cliché goes. That’s where CriminalSearches.com comes in.

Totally free and possibly the most intuitive Web site of its sort, CriminalSearches.com painstakingly culled and standardized the disparate record-keeping practices of counties, municipalities, cities and states to provide an almost-instant snapshot of neighborhoods and people with criminal records.

Parents may favor the comprehensive Sex Offender section of the site, which includes photos and details of offenses with its record returns. Meanwhile, privacy advocates are apoplectic. What’s more, critics decry such sites as yet another attack on America’s privacy — not to mention potentially disastrous inaccuracies, incorrect or incomplete information provided by the original record keepers.

Still, nobody’s talking about the totally awesome aspect of this whole criminal record compilation. Why settle for Google stalking your ex when you can confirm your worst suspicions by looking them up on CriminalSearches.com? Who wants to read about happy marriages and job satisfaction on Facebook?

Do it! Do it now! CriminalSearches.com your ex!

That Power Point presentation can wait an extra minute. If you’ve ever questioned for one second the direction your life’s taken — or even if you haven’t — it may do wonders for your self-assurance. I myself never doubted ditching that age-inappropriate bad boy once I finally extracted myself from that unfavorable situation in my late teens. For years however, I did beat myself up for the length of time it took me to finally see the light. But two seconds on CriminalSearches.com washed away any remnants of self-recrimination that may’ve been lurking.

My ex Loser’s name returned almost-immediate confirmation that getting out of that relationship — not to mention that state — was the right choice, even if it took me longer than I’d prefer. There, under Loser’s name, corresponding birthday and county of residence was an early conviction that occurred before we became involved, one of which I was previously aware.

(Sad to say, at the time, his run-in with Johnny Law was part of the attraction – that’s before I wised up and started finding my dates in music magazine classifieds, under “Guitarist Available.”)

In the years since I ended my acquaintance with Loser, there were a couple of shocking additions to Loser's record — most appalling, a record of child abuse/neglect accompanied on the same date with a creepily oblique “O” offense for “Other.” (CriminalSearches.com conveniently color codes offenses with letters for quick reference: Red “S” for sex offense, purple “V” for Violent, etc.)

My inner Sherlock piqued but stomach nauseous, I chose not to pay the $40 to get further details from the affiliated PeopleFinders.com. Instead, I called a friend and insisted she do the same. Always game for a good Internet scavenger hunt, she inserted the name of a former beau she knew for a fact had some sort of police record related to owning a pet wolf that mauled some dude — and fully expected to see his name pop up with the specified “O” icon.

Nothing.

So I turned to my sister. Seeing as we share a genetic predisposition for bad seeds, I felt certain she’d get some positive returns in the ex department. Instead, she decided to search for herself.

What she found was a woman of a similar name living in an entirely different state and a list of that woman’s traffic offenses — yet no acknowledgement of my sister’s identity let alone her own speeding ticket legacy. Disappointed, she made what some might consider a risky move and looked up her husband — fully expecting to find his own collection of traffic offenses.

Again, nothing.

So she tried Charles Manson and came up with many — but none that appeared to be THE Charles Manson. So she tried some more recent notorious criminals of somewhat less renown, (who, along with Charles Manson, she never, ever dated) and found their records straight away.

Then she was on to her ex-husband, a man we lovingly refer to as “Wingnut.” Alas, nothing. A search for our other sister’s husband also proved an exercise in futility as we’re unsure of his birthday and he shares a ridiculously common name. She then moved on to her neighbor, of whom she’d heard rumors of a youthful indiscretion. But again, there were so many people who shared his name, the search was inconclusive.

My sister reasoned that she could probably find out his birthday and search again, but by then, she was bored. What’s more, he's good guy and also a friend so she wasn’t so sure she really wanted to know what he did in his younger years. Which, given omissions and possibilities of incorrect or misinterpreted information, is probably the best policy when using such sites. Consider it like your horoscope — for entertainment value only.

Like my friend, who we’ll call “Grumpy.” He checked up on each member of his family just for giggles and learned that his buttoned-down uncle got busted for drug possession in 1979.

“Wow!” Grumpy reported. “I love this Web site.”

ORIGINAL

Off to Jail for Off2Hunt

EOPC first reported this two years ago... despite the slow wheels of justice... looks like Richard Kudlik's accountability moment finally arrived.

Officials: Man posed as federal marshal to impress women

It could be off to federal prison for "Off2hunt."

Richard Kudlik, who used that name in online chat-rooms while pretending to be a federal marshal, pleaded guilty Monday in U.S. District Court in Central Islip [Long Island, New York] to two counts of possessing a counterfeit U.S. Marshal's badge, officials said.

In real life, Kudlik, 45, of Port Jefferson Station, was a mechanic's helper at the federal Plum Island Animal Disease Center.

But online, Kudlik took on the persona of a latter-day Wyatt Earp to attract women with tales of his exploits as a U.S. Marshal, hunting down fugitives and guarding politicians, officials said.

"He was using the marshals service as a way to get girls," a spokesman for the U.S. Marshals Service said in 2006 at the time of Kudlik's arrest.

Kudlik had been warned in 2005 about impersonating a marshal after Suffolk police spotted him with a marshal's jacket in his car, officials said. Kudlik promised to stop, so he was not charged then, officials have said.

Kudlik was arrested by real marshals in 2006, after he was outed by a former girlfriend who discovered he was a married man. She told officials he was still pretending to be a marshal.

The former girlfriend, Pamela Brown, of Mattituck, [Long Island, New York] had set up a Web site, the similarly named off2hunt.com, to warn other women about Kudlik's activities.

"You couldn't even question his stories because you could see emotion in his face as he told them," Brown said in a Newsday interview in 2006.

Kudlik's attorney, federal public defender Tracey Gaffey, declined to comment yesterday, as did federal prosecutor Charles Kelly.

Kudlik's wedding photo - 1980s(?)
Kudlik could be sentenced to up to six months in prison on the misdemeanor charges.

ORIGINAL