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

HOW TO HANDLE ONLINE HARASSMENT

FROM WHOA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MORE AT WHOA

Law Would Ban Anonymous Internet Posts

by Ben Glaser

(U.S.A.) Uh oh, another controversial Internet bill has been proposed in the name of “protecting our children.” The Internet Protection Act in New York would pressure those accused of anonymous cyberbullying (on New York-based sites) to identify themselves, reports CNET. But it doesn’t stop there: the bill also targets those who criticize local business or make “mean-spirited and baseless political attacks.”

“The legislation, which I am sponsoring, seeks to combat cyber-bullying by allowing the victim of an anonymous Website posting to request that the post be removed if the anonymous source is unwilling to attach his or her name to it.” writes Republican Assemblyman Jim Conte. He adds that it will help ensure that reviews of local businesses are written by “actual customers,” and that information available about political candidates is more accurate.

Few are convinced that free speech is a reasonable price to pay for accurate reviews of the local pizza joint.

“Had the internet been around in the late 1700s, perhaps the anonymously written Federalist Papers would have to be taken down unless Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay revealed themselves,” writes David Kravets at Wired, echoing a popular criticism.

Unfortunately, Conte is right about a lot of the garbage floating around the internet. The anonymity of social media has inspired some truly disturbing new forms of bullying, and paying for Yelp reviews has quietly become an industry. But while precedents state that certain things like immediate threats of violence are not protected speech, none of the internet comments addressed here seem to meet these standards, and censoring them would be a huge violation of First Amendment rights.

In any event, this won’t leave victims of cyber-harassment totally vulnerable. Laws already exist to help unmask internet users (with the help of ISPs) if another major crime is suspected.

In addition, I don’t think these strategies would actually work. Many people are more than willing to spew the worst kinds of lies and hatred and still sign their name to it. Lies including death panels, birth certificates, and Bank of America bonuses have been passed around proudly by identified internet users.

Ironically, some anti-bullying activists oppose the measure, not just on First Amendment grounds, but for anti-bullying reasons.

“One of the beauties of the Internet is that you can post anonymous comments,” [privacy lawyer and anti-bullying activist Parry] Aftab told CNET. “It allows kids who may be abused to reach out and get help and it enables people with unpopular political views to be heard…”

What do you think? Will this legislation go anywhere?

original post found here

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

Revenge Porn Website IsAnyoneUp.com Shut Down

by Lee Moran

A 'revenge porn' website has been shut down after it was bought by an anti-bullying group - but eyebrows have been raised as the new owner runs a remarkably similar service. Hunter Moore, 26, this week sold IsAnyoneUp.com - where people were encouraged to send in intimate pictures of their exes - to Bullyville.com for an undisclosed fee. He said he cut the deal to 'stand up for under-age bullying', with its new patrons saying the controversial site 'served no public good' and 'that is why it's offline'.

But Bullyville's founder James McGibney is under fire for his affiliated Cheaterville.com site - where people are asked to post photos of people 'who have wronged them'. This is because there is little way of confirming concretely that each of the hundreds of submissions have indeed been unfaithful, or whether the posting is part of a bullying vendetta.

Moore earned up to $20,000 each month from his site, run by a team of four, that attracted more than 300,000 hits each day and became popular across the world. It would see subscribers publishing their ex-partner's pictures, their full name and links to the social networking sites - all without their permission.

They would then inevitably be ridiculed and often forced to shut down their profiles. Initially, the site was set up to sell merchandise and promote music club nights. But, in a letter detailing his decision to sell the firm, he revealed he struggled to make ends meet and turned to porn to make money.

IsAnyoneUp.com: The now defunct website encouraged people to send in intimate pictures of their exes, adding their full name and links to social networking profiles. Was threatened with legal action 'countless times' as photographs were put up without subject's permission. Facebook also tried to sure for 'taking pictures' from the site. Bullyville.com: A free service that aims to beat bullying. Professionals and celebrities provide advice and give victims 'the confidence to leave your anger behind'. People invited to 'turn experiences around, learn from each other and heed advice from experts' who can give help you to put the pieces of life back together.

CheaterVille.com: Says it provides a public service by warning people about 'narcissistic and predatory individuals who use online dating sites to find innocent victims'. But critics say it is impossible to concretely confirm whether the people submitted are genuinely cheaters or whether their name has been added as part of a vendetta. He wrote: 'The bills were getting too insane and I had to turn to the porn game for extra money but it’s too shady and, in my opinion, it ruined the site.' Constantly threatened with legal action by people whose pictures appeared, he was also warned by Facebook because many of the photographs were lifted from the site. He reportedly ignored a cease and desist letter from the web giant, and said he sent the social networking site's lawyers a picture of his genitals in reply. The purchased domain now redirects straight to the Bullyville site, where letters from Moore and McGibney have been posted.

Moore wrote: 'Running this site has been an uphill battle to say the least. 'From the server company's bills to the lawyers taking people's money promising they could get your images down to Facebook, PayPal, Live Nation, A Day to Remember and the countless others who tried to shut me down, beat me up or the girl who stabbed me and yet we are still here. 'The site was a blessing for me and still is, but I am burned out and I honestly can’t take another underage kid getting submitted and having to go through the process of reporting it and dealing with all the legal drama of that situation.' McGibney said he 'commended' Moore for 'having the courage to write this letter, knowing that he’s going to face a massive amount of negativity for doing so.' He said: 'I’ve known Hunter for quite some time now, and the fact of the matter is that he’s a very smart guy. While he has been misguided, he is very astute and socially observant.'

Advice: Bullyville exists, it says, to help victims turn their lives around with the help of celebrities and experts 'His ability to not only capture the attention of young people, but to spur them into action as well, is truly unique in an era where social media makes it so easy to be a passive consumer of information. 'After spending some time with him, Hunter realized that Isanyoneup.com became the same exact bullying he created the site to retaliate against.' Addressing the concerns raised over Cheaterville he added: '[It] is constantly accused of bullying. I disagree, as do the millions of people who use its free service. 'CheaterVille.com provides a public service to people by warning them about the narcissistic and predatory individuals who use online dating sites to find innocent victims. 'The dating market is a marketplace like any other, and it is improved by information - including data on people who claim they are single when they are in fact married, have kids, or in some instances, conceals an STD. 'I’m sure I will have to deal with public blowback just as much as Hunter will. But, I can sum up this ordeal quite simply: IsAnyoneUp.com served no public good. That is why it is offline.'

Moore said he was now launching a new project called wepartyforacause.net which would see parties organised 'to benefit different charities'. He added: 'These will be some of the largest and craziest parties you will ever see with a percentage of earnings going to a range of causes.'

original article found here

Stalking and the Pitfalls of Meeting Online

Stalking is a practice that has been around for a very long time but only recently has become a criminal offence. There are many varieties and reasons for stalking and many ways of meeting a potential partner and engaging in relationship.

The intent of this article is to identify the internet as a means of introduction, not only to a new partner but a potential nightmare when the relationship comes to an end. Because of the anonymity that the internet provides, there is far more potential for deception and misrepresentation than when an introduction occurs naturally face to face. The dangers of forming relationships online have been well documented elsewhere. The focus here will be on stalking behavior resulting from feelings of rejection encountered by one party when the other wants out of a relationship that simply isn't healthy. The internet just happens to provide the perfect environment for a stalker to identify a partner who is less likely to be rejecting because of their own vulnerability.

When an unsuspecting lonely heart logs on to an online dating service, the last thing on their mind is the possibility that they may be inviting a potential stalker (or predator) into their life.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics it is mainly women who are exposed to this type of activity and the major research in this area appears to concentrate on the female population. To be classified as stalking, "more than one type of stalking behavior had to occur, or the same type of behavior had to occur on more than one occasion" (Australian Women's Safety Survey 1996, p82.)

Usually curiosity and hopeful anticipation inspires someone looking for companionship and/or love to submit their profile online and spend hours scanning through the many candidates offering themselves as potential partners.

It is very difficult to ascertain from the inviting smiles and "come hither" poses whether or not potential pitfalls are hidden beneath an enticing facade.

Profiles are often very artful works of fiction hiding the truth of a sometimes very disturbed personality.

This may seem a somewhat dramatic claim to some. To others, it is merely a reminder to be very careful next time - if they are willing to brave a next time.

Depending on the severity of the stalking experience, it is possible to suffer long term or permanent consequences in the form of post-traumatic stress disorder.

For an elaboration of the potential psychological impact of stalking behavior on victims please refer to the following paper presented at a conference convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology in Sydney, December 7-8 2000.
*******
The Toll of Stalking:
The Relationship Between Features of Stalking and Psychopathology of Victims.

E Blaauw, FW Winkel -- Department of Clinical Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands
E Arensman -- Department of Clinical & Health Psychology, Leiden University, The Netherlands

It is for the reasons outlined in the paper cited above, that I feel compelled to issue a warning regarding the dangers of online dating to both men and women. Although in the majority of cases stalkers are male, there are women who occasionally fit this profile. The psychological damage sustained by such behavior is similar for both genders, however females are potentially more at risk physically.

Stalking behavior has been around since time immemorial, going back to the caveman's MO of seeking out his victim and then rendering her unconscious with his club. This was handy as the method produced few objections!

Then of course there are the modern day dangers of leaving a disco or bar alone and having to face a range of intrusions from following to other more vicious crimes of assault, rape, or in extreme cases, murder.

The Australian Institute of Criminology, provides information on stalking trends in Queensland, Victoria and South Australia. Stalking behavior is classified according to the relationship of the stalker to the victim and whether or not mental illness is present.

The focus of this article is on stalking behavior within the context of an existing relationship or after it's demise. An insidious form of stalking occurs when the victim is enticed into a relationship which they later wish to leave. The stalker is usually emotionally disturbed and may suffer from a personality disorder. Fear of rejection is often present and the discomfort and insecurity of this affliction could lead to bizarre behavior patterns.

Signs to watch for include impatience or anxiety when:

* phone calls (or emails/ instant messages) are not returned quickly enough
* they don't know where you are or you are late
* a gift or favor is not acknowledged immediately
* attention is given to your other friends
* they are not the centre of attention
* attending a crowded social function
* they feel left out or not included

While relationships of this nature can begin after meeting at all the usual places, including a trusted friend's introduction, online dating presents a different problem.

A computer screen affords the perfect hiding place for a person plagued with emotional insecurities. They are able to surf the net in the comfort of knowing they are anonymous. Often they are hidden while they wait for someone else to initiate contact. Profiles of potential partners are carefully scrutinized and usually someone who gives the impression of a caring and nurturing nature is the chosen one. They are also chosen due to vulnerability due to disappointments in other relationships and loneliness. The perfect choice.

The stalker personality type can present as highly intelligent and very charming. They can be very alluring, persuasive and appear to be very interested in you once you have shown enough interest to gain their trust. Their attention appears to be fully focused on you. The attention feels wonderful and you are told you are very special in their life. Before you know it, you are in a relationship even though you may not be too sure if you actually want to be there!

Your every word is taken in and stored in their memory. They listen attentively to what it is you are seeking in a partner because they want to deliver the goods that will keep you glued to their side. Before long, talk of long-term commitment is setting off alarm bells in your head and even the big M may have already been mentioned. Have you been going out together for 6 months to 1 year yet? Probably not!

Whatever it is you want in a partner however, they assure will be provided! Problems only start when you begin to feel that contact with this person is becoming very "sticky". It feels draining to be with them rather than energizing. With time you may even dread spending prolonged time together. Thoughts of extricating yourself from this relationship occupy your mind and you may try to initiate separation.

This is easier said than done. When you are no longer the compliant, loving and nurturing partner, what does that make you! Public enemy number one, of course!

Loving words are now exchanged for abusive character assassinations coming at you from unwanted phone calls, SMS, instant messages and emails. (a smear campaign to everyone around them and around you) Whatever may have been revealed of your own insecurities often come hurtling back at you in an attempt to break down your resolve for freedom. They may even show up on your doorstep or place of work wanting an explanation for what they have done wrong.

This is usually followed with apologies and self-blame and expressions of desire to make things right again. The anxiety is rising and their fear of rejection escalates.

Their behavior will depend on what you do at this point. If you succumb, meet and make up, then their anxiety will be appeased and you are off the hook for the time being. If however, you refuse to engage in conversation and reconciliation, it could get nasty. How nasty it gets depends on how it is handled and the severity of the stalker's affliction.

In any event, it is imperative that you realize that you are not dealing with a rational person and so any attempt to disengage from relationship with rational conversation will not work. This person needs help and this is not your responsibility. Usually psychological help is appropriate. Sometimes however, a psychiatrist will need to make an assessment and perhaps prescribe medication.

Your responsibility is to look after yourself and take all the precautions necessary for your safety. If you have had at least two instances of stalking behavior it is important to lodge a complaint at your local police station. They will then advise whether taking out an AVO (Apprehended Violence Order) (in the U.S. an RO - Restraining Order) is appropriate. Stalking is now an illegal offence in NSW (Australia) and includes the following behaviors:

* Following by any means, car or on foot
* Lurking in the vicinity of your home or office
* Sending unwanted mail, cards or gifts
* Sending unwanted emails, SMS
* Unwanted phone calls
* Spreading malicious gossip about you to your friends, acquaintances or work colleagues, etc
* Damaging or interfering with your property or vehicle (including leaving notes on the windscreen)
* Giving, sending or leaving offensive material

It is also important to alert trusted friends, neighbours, work colleagues and anyone else who may be able to offer support. Support is needed not only for your physical safety, but your psychological safety as well. Being followed and being subjected to the invasion of privacy that constitutes stalking behavior can leave long-term scars. Seek the help of a suitably qualified therapist if you feel traumatized by your experience. This will help in preventing any long term damage and provide helpful coping strategies.

Keeping your home secure and being careful in car parks is important. If necessary, change your telephone number or use an answering service to screen your calls. Block unwanted emails and be aware of your surroundings when away from your home or office. Initially it may help to stay with friends or go away on holiday where you are removed from your known routines.

It is imperative that the stalker is given absolutely NO ATTENTION from you. Even negative attention is food for the stalker's hunger and will only prolong the situation. Do not answer their phone calls, emails, SMS, instant messages (Block what you can) or satisfy any attempt of contact by any means. Ultimately they will lose interest and seek satisfaction from another source. Have an authority figure such as a police officer or lawyer contact the stalker to make it very clear that their conduct is illegal and must stop immediately.

Just be careful and remember the warning signs listed above. If it feels better when you are alone than when you are with your newly acquired partner, have a real good ponder on whether your own fears of being alone are justification for staying in a relationship that just doesn't feel right.

CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL

Crackdown on Facebook "Burn" Pages

By Pamela Owen

(U.K.) Schoolchildren have been setting up special Facebook 'burn' pages to post vile and abusive messages about their peers.

Police have now said they are cracking down on the phenomenon and have warned pupils to start removing their names and comments - many of them sexual - off the pages.

Officers estimate as many as 700 students are involved in the sites - which are inspired by the cult film Mean Girls - in which students write hurtful and often fabricated gossip in a 'burn book'. So far eight of the pages in the Portsmouth area of Hampshire have been shut down after police and schools contacted Facebook.

However many, including Portsmouth Burn which has 712 friends, are still being used.

Police have warned pupils who continue to post messages on the pages that they could face investigation and prosecution.

At Park Community School in Leigh Park, near Havant, Hampshire, 50 students were members of a 'Hampshire burn' page.

Three students - a former male pupil, a year 11 boy and a year 10 girl - were victims of particularly depraved sexual comments.

Sue Walker, deputy head, said: 'Last week it came to my attention there were a number of 'burn' sites - 'Hampshire Burn', 'Leigh Park Burn' and others. I had 178 pages of the Hampshire Burn site downloaded and it was deeply unpleasant stuff. I knew immediately this was something that could get out of control and that we had to act quickly.'

Miss Walker called on schools officer PC Justine Lewis, who has since been talking to pupils about the consequences of being involved in such sites.

In particular, students could face charges of harassment and assault that could result in up to two years' imprisonment. PC Lewis said students had been given a short amnesty over the weekend to withdraw their names and comments.

'We don't want to criminalise children but if they don't take themselves off we will be calling them in individually, talking to their parents and considering criminal charges,' she said. 'This is a very difficult area to police but I'm really pleased schools have taken positive action and safer neighbourhood teams are working closely with them.'

A 'Purbrook Burn' site was taken down after the headteacher of Purbrook Park School, in Waterlooville, Hampshire, called a meeting with all 40 pupils who were members of the group.

Paul Foxley said a year 11 girl admitted to creating the page and took it down the same day. 'I made it very clear to the students that their online safety was extremely important to me - I will not tolerate any rude comments online or in person,' he said. 'As a result, a girl owned up to setting it up and it was gone in a day. She was very remorseful but we did give her a five-day internal exclusion as it was a very serious mistake on her part.'

A Facebook spokeswoman said anyone concerned about online bullying should contact the site immediately so their dedicated team can investigate and take down any offending sites immediately.

original article found here

Jailed for Running a 'Vicious' Internet Smear Campaign

A teenager who posted a death threat on Facebook, yesterday became the first person in Britain to be jailed for bullying on a social networking site.

Keeley Houghton, 18, said she would kill Emily Moore, whom she had bullied for four years since they were at school together.

On her personal page, Houghton wrote of her victim: 'Keeley is going to murder the bitch. She is an actress. What a ******* liberty. Emily ****head Moore.'

Two days before she made the threat, Houghton had intimidated Emily, who is also 18, after spotting her in a pub.

Sara Stock, prosecuting, told Worcester magistrates: 'When Emily was sitting on her own the defendant came over and sat next to her and asked her, "Are you Emily Moore? Can I have a huggle?" Emily told the defendant to leave her alone otherwise she would call the police. Keeley then told her, "I'll give you something to ring the police about".'

Yesterday, jobless Houghton sobbed as she was sentenced to three months in a young offenders' institution after pleading guilty to harassment.

She was also given a restraining order banning her from contacting Emily in person, via the internet or in any other manner for five years.

People have previously been jailed for harassment and stalking on social networking sites but she is thought to be the first to be jailed for bullying via the internet.

Houghton, of Malvern, Worcestershire, had two previous convictions relating to her vendetta against Emily, the court heard.

In 2005 she was convicted of assaulting her as she walked home from school. Houghton was subsequently expelled from school. Two years later she was convicted of causing criminal damage to Emily's home after kicking her front door.

District Judge Bruce Morgan said: 'Since Emily Moore was 14 you have waged compelling threats and violent abuse towards her.

'Bullies are by their nature cowards, in school and society. On this day you did an act of gratuitous nastiness to satisfy your own twisted nature.'

The court heard that Houghton had told police she wrote the death threats while she was drunk late at night.

But when officers examined internet records they discovered Houghton wrote the comments at 4pm on July 12 and kept them on her Facebook page for 24 hours.

Last month, an inquest heard how a schoolgirl took a fatal overdose of painkillers after bullies waged a hate campaign against her on Bebo.

Megan Gillan, 15, of Macclesfield, Cheshire, swallowed the tablets to avoid a science exam after classmates posted spiteful messages on the social networking site.

She was found dead in bed by her parents after she failed to come down for breakfast on the day of the exam.

Her death prompted the Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, to criticise such sites, saying they encouraged teenagers to build 'transient relationships' that can leave them traumatised when they collapse.

The archbishop, who was appointed to the post in April, said the sites encouraged young people to put too much emphasis on the number of friends they have rather than on the quality of their relationships.

Emma Jane Cross, from campaign group Beatbullying, said yesterday: 'The sentencing of an 18-year-old girl for cyber bullying is the first of its kind in the UK and sets an important precedent.

'Cyber bullying is a worrying and fast growing trend which can be more harmful than typical schoolyard bullying.'

Drama on Facebook
Facebook is used by tens of millions of people across the world, but the way some users use the site has led to various dramas.

Last week, a picture surfaced of an alleged Facebook sacking, after an employee ranted about her boss online. He promptly replied, reminding her she had added him as a 'friend' before promptly firing her.

Meanwhile term 'Facebook Rage' is entering our language, often defined as feeling anger when a relationship breaks down and a former partner begins posting updates about their love-life.

It has also been used to describe users, convinced their other half is cheating, who spend hours stalking their partner online in a bid the find further proof to fuel their suspicions, deliberately searching for incriminating evidence.

Facebook was also in the dock a fortnight ago after a judge banned a gang of thugs from posting menacing photographs of themselves online.

In a landmark ruling, nine men pictured making gun gestures on social networking websites will be locked up if such images appear again.

Judge Clement Goldstone QC issued the ban while sentencing members of the Fallowfield Mad Dogs gang for affray. He was shown pictures of them pulling gun poses and talking about 'preparing for war' on a networking site.

Teacher Sonya McNally, 35, from Grimsby, is also currently suspended on full pay since calling her 13-year-old pupils ‘bad’ in a private conversation on the social networking site.

original article here

Judge Spares Woman Jail After she Plotted Attack on Internet 'Troll'

Judge spares mother jail after she plotted attack on internet 'troll' who posted horrific comments about disabled daughter


by Chris Greenwood

A mother who joined a revenge attack on a man responsible for a vile campaign of internet abuse against her disabled daughter has been spared prison.

Sylvia Hooper, 52, was described as a ‘decent and law-abiding’ woman who dedicated her life to her seriously ill daughter Kim Arnold. But she snapped after looking on helplessly as a cowardly bully sent her daughter a series of appalling comments via Facebook.

Mrs Hooper faced a jail sentence after identifying Christopher Berwick and confronting him outside his home in Chatham, Kent.

But a judge – who labelled the messages ‘disgraceful and shameful’ – took pity on Mrs Hooper after hearing they were part of a long-term campaign.

The case is the latest evidence of the growing impact of online bullying and abuse through social networking sites. Known as ‘trolling’, it sees abusers, who often hide behind a veil of anonymity or false identities, deluging their victims with cruel taunts. Campaigners have repeatedly called for websites to take swifter action against the ‘trolls’.

Miss Arnold was sent a series of messages via a false Facebook account that left her deeply depressed, Maidstone Crown Court was told. One labelled her a cripple and said that Miss Arnold, who is a wheelchair user, should be left to ‘roll down a hill'.

A judge at Maidstone Crown Court labelled the messages 'shameful' and took pity on Mrs Hooper after hearing they were part of a long-term campaign.

Another message read: ‘Your mother should have had an abortion. She only had you because she felt sorry for you.’

Mrs Hooper realised the culprit was Mr Berwick, who lived nearby, and joined her son Robert and his friend Soloman Taylor outside his home. Mr Hooper, 19, punched Mr Berwick after his mother said ‘hit him’ and the bully was then taken back to the family home by car. He was forced to crawl inside and make a ‘grovelling apology’ to his victim while on all fours. At one point he was hit on the chin with a rolled up newspaper.

Prosecutor Neil Sandys said Mr Berwick originally tried to blame his then girlfriend but eventually admitted being responsible. He said the Facebook exchange was ‘low, mean, base and shameful’ and added that Mr Berwick admitted doing it before.

Mrs Hooper’s solicitor Catharine Donnelly said the comments were ‘beyond the pale’ and told the court ‘none of us would be here today’ without his actions.

Speaking about Mrs Hooper, she said: ‘She is a decent woman who has devoted herself to her daughter. She has led a decent and law-abiding life. It is clear she is a woman who will never trouble these courts again. She was an encourager, rather than a hitter.’

Danny Moore, for Mr Hooper, said Mr Berwick got a kick out of ‘playing mind games with a severely disabled young lady’.

He highlighted how police told the victims there was nothing they could do and the bully was not prosecuted for sending malicious messages.

All three admitted assault but denied false imprisonment and the judge ruled that not guilty verdicts should be entered.

Judge Richard Polden said it ‘troubled him’ that Mrs Hooper had said, ‘hit him’, but accepted that Mr Hooper was acting out of a ‘protective instinct’ to his sister. He said: ‘I sentence you on the basis that Mr Berwick sent messages that were wholly disgraceful and shameful but then tried to put the blame on his girlfriend.’

Mrs Hooper was given a conditional discharge.

The two men were given community orders which included voluntary work.


original article

Predators & Prey Created by Social Networking

By Dan Cole

From creepy stalkers to crime fighters, both sides of crime are using social media to their respective advantage.

Andrea Cowley, a behavioral science major, has repeatedly been on the receiving end of cyber-stalking.

“I’m seriously considering getting rid of my Facebook because of some kid,” Cowley said. “I’ve blocked him, ignored him and told him to leave me alone. He just creates new accounts and harasses me from a new profile.”

Social networking sites like Facebook typically give open access to anyone, and let people present themselves any way they want. Others are lured into false senses of security, said Pauline Wiessner, a University of Utah anthropologist. Having to talk to someone online and not in person provides some sense of anonymity.

But Lt. Arnold Lemmon, from the BYU Police Department, warns against this.

“Be as protective of yourself with social media as you would be on the street,” Lemmon said. “I think what we see is that many students come here with a false sense of security because it is BYU.”

Lemmon urged students to take proactive measures with social media to protect themselves. If students find themselves or friends in situations where online crime is being committed, they are urged to report it immediately to authorities.

Social media can also help protect against crime, however, and has become a crime-solving tool in many cases throughout the country. Because social media users provide information about themselves through these sites, investigators use these profiles to track alleged culprits.

Bobby Tarcea was recently a theft victim while attending the University of Washington, and Facebook helped him regain his stolen items. After a party with his roommates and friends, Tarcea awoke to find his laptop missing. From his friends, he found out there was a woman at the party no one seemed to know. After some detective work, he found a picture of the unknown woman taken at the party and posted it on Facebook, asking if anyone knew her. A friend said the alleged culprit looked like someone they went to high school with and sent him the name. With the name, Tarcea found the person’s Facebook page, phone number and work place.

“Got my laptop back after three days of some ‘Law and Order’ detective work,” Tarcea said. “The look on her face when we walked in was priceless.”



original article here

Guilty Verdict Overturned in Megan Meier Suicide Case

EOPC hopes this acquittal is appealled. Drew says she 'didn't read MySpace's Terms of Service. Ignorance may be bliss but it shouldn't stand up in court!

If you would like to contact Judge Wu and let him know why you disagree with his decision, please send an e-mail to his attention at his court clerk's e-mail.

javier_gonzalez@cacd.uscourts.gov

by Carolyn McCarthy

Lori Drew, the woman convicted of using a hoax MySpace profile to harass a teenage girl to the point of suicide, was acquitted by a Los Angeles judge on Thursday, Wired reported.

Judge George Wu overturned Drew's guilty verdict, which was issued in November, saying that if Drew had been convicted of a felony in the case, she would already have been sentenced. But because she was convicted of three misdemeanors -- a significantly lighter offense than prosecutors originally sought -- the constitutionality of the guilty verdict was less clear.

Drew, a Missouri resident, had been convicted of three misdemeanor counts of "accessing protected computers without authorization to obtain information to inflict emotional distress," each of which could have resulted in a year of jail and a $100,000 fine. But she hadn't been convicted of conspiracy, a felony that could've led to up to 20 years in prison.

The tragic situation unfolded in 2006, when Drew, her teenage daughter, and an 18-year-old employee of the family created a fake MySpace profile for a fictitious teenage boy that they used to harass one of Drew's daughter's classmates, 13-year-old Megan Meier. Meier hanged herself.

This was a situation in which traditional law did not align smoothly with the realities of the digital world: the prosecutors' argument was rooted in a terms of service violation, since MySpace officially outlaws impersonation and fictitious accounts.

Last year, the Electronic Frontier Foundation urged the courts to dismiss the case because of the precedent it could set. "Criminal charges for a 'terms of service' violation is a dramatic misapplication of the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), with far-ranging consequences for American computer users," the EFF said at the time, and argued that it could result in criminal charges for something as innocuous as a minor using the Google search engine.

Drew's lawyers had argued that the law being used against the defendant was vague and flawed, which the judge upheld Thursday when he threw out the guilty verdict. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is typically used against malicious hackers.

According to Wired, the judge argued for nearly 45 minutes with U.S. Attorney Mark Krause over the specifics of the CFAA.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

If you would like to contact Judge Wu and let him know why you disagree with his decision, please send an e-mail to his attention at his court clerk's e-mail.

javier_gonzalez@cacd.uscourts.gov

Costume Designer Charged with Cyberstalking

By Donita Naylor and Tatiana Pina

The problem started with a poorly made SpongeBob costume, and ended with a cyberstalking arrest.

In between, Tracy Sisson says, were two years of harassment: prank calls, hangups, telemarketing calls and phony applications, as many as 60 a day.

In 2001, Sisson, 33, of Cranston, Rhode Island (U.S.) ordered the character costume, called a Yellow Cheese to avoid copyright infringement, and put $500 down on a costume resembling Bob the Builder, for her party rental business. But she was not happy with the quality of the Yellow Cheese, she said in an interview Wednesday, because of unsightly glue drips. When she called Bruna Puppets and Costumes, of Providence, to cancel the builder costume, owner Ann Bruno refused to return her deposit.

Sisson and her husband, Keith, own Absolute Fun Party Rentals and the Absolute Fun Party Center, in Cranston. She and Bruno, 59, met again in 2006 when Sisson was arranging mortgages at Able Financial Services and Bruno got a job there. Sisson told her boss that she felt uncomfortable working with Bruno and planned to leave. Bruno was laid off, she said.

Later that year, around September, Sisson told the police she began getting mysterious phone calls and Internet messages from companies indicating she had filled out applications. She had not. Her phone was ringing as she came home from the hospital with her third son. “I was walking in the door with my brand-new baby, and someone was calling for my husband.” It was a female voice, she said, and the caller hung up.

Was her husband having an affair while she was giving birth?

On Monday, the police charged Bruno, of West Warwick, with cyberstalking, a misdemeanor. She was issued a summons to appear at District Court, Warwick, on April 14.

Earlier that day, Sisson called the police from the Cranston Public Library, saying she recognized a woman at the computers who might be involved. Bruno wasn’t aware that two officers were standing behind her, a police report said. They watched as she typed Sisson’s name and business address onto an application.

Bruno told the police she was the victim, that she had received harassing phone calls and that applications were filled out in her name.

She said that Sisson had gotten her fired from her job.

Sisson’s business, operating a party center and renting items for home parties, started seven years ago. It’s a family operation, she said. Nieces and nephews appear as characters in costumes, her sister does face painting and temporary tattoos and her husband delivers water slides, moon-bouncers, tables, chairs and tents.

Bruno, who started designing fashions as a student at Cranston High School East, has a shop in the Silver Lake neighborhood of Providence. The shelves are lined with costume heads of bunnies, Mickey Mouse-like creatures and characters that Bruno has made, along with wigs, vinyl go-go boots and costumes she has sewn, such as a Southern belle. Bruno refused to comment.

Tracy Sisson said she started asking callers how they got her number and was told she or her husband had filled out cards at a home show or business expo. Neither had attended those shows, she said.

ARTICLE HERE

Typical - the cyberharasser plays VICTIM! Sounds like Angela Buer, Nathan Thomas, Dan Jacoby, Yidwithlid, Ed Hicks...

BULLYPROOF FOR LIFE

Mondoreb at Death By 1000 Papercuts was kind and generous enough to include some of our questions in this interview.

While Dr. Haber writes about bullyproofing your children, we really hope our adult victims and readers can take away some information on how to keep themselves bullyproofed from cyberpaths & predators. Especially the threats after you catch them or figure them out. - Fighter
Whereas years ago, kids would write their anonymous gossip on bathroom walls, now they’ve found a way to send their nastiness to a much wider audience.

The newest and potentially most dangerous form of bulling, “cyberbullying,” is growing so fast, it is proving difficult for researchers and therapists to keep up.

A new study just reported that cyberbullying among teens and preteens has increased by 50% in the last 5 years.

--Dr. Joel Haber, "The Bully Coach" on Cyber Bullies
* * *
DBKP Talks to Dr. Joel Haber about how to protect your kids from Bullies, Cyber Bullies and His New Book, "BullyProof Your Child For Life".

The DBKP Interview Room

Today we talk to nationally-known "Bully Coach", Dr. Joel Haber, about his new book, "Bullyproof Your Child for Life". Our guests today include TherapyDoc from "Everyone Needs Therapy" and Fighter from "Cyberpaths", along with Little Baby Ginn and Mondoreb from Death by 1000 Papercuts.

Mondoreb: Hi Dr. Haber! Welcome to The DBKP Interview Room.

Dr. Joel Haber: Hello everybody. Thanks for giving me this opportunity.

Mondoreb: Okay, Joel, let's get to it. If you had one thing to tell a parent about protecting their kids from bullies, what would it be?

Joel Haber: Bully Prevention can be summed up with one factor that remains pretty constant: The way a child responds to bullying events will determine whether those events repeat or escalate.

A child who can laugh it off, walk away, and feel good about him- or herself anyway is not likely to become a long-term target.

On the other hand, the likelihood of further attacks increases the more emotional the child becomes in reaction to the bullying.

Mondoreb: So Mom's advice to "just ignore them them" wasn't bad?

Dr. Haber: A child who gets angry, cries, pouts, whines, or runs to a teacher is probably going to be harassed time and again.

TherapyDoc: Have you ever heard of the story, " The Boy with the Funny Laugh"?

Dr. Joel Haber: It’s a really good story to get us to think about our behavior and reflect on what our role is in the bullying dynamic. I like it a lot.

Little Baby Ginn: Is passive aggressive bullying harder to deal with than overt bullying?

Joel Haber: Absolutely, because passive aggressive bullying is “indirect” which makes it more difficult to see, hear, or handle. Indirect bullying involves things like gossiping behind people’s backs, eye rolls, or exclusion which may not be easy to see.

Mondoreb: Earlier, before the interview, you outlined a few helpful tips for parents to keep their kids safe on-line from cyber bullies. Would you mind repeating a few of those.again, please?

Joel Haber: First of all, parents need to learn some of the shorthand that their kids are using. POS [parent over shoulder] (a good beginning so parents can speak the lingo).

1-Remind kids that the Internet is not face to face, and you never know who you are speaking to, so watch what you say (once you press the send key, you can’t take it back).
2-Tell kids to treat others like you would your favorite grandmother and watch what they say if it may hurt others. Being mean, or threatening to others online may be a crime, so you need to be very careful, and parents need to teach their kids how to be responsible online.
3-Encourage your kids to let you know if they ever get threatened online, so the parent can report the abuse to a governing agency.

Fighter: Our site deals with adult on adult predation (and of course bullying once the prey gets a little too suspicious or exposes them...) Is there anything from your book, any advice, that would be helpful to someone who's being bullied because they became suspicious of someone's on-line behavior?

Joel Haber: Try to document all the evidence you have, and see if you can get support for your ideas. Documentation keeps the behavior very objective and avoids a shouting match!

See if you can get others to join you- when you’re with others who support you, there is less likelihood to be bullied and it helps you keep perspective even if the bullying gets emotional.
TherapyDoc: Has it ever back-fired, telling a patient (or child) to be assertive with a bully; meaning, did your advice ever get a person beat up?

Joel Haber: Being assertive can put you in danger, so I don’t always suggest that. I suggest that we know our kids, and teach them skills to make them less targetable. Sometimes that involves assertion, and sometimes it involves showing less emotion.

Ginn: Any tips on how do you handle a passive-aggressive bully?

Joel Haber: When you see passive-aggressive behavior, call them out on it, and ask if you did anything to make them mad? If not, ask them why they are behaving that way.

Mondoreb: How long have you been working on the book? Did it take you awhile to do it?

Joel Haber: I have worked for years on this book. I feel proud of it and think this will be the last resource parents will need to help their children to manage bullying issues.

FIGHTER: What model of home/ upbringing would a bully come from? Narcissistic or sociopathic parent? Other?

Joel Haber: Bullies actually come from families with what we call an authoritarian style- one parent who always wins, gets his/her way, and the other parent who also loses conflicts. In these homes, kids observe that bullying and aggression win!

Or, the kids get scared off from the bullying and they side with the losing parent: creating kids who are afraid of conflict and become targets. So- a sociopathic parent can create a bullying kid, but the power imbalance at home creates the problems for kids either as bullies or victims.

Mondoreb: Is there anybody that is hopeless? I mean, do you think your book or the techniques described in it--and which you've had years of experience with--would help everyone? Or are there a few people out there who are not bully proof?

Joel Haber: Nobody is really hopeless - because all kids can learn something to help them become Bullyproof. Some special needs kids, though, may have problems learning lots of strategies, but one good one may be enough. If a kid can’t learn, then the adults or peers around them need to learn how to step up and help out the kid who is lacking in skills.

Mondoreb: Okay, that's about all the time we have. Thanks to TherapyDoc and Fighter for joining Little Baby Ginn and myself to talk to "The Bully Coach", Dr. Joel Haber, about how to keep kids safe. It's all in his new book, "BullyProof Your Child For Life".

Thanks Dr. Haber.

Joel Haber: My pleasure, I enjoyed it.

CLICK HERE FOR DR. HABER'S WEBSITE

HUGE THANKS & KUDOS TO DBKP!

FINAL NOTE ON DUNETZ/ YIDWITHLID & A WORD ABOUT CYBERPATHS

An update and final note on Jeff Dunetz/ GRIDNEY/ YidwithLid for this rerun of his expose. This is a great example of what these predators do when they catch on that they've been exposed.


Do you think they - Apologize? Get Help? Admit What They've Done? Make Amends to the Victim(s)? No! As we have said, cyberpaths are narcissists or sociopaths at their core and those persons never ever apologize. Or if they do they will close the "I'm Sorry" with "but you..."

Jeff Dunetz/ GRIDNEY/ YidwithLid went into a psychopathic rage when he found out his story was here. So he decided to go after the person he thinks is posting it - his Target #1. (Look around, Mr. Dunetz - you aren't the only person exposed on this site!)

Reality: Target #2 first contacted us and from there EOPC contacted Target #1. Target #1 told her story to us a few months out of a treatment program for severe PTSD caused by her relationship with Jeff Dunetz/ Yidwithlid /GRIDNEY - and her counselors told her "TELL."

EOPC also warned her what this predator might do. But posting it herself here? She did not. Dunetz/ Yidwithlid thinks she controls the internet, it seems! All of them blame their targets or other victims on this site. ALL OF THEM!

This expose was the second one to come with law enforcement verification (the first was "Ed" Charles Hicks). Typically, Jeff Dunetz/ YIDWITHLID is now telling people it's "all made up" and to top that off - he thinks Target #1 is us and is telling OTHERS that she is EOPC!

MR. Dunetz- if you are reading this - there are three (3) people that run this site and neither your Target #1 or Target #2 is one of them. Also, we get an affidavit from everyone who tells us their story that this is the truth and would hold up in a court of law. Everyone.

Mr. Dunetz, you are the one keeping this story alive by having a tantrum every time you see something. This the third time we have re-run it. Other sites have picked it up and our policy is - we refuse to remove unless there's legal confirmation. We were asked to remove your story in March 2007 by Target #1. We declined when those who run this site found out what you were up to; attacking and threatening your victims. More than one person confirmed this story as did law enforcement for us in 2004. And we don't negotiate with terrorists.

If you would like to write a genuine apology, acknowledging ALL your actions and why you coerced these vulnerable persons - we would be more than happy to post it for you. You must have back up and be willing to sign a release that YOU will take full responsibility for what is posted and its veracity. Your victims had no problem doing that.

Initially Yidwithlid posted his version of events on his blog and later removed it.

His target answered Jeff Dunetz/ GRIDNEY/YIDWITHLID's version of events and says she made efforts to everything about him taken down. Most sites? Simply will not without a court document and even then some won't. On the site she details her efforts to get postings of him on other sites that used his real name taken down, even though Target #1 wasn't the one who put them there, and how futile it was.

Jeff Dunetz/ GRIDNEY/ YIDWITHLID sees the actions of all others against him as the fault of only Target #1. ha ha ha

As to Dunetz/ GRIDNEY's version, upon reading it, we found it did not make a lot of sense, it was very watered down, confusing and had a lot of gaps in it covered by statements of "love" for his wife and what a good person he is. (example: Dunetz left out his lunch hour hooker habit and porn addiction which started years before he even looked up Target #1. Nor does he mention Target #2; perhaps they are still involved?)

Worse -- his version had astoundingly icy statements in it like "I stopped cybering with her and started cybering with someone else." Boom, just like that. No explanation -- just talking about his victims like objects.

Considering the tremendous devastation he visited on Target #1 and her family, he's lucky -- because he destroyed this woman's life and thought nothing of her but sex. And thought the same of her friend, Target #2 - who is also a real person not a thing. His own statements reveal his severe pathology.

Dunetz's defense was stock phrases like "hell hath no fury" or "the rest is history". The 'woman scorned' nonsense is a time-worn defense that even the legal system knows is bull these days. Without fail, every single Cyberpath who has been exposed here and subsequently threatens us - use this same defense in addition to calling their Targets crazy, stalkers, liars and accusing them of slander & defamation. It is so predictable it gets monotonous.

After publishing this blog for as many years as we have now - an accusation by a Cyberpath that their Target is a 'nutjob' is, to us, a confirmation to EOPC that the Cyberpath is lying and projecting and that the Targets have told us the truth.

We have contacted Target #1 and told her that she has a good libel case against Jeff Dunetz/ GRIDNEY/YIDWITHLID and that he is so fixated on blaming her for everything that went wrong in his life. (he accuses Target #1 of: 'hurting his wife' by telling her the truth and the latest: 'driving his mother to a heart attack' - which Target #1 denies even knowing what he's referring to on her site and provides proofs to that effect. He even tells people it's HER fault he's unemployed - NOT that HE used hookers, posted on hooker rating boards and used phone & internet sex sites) so please use caution as he seems to be a loose canon.

His attack, like all of them, against someone he drove to the brink - is typical of the misogyny or misandry of Cyberpaths - done simultaneously as they swear they love their partners/ spouses.

(Cyberpaths paint the wife/husband/partner as ALL GOOD and the victims who dare to tell the truth as ALL BAD by comparing them. This is paramoralizing nonsense; typical of the black & white thinking of a pathological person. The partners AND the victims are probably the ALL GOOD - it is the Cyberpath who is ALL BAD.)

As with all Cyberpaths - their image is everything. They hurt their victims as if they were nothing and they use people like objects. So readers, look below at what the rage of one Cyberpath does - and then see for yourself if Dunetz/ GRIDNEY/ YIDWITHLID's words are the words of a rational, reasonable human being.



OTHER CYBERPATHS - SAME PATTERN
Mike Campbell went to court with one of his victims trying to shut her up. He also assumed that she is one who posted about him all over the web. Wrong.

We heard from three (3) other of his victims (who did not want their emails published because they are scared of Mr. Campbell or their families) confirming the sort of person he is and his predatory tactics.

Supposedly Campbell's tried to control the whole internet to stop the truth about him being out. Just like Dunetz/ Yidwithlid - Campbell is blaming one person for posting him everywhere. The truth is that our stories often get picked up by other sites. Also, other victims will hide behind the story of a victim who is brave enough to come forward - and then post the story themselves.

Why do these Cyberpaths pick on that one person? Probably because they are the most truthful. Remember our posts about who Cyberpaths' target? The best and brightest among us. Predators usually pick the most moral, compassionate and truthful person to smear because 'mud sticks best to a clean spot.'

"Ed" Charles Hicks (aka Charles Greene) is back online on various dating sites, writing numerous women with a system so he can keep them all straight. Rumor has it he's writing a book to tell his truth - i.e.: that his last two wives set him up just to get on T.V. and ruin his life. Not a word about the thousands of dollars he stole from them, the ruined lives or his year in jail. Not a word that all the facts about him were independently verified by the Assistant D.A. in Virginia. Remember: these predators CREATE THEIR ONE VERSION OF REALITY AND LIVE THERE!

And Mr. Hicks is currently a known felon who spent time in jail. So EOPC wishes Mr. Hicks good luck finding a publisher - maybe O.J. can give him some advice there if they end up in jail together.

BRAD DORSKY, STEVEN LANGLEY GUY & KEITH CLIVE have all come here multiple times, surfing only their stories and lashing out at us and usually the person they "think" has exposed them.

PHIL HABERMAN dragged his victim to court - of course wrong state, wrong venue - and isn't getting what he wants. In fact - Phil's looking crazier all the time.

If only they'd put that energy towards getting long term psychological help.

We have had Cyberpaths write us as their "alleged other victims" or their "lawyer" (btw - all the same IP) demanding & threatening us to remove them. Not asking, not providing us with anything other than their rageful demands.

We hold everyone to the same standard. YOUR WORDS ARE NOT PROOF. We must have verification and you must sign an affidavit that if you are lying you can be prosecuted for perjury and holding EOPC harmless. (fyi - we do not want Social Insurance/ Security numbers or credit card information!)

We have yet to remove anyone permanently with one except - at the request of a deeply harmed victim who was threatened with serious bodily harm by her Cyberpath. We also pass all threats to appropriate law enforcement.

We agree with AA and other recovery organizations that FULL DISCLOSURE can be very helpful in healing from the trauma and emotional rape caused by these Narcissistic, Sociopathic predators.

We have had Cyberpaths or their buddies try to join our mail list support group. That won't be happening. Sometimes we are lucky enough to have some help on those occasions.

We are constantly surprised, but not shocked, at the anger & rage these Cyberpaths have at being exposed! It is not an anger management problem. Narcissistic & sociopathic types do no have a problem with their anger - they have a problem with their victims being angry. Their victims are simply objects to them so "how dare they" feel pain, become ill, attempt suicide, have PTSD, complain or expose them. That's how sick and soul-less Cyberpaths are.

Cyberpaths will say "but they did it too!" (or "she's a cheater, too!!" or "she KNEW it was wrong") Oh, Really?

• Were they aware you were using & grooming them, slowly brainwashing and telling them you had feelings for/ or were 'in love with' them?


• Were they aware that you didn't care one bit about them other than what kicks you could get from them?


• Did your victims know you had other prey on the hook, or were a sex addict, or a bigamist, or a fraud?


• Did they know when you said "I care about you" or "I love you" you were lying?

In Mr. Dunetz's case - we ask him: Did your victims know you'd been seeing hookers on your lunch hours since 2000? Spending money on online porn and cybering with professional cyber-whores? Spending money on phone sex? Did they know? Or did you make them think they were the ONE AND ONLY? and you'd NEVER DONE THAT BEFORE?

You know the answer to that, Sir. So you also know where to put your blame-shifting of "they were married and knew what they were getting into" and "it takes two to tango" baloney.

If so, they DID NOT 'do it too.' They are human beings capable of something you are not - honest feelings. And they have every right to their hurt, anger and need to have some sort of closure.

But don't expect the Cyberpath to feel shame, sorrow or remorse. Ever.

Shame on any Cyberpath who attacks their victims! Talking, telling the truth and being kind would get you a lot farther than raging against victimized people.

HERE'S SOME EMAIL WE GOT FROM Duntez/ GRIDNEY/YidwithLid IN RESPONSE TO OUR REQUEST FOR HIM TO REMOVE SOME OF THE POSTS HE LIFTED IN FULL, GRAPHICS INCLUDED, FROM EOPC AND PLACED HERE
(he's since taken them down with zero admission that he did something wrong or an apology at his grave mistake!):



EOPC'S INITIAL EMAIL (SENT Dunetz/ GRIDNEY/ YIDWITHLID & TO BLOGGER) -
~~~~~~~

OUR POST ALONG WITH OUR COMMENTS & GRAPHICS WERE TAKEN WHICH CONSTITUTES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT:

This is to advise you that you are using copyrighted and protected material on your website/blog. Your illegal, unauthorized use of http://cyberpaths.blogspot.com/2006/03/j-open-mouth-insert-keyboard.html article at your site: A STUMBLING TCHATZKAH -- is originally from our blog called EXPOSING ONLINE PREDATORS & CYBERPATHS . This is original content and we are the author and copyright holder to the chat.

The IPs we have for your site are: 69.112.162.87 and 69.112.161.215

On the sidebar of our main site we give any exposed cyberpath the right to rebuttal along with the same burden of hard proof, along with a signed notarized statement that what they are saying is the truth along with copies of any pertinent documentation.

We also have our copyright/ usage rules there . Use of copyright protected material without permission is illegal under copyright laws.

Please take the following action immediately:

Remove the plagiarized material immediately.

We expect you to do so now within 24 hours as per prior notification.

Thank you for your immediate action on this matter.

Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths

IC3.gov -- Complaint Id: I0706271709542032

Filed with ChillingEffects.org

(we also filed a DMCA Complaint)

Dunetz /GRIDNEY'S BIZARRE RESPONSES TO OUR CC OF THE ABOVE TO HIM:
from "Yidwithlid@XXX.com"
to cyberpaths@gmail.com
date Jun 24, 2007 5:04 PM
subject Re: http://stumblingtchatzkahs.blogspot.com

dear cyberpaths
I published it for educational purposes also. It teaches people how one overzealous psycopahth can take slander from a sick women and post them on a website without knowin what the truth is. Or how one sick individtual can do her best to drive my mom to a heart attack.

You are a sick individual and so is your friend [Target #1]. Dont be surprised I circulate it even more, If She is determined to keep this up. I will make sure the world will know what a mom of two spends her time doing ..instead of taking car of her children.
_________________

from "Yidwithlid@XXX.com"
to cyberpaths@gmail.com
date Jun 25, 2007 6:35 PM
subject Re: http://stumblingtchatzkahs.blogspot.com

you got my response yesterday...If you dont stop with this nonsense I will add stumbling tchatkes to every blog aggrigator I can find. Your choice [Target #1's name]
__________________

from "Yidwithlid@XXX.com"
to cyberpaths@gmail.com
cc support@blogger.com
date Jun 27, 2007 7:19 PM
subject Re: http://stumblingtchatzkahs.blogspot.com

but [Target #1's name] if I wrote the chat I am the copywrite holder...and if I didnt then take it down and I will
___________________

from "Yidwithlid@XX.com"
to cyberpaths@gmail.com
date Jun 28, 2007 6:49 PM
subject Re: http://stumblingtchatzkahs.blogspot.com

hope you are enjoying the convention in eurpe [Target #1]
____________________

from "yidwithlid@XX.com" hide details Jun 29
to cyberpaths@gmail.com
date Jun 29, 2007 3:12 PM
subject Re: http://stumblingtchatzkahs.blogspot.com

Hey [Target #1's name]...haven't you gone to the site? I left you a present..You enjoying the pacific northwest?
_______________
(didn't he just accuse her of being in Europe the day before? Is he on medication or what?)

As stated, NOTE that Dunetz/ GRIDNEY/YIDWITHLID addresses EOPC as if we are Target #1. We still can't figure out these emails but he did verify for us that he is probably a pathological man, a textbook-predictable Narcissist and a Cyberpath. (He has even gone so far as to tell some of our detractors we are his Target #1)

"The [exposed Cyberpath] on the other hand, cannot rest until they have blotted out a vaguely experienced [target] who dared to oppose them or [expose them], to disagree with them or to outshine them. [The Cyberpath] can never find rest because they can NEVER FULLY wipe out the evidence that has contradicted their conviction they are unique and perfect. This archaic rage goes on and on and on." - Dr. Ernest Wolf

Are Dunetz/ GRIDNEY/YIDWITHLID and predators like him sociopaths? We aren't doctors. And malignant narcissists & sociopaths rarely present themselves to psychiatrists and tell the truth - because they make the truth up as they go along. So, let's look at Dr. Stout's checklist in THE SOCIOPATH NEXT DOOR with regards to Dunetz/ GRIDNEY/YidwithLid
(use this checklist on YOURS!)

In her book, Stout also describes other techniques that shameless sociopaths use to keep the rest of us in line. They are:

• Charm (all of Dunetz/ GRIDNEY/YIDWITHLID's targets found him charming and sweet)


• Risk-taking, and convincing others to do it with them (despite Sammy Dunetz/ GRIDNEY/YIDWITHLID's later assertions that his targets were just as guilty as him - he did convince and 'sell' them on an affair with him. Target #2 says he even sent her an article about how affairs help people to further his agenda)


• Recognizing a person who is decent and trusting — the perfect target (both of Dunetz/ GRIDNEY/ YIDWITHLID's targets were basically decent, trusting people.)


• Sexual seduction (see the expose - he initiated & furthered ALL sexual involvement)


• Crocodile tears — especially when sociopaths are about to be confronted (see GRIDNEY/ YIDWITHLID's lame 'apology' to his targets. And if Dunetz/ GRIDNEY/ YIDWITHLID wants to write a real apology - we would be happy to publish it for him at any time; as we would for any of our exposed cyberpaths) We doubt he will even read this - it would interfere with his 'reality'


• Righteous indignation — Plan B when sociopaths are about to be confronted. Probably the one more 'decent and trusting' of all the targets - they are usually the ones who get smeared the worst. (Other examples: Ed Hicks' last wives #6 & #7.)


• Exploiting social and professional roles (Dunetz/ YIDWITHLID has gone back to his publishers (under a new identity - Sammy Benoit), family, clergyman, job and 'friends' to continue to exploit his religious/family-man image as a platform for smearing his victims and elevating himself. He has never fulled owned or admitted the depth of his depravity or the devastation he purposedly caused innocent people. He has, as far as we know, continued to lie to everyone - including himself - who will actually listen to him.
  


• Gaslighting — making victims doubt their own perceptions (Dunetz/ YIDWITHLID continues to blame his victims for their being hurt & upset for what he did to them! Insists they 'knew what they were getting into'; or it was consensual; and/or they are harassing him by standing up for themselves and telling the truth. Another was blaming his victims for 'turning him on' and 'making' him want the affairs! Wonder if using his money to pay for expensive prostitutes turned him on too?)

1. IT IS EOPC'S FIRM BELIEF THAT CYBERPATHS FALL INTO THIS CATEGORY.
   

READ BELOW AND SEE WHAT TO DO ABOUT THESE EXPLOITATIVE PREDATORS & OUR KUDOS TO ALL OUR PAST VICTIMS WHO WERE BRAVE ENOUGH TO COME FORWARD TO LET OTHERS KNOW - THEY ARE NOT ALONE IN THEIR GRIEF & PAIN.

AS YOU READ THE FOLLOWING - THINK OF THE PREDATORS WE HAVE EXPOSED IN THE LAST 4 YEARS - DO THEY FIT THE PATTERN? WE SAY YES.
________________________

THE MALIGNANT PERSONALITY
By Caroline Konrad

These people are mentally ill and extremely dangerous! The following precautions will help to protect you from the destructive acts of which they are capable.

First, to recognize them, keep the following guidelines in mind.

(1) They are habitual liars. They seem incapable of either knowing or telling the truth about anything.

(2) They are egotistical to the point of narcissism. They really believe they are set apart from the rest of humanity by some special grace.

(3) They scapegoat; they are incapable of either having the insight or willingness to accept responsibility for anything they do. Whatever the problem, it is always someone else's fault.

(4) They are remorselessly vindictive when thwarted or exposed.

(5) Genuine religious, moral, or other values play no part in their lives. They have no empathy for others. Under older psychological terminology, they fall into the category of psychopath or sociopath, but unlike the typical psychopath, their behavior is masked by a superficial social facade.

If you have come into conflict with such a person or persons, do the following immediately! :

Notify your friends and relatives of what has happened. Don't be ashamed. Tell.

Do not be vague. Name names, and specify dates and circumstances. Identify witnesses if possible and provide supporting documentation if any is available.

Instruct friends to take such an incident to the newspapers and other media.

yidwithlid