CHEATERS FEAR; PARTNERS CHEER

Site’s hackers claim 37m personal records have been stolen from notorious dating site, with Cougar Life and Established Men also compromised

The Ashley Madison website. Photograph: Screengrab

by Alex Hern

Hackers have stolen and leaked personal information from online cheating site Ashley Madison, an international dating site with the tagline: “Life is short. Have an affair.”

The site, which encourages married users to cheat on their spouses and advertises 37 million members, had its data hacked by a group calling itself the Impact Team. At least two other dating sites, Cougar Life and Established Men, also owned by the same parent group, Avid Life Media, have had their data compromised.

The Impact Team claims to have complete access to the company’s database, including not only user records for every single member, but also the financial records of ALM and other proprietary information. For now, the group has released just 40MB of data, including credit card details and several ALM documents.

According to the information security journalist Brian Krebs, who broke the news, ALM has confirmed that the hacked material is genuine, and the company is working to remove from the net the material that has already been posted. But the initial leak is just a taster, according to the Impact Team, which accompanied the data with a manifesto threatening release of further information if Ashley Madison and Established Men are not permanently closed.

“Avid Life Media has been instructed to take Ashley Madison and Established Men offline permanently in all forms, or we will release all customer records, including profiles with all the customers’ secret sexual fantasies and matching credit card transactions, real names and addresses, and employee documents and emails. The other websites may stay online,” the group’s statement reads.

The hackers’ main point of contention is with the fact that Ashley Madison charges users a fee of £15 to carry out a “full delete” of their information if they decide to leave the site. Although users have the option of permanently hiding their profile free of charge, the company’s advertisements claim that the full delete service is the only way to completely remove their information from the servers.
But the hackers say that that claim is “a complete lie”.

“Users almost always pay with credit card; their purchase details are not removed as promised, and include real name and address, which is of course the most important information the users want removed,” they allege.

ALM believes it has identified the perpetrator of the hack, which it says was likely an inside job. “We’re on the doorstep of [confirming] who we believe is the culprit, and unfortunately that may have triggered this mass publication,” the company’s chief executive, Noel Biderman, told Krebs. “I’ve got their profile right in front of me, all their work credentials. It was definitely a person here that was not an employee but certainly had touched our technical services.”

The data dump seems to back-up that theory to a certain extent, specifically apologising to the company’s director of security. “You did everything you could, but nothing you could have done could have stopped this,” the manifesto reads.

In a statement, ALM said: “We apologise for this unprovoked and criminal intrusion into our customers’ information. The current business world has proven to be one in which no company’s online assets are safe from cyber-vandalism, with Avid Life Media being only the latest among many companies to have been attacked, despite investing in the latest privacy and security technologies.

“At this time, we have been able to secure our sites, and close the unauthorised access points. We are working with law enforcement agencies, which are investigating this criminal act. Any and all parties responsible for this act of cyber–terrorism will be held responsible.”

Ashley Madison, along with a number of other dating sites, had already been criticised for the lack of care taken over customer information at least once before. In 2012, the online rights campaign group EFF examined eight popular dating sites, and found that just one, Zoosk, carried out simple security precautions such as enabling encrypted connections by default. In the EFF’s study, however, Ashley Madison was explicitly praised for deleting data after users closed their account.

ALM later said it had used the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) to demand the removal of online posts about the incident “as well as all personally identifiable information about our users published online.”

Posts on Twitter which had apparently earlier linked to pages containing hacked material were now bringing up “page not found” results, the Guardian found.

ALM also said it is now offering its full-delete option free to any customer to help them protect their privacy.

original article here

Online Dating? Never Again

by Claudia Connell

Tempted by online dating? You won't be after reading CLAUDIA CONNELL'S hilarious (and cautionary) account

(U.K.) Single? Starting to despair of ever meeting Mr Wonderful? Well, don’t — because, ladies, the world is full of handsome, charming men with six-figure salaries, who are all queuing up to commit to ­people just like you.

The virtual world, that is, not the real world — don’t be daft: men like that were all snapped up years ago.

I’m talking about internet dating, of course, where millions of singletons (and quite a few marrieds on the make) line up to be selected and rejected in a process that has become ­Britain’s most popular way for couples to get together.

Over half of all single people turn to the internet in their search for love. Apparently, some of them find it. I never did and I’ve never met anyone it has worked for either. In the long-term, that is. A stream of endless dates is ­guaranteed. But lasting love? I’m not so sure.

It was 14 years ago, when I was 30, that I first tried online dating. I was single and not in bad nick, but working long hours in a female-­dominated environment meant I never got to meet anyone. Too young for the dinner party set, too old to be hanging out at nightclubs, it seemed like a hopeless cause until a friend of a similar age took me out and confessed her dirty little secret: she’d started to meet men online. She imparted this information in hushed tones, without making eye contact, and then, on pain of death, swore me to secrecy. I don’t think she could have been more ashamed if she’d confessed to drowning puppies.

Nowadays, the stigma surrounding internet dating has all but gone. So many people partake that it has became an acceptable way to meet the opposite sex.

But when I started it was a bit like train-spotting — you’d heard about it, you knew it went on, but the sort of people who did it were a little bit odd and not the type whose ­company you’d keep.

Today, there are hundreds of ­dating sites to choose from, catering for those with all sorts of criteria: ­vegetarians, Christians, single ­parents, sports fanatics, people who like pets. You name it, there’s a site where you can meet your perfect match who shares the same interest. But, 14 years ago, there were only a handful.

I browsed one site before signing up and handing over my money. I couldn’t believe my eyes when they matched me up with dozens of sexy, ­gorgeous hunks whose ­dazzling smiles beamed out at me from the screen.

Posing by their sports cars, keen to tell any prospective ladies that while they had two homes and earned a salary that could single-handedly pay off the national debt, they were still ­sensitive souls who liked to strum their guitars and do parachute jumps for charity.

They seemed too good to be true. They were.

After submitting my credit card details, the millionaire Brad Pitt lookalikes all mysteriously disappeared and no amount of searching ever uncovered them again.

They were, of course, plants, who were there to lure in naive punters. A man signing up for the first time (and I know this because I tried it) would have been greeted with ­pictures of ­Scarlett Johansson ­lookalikes, ­boasting about their ­cooking skills while posing in bikinis.

The first step when joining a dating site is to complete a profile. As I learned, this is a complete waste of time — especially for women. It doesn’t matter if you have climbed ­Everest in your lunch break and ­discovered a cure for cancer — no one will read it.

Some of the profiles are ludicrous. Match.com, the world’s biggest ­dating site, asks dozens of pointless questions that go on for pages and pages.

When I’m looking for a partner, there are certain things I’d like to know, but I don’t really care when he last went to the cinema or whether he likes biscuits.

I filled out my first profile questionnaire in painstaking detail. And, like everyone else online, I claimed to like travel, theatre and photography.

The truth is that I have hardly any hobbies or interests, but I’ve never yet seen a box I could tick that says: ‘Likes sitting in front of the TV, bitching about everyone on screen.’

One question some sites do ask is if you’d like to have children. What a mean trick. If you say ‘Yes’, you’ll come across as some baby-hungry bunny boiler, but say ‘No’ and you’re Cruella De Vil.

Any online dater will stand or fall on the strength of their photo.

And as the average person looks, well, average, they have to boost their chances of success by posting totally ­unrealistic images. So it was that on my first date, I found myself ­sitting opposite a very charming man called Patrick.

He’d claimed online he was 35. He certainly was 35, or thereabouts, in the picture he’d posted. But the man sitting opposite me was nudging 50. He had displayed a picture that was at least a decade old — one of the most popular online tricks.

I didn’t fare much better with the next guy. He looked nothing like his photograph — and there was a very good reason for that. It wasn’t him. It was just some ­random stranger whose image he’d scanned. When I questioned him about this, he snapped: ‘Well, I think we look alike.’

I must have had dates with six ­different men before I met someone I clicked with and who appeared to have been reasonably honest. We agreed to meet again and I went home to tell my flatmate, a ­fellow internet dater, that I had a good ­feeling about this one.

She replied cynically: ‘He’s ­probably back online now, lining up the next one.’ I checked his profile online — it was flashing, which meant that he was messaging someone else. She was right.

And that’s the huge stumbling block with internet dating: there’s too much choice.

There are on average seven women to every man, creating the kid in a sweet shop effect.

Why would a man give any woman a ­second chance when they know there’s six others online just ­waiting for his message?

If you’re a man, you can be as fussy as you want. Didn’t like her earlobes? Never mind. NEXT!

I also never made my peace with the fact I was looking for men via my computer. It felt a little bit grubby and, if I’m honest, desperate. Whenever I started to see someone on a regular basis, I could never bring myself to admit where I’d met him to my friends and ­colleagues. So I lied. They couldn’t believe my success in meeting men at the super-
market, the dry cleaners, on the bus, in the park. I even claimed to have met one man at the zoo. The zoo?! Why on earth did I think the idea of a childless woman cruising for men at the zoo was somehow less embarrassing than admitting the truth?

The longest relationship I had as a result of meeting on an internet dating site was seven months. ­During that whole time, I never went to his home; he always came to mine. He insisted this was because he had a flatmate and as I (by then) was living alone, we could have some privacy. It made sense, though I always had a niggling doubt. One day, my suspicions got the better of me. I searched the electoral roll and uncovered the real reason I never went to his home — his wife wouldn’t have liked it very much.

Of course, married men cheated before the internet came along, but online dating is like an adventure playground for philanderers.

Aged 34, I vowed to give up on internet dating for ever and take my chances in the real world. OK, I didn’t have a date every other night, but it was refreshing to meet people without having first to email each other for a week about our favourite films.

Then, a few years ago, I was lamenting my single status with a younger friend who suggested I join an online dating site. When I regaled her with my horror stories, she insisted that times had changed and I should give it another go. After nearly a decade away, she was right: things had changed. There were hundreds of sites to choose from, all with really ­positive, bouncy names that it must have taken marketing executives hours of brainstorming to come up with.

Names such as Soul Mates, Plenty More Fish, Love And Friends. I suppose Oddballs And Social ­Misfits is never going to attract too many customers, is it? The tedious questions were still there and all the men had user names such as Stud4U or Adonis82.

This time around I noticed that the pictures people had posted had taken a worrying turn.

WHO KNEW?

Around 4.7 million people visit dating websites each year in Britain — and one third of online daters admit to lying in their profile Rather than just smiling into the camera, all the men felt compelled to display images of themselves performing some Action Man-like task. Rock climbing and marathon running were particularly popular.

Meanwhile, the women have decided they must all be fun, feisty Sex And The City type gals and post pictures of themselves in little black dresses sipping brightly ­coloured cocktails with a ­coquettish look on their face. Don’t get me wrong — I don’t want to see pictures of men in their pants, picking their teeth with a takeaway menu. But surely a little bit of reality wouldn’t go amiss?

But no one on an internet dating site is ever allowed to be just an ordinary Joe (or Josephine). The impressive sounding ‘psychological and compatibility matching’ is something that’s become big in internet dating since my time away.

It’s particularly favoured by newcomers eHarmony, who vow that their unique formula will match you with your ideal partner. But given that no one online ever tells the truth, how is that going to work? You might as well match up Pollyanna with ­Hannibal Lecter. In the end, none of these changes mattered because I was breaking one of the cardinal sins of internet dating. I was over 40.

In my younger days, an average 70 men would look at my profile in a day. And that was before online dating was massively popular. Aged 42, I was lucky if I got two. Even men ten years older than me clearly stated in their profile that 39 was their cut-off age.

As I’ve already said, they could afford to be selective. If the same man tried to approach a girl in her 20s in the real world, he’d probably be sent packing but, online, well, he might just be in with a chance.

I quickly realised that when it comes to online dating, there are three age brackets: 18 to 29; 30 to 39; and 40 to 110. During my three months online, I didn’t go on a single date and the only interest I had was from men over 60. I did briefly flirt with the idea of signing up to a site that targeted the more mature dater, but something in me balked at the idea.

I am no spring chicken, but I’m not ready for a life of early-bird ­suppers and cosy nights in watching re-runs of Murder She Wrote. So I logged off and I haven’t looked back.

And unless I hear that George Clooney has joined Match.com and is looking to shack up with a ­British woman over 40 with ­absolutely no hobbies or interests, then I doubt I’ll be tempted back.


original article found 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

Facebook Rage

Once again - the victims are being blamed or called obsessed! Why are cheaters, liars and players FRIENDING their victims and/ or putting their business on Facebook in the first place? If they weren't acting like narcissistic creeps - there wouldn't be a problem.

And what about 50 year old married people who put their spouses and buddies on Facebook to make themselves look like good people (like Beckstead or Dunetz!) and then prey on vulnerable people on loads of other sites... all the while pointing to their Facebook saying "see, you can trust me!" - EOPC


Social networking sites are causing an outbreak of jealousy among partners of online fans that researchers have dubbed "Facebook rage".

Suspicious lovers find it so easy to trawl profiles for photos or messages that may show their partner is a cheat (or misinterpret things on Facebook) that they become obsessed.

And the more time they spent with their online surveillance, the more jealous they feel, according to the study by the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada.

Psychologist Dr Brenda Wiederhold said: "This new forum might be impacting the dynamics of adult relationships."

Website Built on Broken Families & Questionable Morals

AN attractive couple lie entwined in a cotton sheet - clearly satisfied after what seems to have been a steamy sex session.

Cue subtitles for a dramatic finale: "This couple is married . . . NOT to each other."

The controversial TV ad for an infidelity website caused outrage when it aired in America.

And now it could hit Britain as part of the multi-million pound UK launch of ashleymadison.com.

Branded "a business built on the back of broken hearts, ruined marriages and damaged families" but hailed by others as "an honest format for an age-old human weakness", the online phenomenon already boasts seven million members in the US, Canada and Australia.

Its owner Noel Biderman, a married father of two, hopes to add one million UK cheaters to his portfolio by Christmas.

Canadian-born Biderman, 39, says: "Ashley Madison is like a traditional dating site but for people already in relationships.

"It was becoming increasingly apparent people who wanted to cheat on their partners were using more traditional sites like Facebook and match.com but concealing the fact they were married when they began dating.

"My research showed around 30 per cent of these people were effectively taking off their wedding rings when they went online.

"So I didn't need to generate infidelity but I saw that I could capitalise on it by taking this pool of people away from the mainstream dating sites and letting them know about another community where both parties could be more honest about what they're doing."

Ashley Madison - which carries the slogan "Life is Short. Have an Affair" - has become a multi-million pound phenomenon, receiving news coverage on leading US shows and channels including CNN and Fox News.

Biderman clearly revels in the "King Of Infidelity" title given to him by the US media and delights in explaining the intricacies of his website.

Starting from £49 for 100 credits, members can email one another (five credits); engage in real-time chat, enter virtual bars and bedrooms (both 30 credits for 30 minutes) and even post virtual gifts to one another.

Launched on February 13, 2002 (a day Biderman has dubbed "Mistress Day"), the following years have been spent honing the product.

Dressed in chinos and brogues, Biderman attempts to present himself as a relaxed charmer but he sips on a can of Red Bull and talks at 100mph as he tries to excuse the questionable morals behind his business.

"I've spent years perfecting the product," he says.

"Lipstick on the collar doesn't catch out people these days. Digital lipstick - emails and text messages that get into the wrong hands - catches them out.

"I've had to convince people that communicating on Ashley Madison is safe, with billing under a pseudonym."

Biderman christened the business Ashley Madison because it combines the two most popular girls' names in the US and he wanted the brand to appeal to women as well as men.

In the UK around 40 per cent of people married or in long-term relationships cheat at some stage.

More than half of women and around 60 per cent of men have been unfaithful in the past.

Love or hate Biderman, he has so far managed to tap thriving markets for infidelity in other countries.

And the no-holds-barred messages on his website have given him an insight into cheating in the 21st Century.

Biderman says this comprises: "Around two men for every woman on the site and a three to four-year itch scenario as opposed to the more mythical seven-year phenomenon."

He adds: "There is also a dramatic shift in family dynamics after the birth of the first child. Intimacy levels between couples change because of the way people feel about their bodies.

"For years, infidelity was viewed as a male phenomenon but Ashley Madison revealed more and more women have been having affairs as opportunity has allowed them to enter the workplace.

"Not every woman a man cheats with is a mistress, is she? And the more emasculated men feel, the more it causes them to lash out and want to cheat on their wives."

Biderman is currently staying in a luxury Mayfair hotel as he prepares to launch his "service" in the UK.

A round of media interviews has been lined up and a £10million advertising budget is poised to be spent if he can get his controversial message past the Advertising Standards Authority.

He claims he has seen enough messages on his website from people in the UK to know there is a "captive market waiting to join".

And he claims: "By Christmas, I estimate that one million Brits will be using the site."

The product of a stable middle-class home, Biderman says there was no role model in his own family for infidelity.

The son of a dentist and a housewife, he thrived at school and was a sports attorney. His older brother is a banker.

Married for eight years, Biderman swears he has been faithful to his wife - a stay-at-home "mom" who looks after his son, five, and daughter, two.

"Have I been tempted to stray? Yes," he says confidently.

"But I talk about infidelity ten times a week. If there is anyone who should know about what it takes to be monogamous, it's me.

"Is our relationship perfect? No. But I try hard to keep it on the right tracks.

"I might one day find myself in a similar position to my members and, if so, I would rather stray then leave the family unit."

So has Biderman considered the possibility his wife might be cheating on him right at this moment?

Appearing a little flustered for the first time, he pauses before responding more slowly: "If my wife was cheating on me right now, I would be shocked."

By all accounts, Mrs Biderman would rather he got a more respectable job, but the legitimising of extra-martial affairs has reaped rich rewards.

Biderman admits to living in a "big house" and driving a Maserati sports car.

He clearly revels in the debate over his business but, amazingly, also tries to convince the world there are heart-warming stories surrounding infidelity.

Like the Ashley Madison Diaries, a book written by a woman trapped in a loveless marriage who allegedly found her Prince Charming on the website.

Or the elderly gentleman nursing a wife with Alzheimer's.

Biderman claims: "With the permission of his children, he joined and spent once a week with a married woman. He wanted to tell me his story because he could see I was getting a hard time in the media."

Actually, Biderman appears to delight in his role as a moral villain because he knows controversy sells.

And as he points out: "Extra-marital affairs existed long before Ashley Madison and will continue to long afterwards."

original article here

When The Cheater Finds You Have Been Spying

Dr. Robert Huizenga

My, how the cheating spouse/partner/ cyberpath cries foul when he/she discovers you are spying. (or found them out!)

Outrage can be intense: "How dare you!! I never thought you would stoop to that! How could you!? How can there be trust in this relationship if you do that? This is none of your business; I dont spy and go behind your back! Now you know why I want to pull away from you. How could I love anyone that would do something like that to me?" On and on...

Cheating husbands, cheating partners and cheating wives usually will not admit the duplicity of their clandestine behavior. But you are made out to be the villain if you use detective work to discover the truth. It doesnt make sense, but then again not much about infidelity borders close to sanity.

Are you a morally corrupt duplicitous character hell bent on destroying the integrity of a relationship through spying? No, of course not. The integrity of the relationship has been destroyed through the extramarital affair. The affair shattered the promises and mocked the vows that the two of you made.

You saw clearly the signs of a cheating partner. The affair invaded the domain of your marriage/relationship and crumbled its protective boundaries. The marital infidelity broke the contract of the marriage and the exclusivity of the relationship; it was the act of betrayal. Spying does not damage the marriage/ relationship. It is an attempt to seek the truth and resolve the pain and deception.

Spying is often used to grasp the reality of the situation. Its intent is to find the truth. Only the truth can provide a foundation from which to begin resolving the hurt, pain and forging a direction for the marriage or relationship and enable each person in the relationship to attain health and sanity.

IS IT LEGAL TO EXPOSE THESE PREDATORS?

Written by the EOPC Team
(originally published December 02, 2005)

Here's the question - is it LEGAL to expose a cheater or abuser online? We remind you that this piece contains our personal OPINIONS only and was written for the purpose of consideration and discussion.
In short, it appears the current answer is YES. But this could change in the near future.

Most of these type of sites have rules for exposing the people listed. The current interpretation seems to say if you have proof to back up what you say, and it is truthful, it is not libel or slander or defamation. But remember, laws can be changed with enough pressure.

One site that exposes cheating men recently had a group attempt to launch a lawsuit against them. Guess what happened? Other than whining & moaning about how the cheaters and their families were harmed? Not much. The cheaters' website was looking for advertisers and money to help support their "cause." (Their site & cause are now BOTH defunct) Besides, now there are so many other choices of sites available to expose people, both men and women! (Additionally, the men trying to launch a lawsuit all admitted to affairs, cheating and lying to others online... but were angry about their families being harmed. -- Sounds like Dorksy, gridney/ Yidwithlid, Beckstead, etc. Maybe they should have thought of that before they went online to prey on innocent, vulnerable women and then treat them and smear these victims when they were caught in the lies & game playing. In short, they had NO SUIT!)

This same site had a man named Todd Hollis attempt to sue them for defamation. It got to court and rather than "having his day," the suit was tossed out by the judge before it even got that far.

According to judge R. Stanton Wettick, the "Defendant’s Web site is accessible to anyone connected to the Internet anywhere in the world. Under plaintiff’s argument, defendant could be hauled into court in any state for any controversy. This result would be inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s understanding of the requirements of due process."

Exposure sites have very specific terms of use - honesty is a must and the legal onus is on the poster. Site owners and posters believe the men are angry they have been caught and exposed. (these cheaters & abusers always deny what they did, play the victim, say their family is being hurt or that the victim(s) 'knew what they were doing' or were psychos, scorned, etc. Always! It's a red flag that the person smearing them is attempting to defame his victim(s) so no one will listen to the REAL STORY)

Recently we were asked if most of these abusers and cheaters feel ashamed, sorry or sad about what they have done. Answer: "Not that we have seen!! In fact, it seems that they usually become indignant, angry and lash out at the person(s) that exposed the truth about them. They only "feel sorry" to try to rope the victim into saying nothing about them and to stop the tide of truth from exposing all the rest of their evil deeds."

Sad? Yes they are. Sad they got caught. And some of them do clean up their act for a few weeks, months or even years - but usually go RIGHT BACK to it and are sneakier about it next time.

If you consider that many of these people fall into a destructive sociopathic and narcissistic pattern you will find that many of them will go to therapy or even make long, carefully-crafted confessions to their partners. They even keep tweaking their stories until they find one that works. Here's one beaut that one of our predators tells to this day, that is the exact opposite of really happened, is pure slander and leaves out a lot of pertinent facts to make them (the Cyberpath) appear the victim:

You were an old girlfriend of Yidwithlid from an upstate NY college. You used the internet to track him down after 30 years, which wasn’t too hard because he’s a published writer.

You had cyber-sex with him and then got him to agree to meet up with you. When he did meet up with you, to his horror, he saw that his ex-girlfriend from college had ballooned into a 275 lb fat pig with poor hygiene and he didn’t want to bang you.

He politely excused himself by saying he couldn’t do this to his wife. You then began stalking him and his family, driving by his house, sending letters to his wife, his parents, his in-laws, his rabbi, the police, anyone with whom you thought you could slander his good name. His poor wife was left with no choice but to report you to the police after you threatened to harm her children.

Sound familiar porkchop?

Or there's the old "she's a scorned crazy woman" that this guy uses. Or this Cyberpath who says the victim who exposed him is "mentally unbalanced." Or this guy who has sworn for the last few years it's "all lies" and he's "writing a book to tell the truth" and "suing everyone." Don't buy it!

Once they find themselves "CURED" (We use that term loosely because deep down they justify everything and see NOTHING wrong with their behaviors) they will, step by step, go right back to their predatory ways either online or off. Being an online cheater is an addiction and takes a lot of honesty and giving up personal time to break an addiction or not trade it for something equally addicting and destructive.

The worst part is these cheaters and abusers usually accuse their wounded targets of harassing both them and/or their partners/ families and even stalking them. This is nothing more than a preemptive strike.

It common for internet predators, abusers and cheaters to enlist their local police in harassing their victims by showing the police carefully selected instant messages and emails to support their claims and need to cut down the once "beloved' target." This move sometimes makes their victims back down but usually the retributive attack can't be backed up.

• Be careful, the law regarding internet communications is still new so ask yourself:
• Are you exposing them to be mean or get revenge?
• Or are you doing it to warn others and possibly stop the cyberpath from destroying themselves and their families?
• Are you being vindictive or shedding real light on the situation?

When you point the finger at someone there are always three fingers pointing back at you. Your stories may help some potential victim see the patterns of behavior displayed by these people and avoid a lot of heartache. They may be cathartic as well. Telling is well known in psychiatric & medical communities as healing for victims.

As it stands, these communications are considered like any internet bulletin board posting as long as it doesn't contain telephone numbers or other information someone could use for identity theft. The exposure site owners say it is a matter of opinion.

In many cases, the cheater's spouse, therapist or partner may even stand up for the cheater/ abuser. These people do "seem" so contrite. They tell them to NEVER speak to their victim(s) again. Is that right? Maybe not. It doesn't offer an outlet for the cathartic anger and venting these exposure sites allow. It doesn't allow for healing on either side. It shows no empathy towards the victim.

Counselors for internet addiction say the cheaters should come clean with their partner AND all their victims. They also suggest trying to reframe the relationship into something more productive and honest for both people. Cutting off the victim is cruel and allows the abuser to then bend their stories without reproach, launch a smear campaign against their victims, run away from any responsibility and lie to everyone even more... including themselves. 12-Step addicts know that you must make direct amends.

Of course, some hide behind the step that says "unless to do so would cause more harm." In this case the cheater convinces themselves it would harm the victim even more. Baloney. The truth is not only a great leveler but also a great healer. In fact, new programs for restorative justice bring some prison inmates together with their victims which has been proven to be very healing for both of them.

So, think about it: if you internet predators, cheaters and abusers truly want to mend your ways then trying to erase what you did online by creating new identities and blocking victims isn't the solution, is it?

Now back to the lawsuit mentioned above. The owner of the site that was threatened with a lawsuit says:

"Most of them say that the [person] who posted [the profile] is crazy, that something is wrong with [the poster]; and that they're [the abuser/ cheater] saints."

Domestic Violence advocates say this is classic and typical abuser-speak. It's never the cheater or abuser, it's always the person who found them out! Sort of a no-good-deed-goes-unpunished moment. Unlike the public posting of the locations of known, convicted sex-offenders, this does seem to be more problematic in terms of fairness.

The another site sheds more light on the process:

"I don't want to ruin someone's life.... But, I can't control if you are player and a bunch of women post things about you. That is just a karma thing."

In one case, City of Kirkland v. Sheehan, Bill Sheehan, a man in Washington State says he put up a website in an effort to make the police more publicly accountable. He published information about local police officers from the City of Kirkland and other municipalities in Washington including their names, addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, spouses' names and more. The police officers claimed this required them to enhance their personal and job security measures as well as expend funds in response to the listings. The case also alleges the site caused stress to both them and their families. This allegation is similar to the one made by the group attempting to shut down the cheating man site.

The ruling on the case held that the First Amendment protected the site:

"[I]n the absence of a credible specific threat of harm, the publication of lawfully obtained addresses and telephone numbers, while certainly unwelcome to those who had desired a greater degree of anonymity, is traditionally viewed as having the ability to promote political speech. Publication may arguably expose wrongdoers and/or facilitate peaceful picketing of homes or worksites and render other communication possible."

As for the cheating man site? A former U.S. attorney Scott Christie was quoted in the New Jersey Star Ledger,

"Yes, it's all legal. If I were the owners of this site, I wouldn't be concerned. They're providing an outlet for people to express their opinion. It's much like hosting a bulletin board for people with a common interest,. People are giving their opinion about other people — they're entitled to it under the First Amendment."

And this from Canada.com:

According to a privacy lawyer from Halifax, (snip)

"If the person's reputation is in Canada, and they are in Canada, and likely the person who posted the information is in Canada, there's more than enough connection for Canadian defamation law to apply," says David T.S. Fraser, chair of the privacy practice group at McInnes Cooper. But he hastens to add the statements aren't considered defamatory if they're true.

"If you're a slug," says Mr. Fraser, "it's only appropriate people know you're a slug."

And think about this: The people who post the pictures/profiles on any site are making an "allegation" — nothing more. Many of them aren't offering evidence that is irrefutable and verifiable other than their account. With sites that do, they make sure they have evidence. But what are the reasons for doing this? Is it a warning, catharsis, revenge or a credible threat? That's something the poster needs to ask themselves before they get into a very sticky legal situation.

In an article on FindLaw, writer Anita Ramasastry brought up some current cases involving exposure sites, digital information and their interesting findings. One case stated that the First Amendment does not protect all personally identifiable information in every context, even those published online. In a 6-5 decision (close), in Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc., et al., v. American Coalition of Life Activists, et al. an en banc panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction against a web site that did publish personal information of abortion doctors.

This particular case involved a website called the "Nuremberg Files." It published the addresses, photographs, addresses and other personal information of physicians and others who either provided or supported abortion services. The website also had strike throughs on the names of those who had been murdered and grayed out the names of those who had been wounded. The majority in this close decision held that the "pattern" in which the posters appeared — coupled with the fact that other abortion providers had been killed — transformed the posters into something of a symbolic threat. As such, the information was not protected by the First Amendment.

One owner of a website about cheating, abusive men says this about their site:

The Terms of Agreement and Privacy Policy are currently being re-revised and there are some terms that a woman needs to agree to before she can add a man to the database. All this basically comes down to two issues - Freedom of Speech and the First Amendment and the issue of a private person's right to privacy.

However, in a sense, aren't search engines such as Google merely large databases of information which also include personally identifying information of millions of humans?! If Google can do it, why shouldn't smaller websites such as mine be able to do it without legal reprecussions?So, okay, we have people who are exposing the misdeeds of others in a cyberspace court of public opinion. Of course this pisses off the cheaters because they want a higher threshold standard of guilt/proof or because they disagree with the concept of outting anyone publicly for what they feel should be a private matter. However, here's our personal look at another beneficial perspective of the people making these claims.

If someone posted our pictures/profiles in a database and we learned of it but it wasn't true, then we probably wouldn't waste time even rebutting it. Why? Because if we're innocent, then the burden is not on us to prove such, at least not under American jurisprudence — legal or moral. And we don't use and abuse people online or off - so we are not afraid of scrutiny. Misinformation and slander is easily proved and then we'd ask the site administrator to remove it. Threats such as being "out to get you" or "you're done" or "I will not hesitate to kill you if I see you" - are illegal and should be reported immediately to the FBI nearest where the threatener lives. (CLICK HERE for U.S. Offices)

In short - its a catharsis the victims won't get anywhere else. What are the victims of these men and women to do with their anger, pain and hurt? Suck it up and allow the abuser to move on to another victim? Tell or not tell his spouse, partner or family? Stew in their feelings?

One exposure site owner says:

It is better than going out and slashing his tires. It makes the victims feel better and gives them a way to express their bitterness and hurt."

In light of precedents like these, it's extremely likely that any law that simply tried to ban cheating men/ women sites, information aggregators like Zabasearch or "digital dossiers," would be struck down as contrary to the First Amendment. But could a more narrowly written law constitutionally restrict such sites and dossiers and be on the books soon? Some feel yes, such a law would be desirable. Some feel no, that the internet should not be restricted in such a manner as long as it does not pose a threat, symbolic or otherwise, to the persons posted as long as the information is true and proveable.

Perhaps if you are a guilty party, rather than trying to cut down the person(s) exposing you it would be better to call a qualified internet addiction counselor to stop your abusing ways. You would be doing everyone, including yourself, a favor.

Then, see what you can do to get the posting removed without a counterattack. Just talking to the person(s) you suspect posted it and working on amends honestly seems better than a Judge Judy or Jerry Springer hate-fest.

Ramasastry says in her article "... legislators should consider regulating how densely information can be collected online - regulating, that is, how thick our digital dossiers really can be. Doubtless, any attempt to do this will raise First Amendment objections. But this is one issue where privacy and the First Amendment truly clash - and the First Amendment cannot win every time."

And to the victims of these cheaters, liars, internet predators and abusers, remember: NOTHING beats sunshine and fresh air to disinfect abuse! Tell, but do not do it to endanger the person you are angry at or their families in the process. The laws are still being worked out. These sorts of internet exposures won't go away. Think of the National Enquirer and Globe articles that have caused ugly lawsuits.

Write your representatives and tell them your concerns or feelings about internet privacy.

And if you have been cheated on? Vent but exercise caution in posting anyone's personal information.

DISCLAIMER: We are not lawyers and this article is our personal opinion. It should not be construed as legal advice, in part or in whole, in way, shape or form.

OUR ARTICLE CAN BE FOUND HERE

Attorneys Catching Cheaters on Facebook

by Stephanie Chen - CNN

Before the explosion of social media, Ken Altshuler, a divorce lawyer in Maine, dug up dirt on his client’s spouses the old-fashioned way: with private investigators and subpoenas. Now the first place his team checks for evidence is Facebook.

Consider a recent story of a female client in her 30s, who came to Altshuler seeking a divorce from husband. She claimed her husband, an alcoholic, was drinking again. The husband denied it. It was her word against his word, Altshuler says, until a mutual friend of the couple stumbled across Facebook photos of the husband drinking beer at a party a few weeks earlier.

It was the kind of “gotcha moment” Altshuler knew would undermine the husband’s credibility in court. His firm presented the photos to the judge, and the wife won the case in April, he said.

“Facebook is a great source of evidence,” Altshuler said. “It’s absolutely solid evidence because he’s the author of it. How do you deny that you put that on?”

Social media stalking skills have become invaluable to the legal world for divorce cases in particular. Online photo albums, profile pages, wall comments, status updates and tweets have become gold mines for evidence and leads. Today, divorce and family law firms routinely cull information posted on social media sites — the flirty exchanges with a paramour, unsavory self-revelations and compromising photographs — to buttress their case.

original article here

Lone Blogger Posting List of Unfaithful Wives

Brazilian police are hunting a blogger who claims to be waging a lone crusade against unfaithful wives.

The man, from a small rural town of Lagoa da Prata, in Minas Gerais, has so far posted the name of 300 supposed cuckolds on a popular social networking site.

Copycat lists including one entitled ‘The cuckolds of Lagoa da Prata’ have also emerged, according to the Guardian.

Some victims have spoken out to reject the accusations.

One unnamed man said: ‘My wife is a Catholic and a worker. I have never had cause to doubt her.’

Another woman confessed she had nearly split up with her partner after his name appeared on the list.

In 2004 a study by a Brazilian psychiatrist claimed the state of Minas Gerais had one of the country’s highest rates of infidelity among women.

Of the women interviewed as part of the study, nearly 30 per cent admitted to having had an ‘extra’ relationship.

Police officer Lieutenant Marcondes Couto said: ‘The military police are advising people to stay calm. We are investigating and we will catch this criminal. Justice will be done.’

One suspect has already been questioned after he was allegedly spotted leaving a copy of the list in a local bank.

original article here

OUR PREDATOR OF JULY 2006: Richard (Rick) Kudlik

Man arrested after Internet-Girlfriends out him as fake U.S. marshal

NEW YORK (AP) - To some, Richard Kudlik possessed the macho allure of a deputy U.S. marshal on a manhunt.

They say he had the badge, raid jacket, flashing lights on his Dodge pickup truck, even a gun. But the real U.S. marshals -- and a chorus of angry women -- say Kudlik was only acting.

Kudlik, 43, was arrested at his Port Jefferson, N.Y., home Wednesday after several ex-girlfriends outed him earlier this month on a Web site featuring a wanted poster. The site calls him a "lying, cheating U.S. Marshal impersonator" and reveals his true identity as a long-married maintenance man.

He pleaded not guilty to possessing a counterfeit U.S. Marshals Service badge and was released on $5,000 bail. His attorney did not return a phone call Wednesday.

Pamela Brown said she began dating Kudlik last year until she received an anonymous e-mail warning: "The man you‘re dating is not who he says he is."

She tracked down Kudlik‘s wife, who told her in a phone conversation they had been married 17 years.

Brown began networking online with other women who said they had been wronged by Kudlik, and on May 14 she launched the Web site http://www.off2hunt.com with photos of Kudlik. She estimates he used his phony persona to lure at least 10 other women into relationships in the past decade.

"I don‘t want another woman to go through what I went through," she said. "I hope this taught him a lesson and makes him get help. He‘s a sick person."

(Right on Pam!!! Pam's site used our links section left and we applaud her for outing this cyberpath! Check out her site listed in the article above.

ALSO this sort of fraud could be avoided with a NATIONAL MARRIAGE DATABASE - There is NO central database for marriage licenses in the US!! Please sign the petition!

If you want to see some of our other PREDATORS OF THE MONTH - please peruse our archives (right margin) - Fighter)

FOLLOW UP:

THE ACCUSER'S TROUBLES

BY ZACHARY R. DOWDY AND CHRISTINE ARMARIO

The Mattituck whistleblower who exposed a man accused of serenading and then breaking the hearts of women with a ruse that he was a U.S. marshal has a criminal history herself, records and law enforcement sources said.

Pamela Brown, 39, started a website to tell how she was conned by her experience with Rick Kudlik, arrested Tuesday by real U.S. marshals on charges of possessing counterfeit marshal gear. But she herself served 106 days in Nassau County jail in 2004 for a forgery conviction, a sentence violation and failure to pay, records show.

In late 2003, court documents show, she wrote bogus checks to herself totaling over $3,500 when she served as assistant controller for Legend Nissan in Syosset.

Two months after her April 30, 2004, release, she was re-arrested on a grand larceny charge., Information on the case outcome was not available yesterday.

That's not all.

Brown, who chided Kudlik for dishonesty, has used two aliases, jail officials said. She was convicted of forgery the first time in 1995 and received a one-year conditional discharge, and forgery and petty larceny in 1997 for writing $4,000 worth of checks to herself from her former employer, Zeppelin Electric of Holbrook. She later violated her three-year probation sentence, records show.

She also has civil court judgments against her, one stemming from an incident in which she refused to pay rent on a Selden apartment and another where she skipped medical payments to a Port Jefferson physician, records show.

But Brown‘s attorney said her past has nothing to do with her good deed: exposing an accused law enforcement impersonator.

"It seems like these people are trying to mix one thing with another and blame this woman for doing something admirable," said Michael Lamonsoff, of Manhattan. "The bigger issue is how this guy is able to walk around with fake badges for a federal agency... and all this paraphernalia in a post-9/11 world."

Lamonsoff said that Brown acknowledges her past misdeeds and is remorseful.

One former friend who contacted Newsday said that he credits Brown with turning in Kudlik, but accused her of conning him out of money.

"I commend her for reporting him for impersonating a U.S. marshal," said Vincent Lawrence of Huntington. "Well, Pam cons men out of money. She and I were friends. She told me she needed to borrow $600 to pay her rent at the end of 2004. Come August, I still didn‘t get the money from her. Finally, I took her to court. I‘m still waiting to get paid."