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

Hate & the Internet

Does the internet encourage insidious and bullying behaviour?

I remember the first time I logged into a chatroom. It was 1996, and I was using my mum's AOL account to mooch around the world wide web, which was still very much in its infancy. I was in that glorious, unrestricted period of life between college and reality, and the web seemed to offer splendid, unrestricted access to the outside world in a way that no generation had known before.

So it was with cocky confidence that I joined the "general" room as "Dan" (of undisclosed gender) and instantly discovered the thrill of anonymity. Behind my digital mask, I began a brief but satisfying tirade of mockery, contrariness and antisocial behaviour. Of course, compared with the stream of epithets that Xbox Live users encounter playing online, my efforts were pretty tame – I didn't question anyone's sexuality, make any racial slurs or say anything particularly negative about anyone's mother. But the sense of release I experienced in 10 minutes of childishness has remained at the back of my mind ever since I started studying the web; it helps define our behaviour online.

For some, this new technology not only facilitates, but actively encourages insidious and novel social ills. Blogs and forums are no-go zones for people who hope for rational conversation; cyberbullying has been blamed for several recent suicides; and white power, homophobic and jihadist organisations have colonised the web, preferring its potential to old-fashioned pamphleteering. It looks as if the web makes it possible for us to hate one another more easily, more efficiently and more effectively.

My mantra is that the web is an agnostic communication platform: it can do nothing to us except reflect who we are. However, as my own little descent into cyber-trollism attests, there are aspects of it that do encourage antisocial behaviour.

The biggie is anonymity, according to Dr Karen Douglas from the University of Kent, who studies the psychology of hatred online. We can log into a forum under a pseudonym, lob a hate bomb and then fade away into the digital ether. It's like playing a trick on Halloween; it's childish, it seems insignificant, and it's kinda fun. Unfortunately, such actions can have real-life consequences depending on who the hatred is directed at, how often it happens and whether there's support in place if the victim needs it.
But is anonymity alone the issue? Philip Zimbardo, professor emeritus at Stanford University, has been studying why people do evil since the 60s, and he says that environmental social cues are equally as important. In his famous Stanford prison experiment in 1971, a random selection of psychologically stable subjects were transformed into brutal prison guards after being given mirrored sunglasses and uniforms and told to play the role.

To reindividuate anonymous members of online crowds, forums, blogs and news sites – including the Observer's – are increasingly asking commentators to register their real names before posting any material (even if they then do so using a pseudonym). It's believed that the forging of this simple link between the virtual and offline persona is why relatively few counter-normative attitudes are expressed on sites such as Facebook, where exposing yourself as racist can turn you into a social pariah. Unless, of course, your friends are racists too. And that's a more difficult problem to solve.

Data traffic indicates that, online, we are increasingly talking to people just like ourselves, relying on our friends' directions to navigate the web. It's ironic that, rather than opening us up to an ever-greater number of opinions and attitudes, social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter may actually be narrowing our worldview, confirming what we already believe and reinforcing attitudes we hold already.

So what happens when we only communicate with people like ourselves, and the messages we share only reinforce our mutual hatred? It's a technique radical religious and racist organisations have always used to make sure their members conform, but now they're employing technological tools to create global communities of like-minded ideologues.

Groups such as Stormfront.org and GodHatesFags.com use the web for networking, self-promotion and recruitment. They give support and intellectual ammunition to existing members, rarely explicitly inciting violence. Thankfully, it appears that efforts to convince non-believers to convert to their cause are rarely successful – although we have yet to see the impact of their children's zones (with links to games, and alternative information for schoolwork, that reinforce their ideologies).

It's not all bad news, however. Just as the web is a powerful tool to get the message out, it's also a good vehicle to expose its flaws. The rampant opinions that dominate online life challenge users to be critical of the content they consume, and considerate in how they construct effective counter-arguments.

Online hatred is real, and it can have a very real effect. But we are in command of the technology; it's not in charge of us. And as for anonymity, back in 1996, even though I hid behind a false name, I didn't throw a hate bomb into that chatroom and run away; no, I was booted out. And frankly, my moment of humiliation was exactly what I deserved.

original article found here

Anonymous Anger Rampant on Internet

by Todd Leopold

There's a whole world of people out there, and boy, are they pissed off.

On political blogs, the invective flies. Posters respond to the latest celebrity gossip with mockery or worse. Sports fans set up Web sites with names that begin with "fire," hoping coaches, athletic directors and sportscasters lose their jobs.

And though there are any number of bloggers and commenters who attempt to keep their postings and responses on a civil level, all too often interactive Web sites descend into ad hominem attacks, insults and plain old name-calling. Indeed, there are even whole sites devoted to venting, such as justrage.com (one screed there was titled, "I don't give a flying f***, so f*** you") and mybiggestcomplaint.com.

This is not a world Emily Post would want to be caught in after dark.

"The Internet can be a great tool," said Sara Black, a professor of health studies at St. Joseph's University who takes a particular interest in online bullying. "Like any tool, it can also be misused."

One reason for the vitriol that emerges on the Web, experts say, is the anonymity the Internet provides. Commenters seldom use their real names, and even if they do, the chance for retaliation is slim.

"In the [pre-Internet era], you had to take ownership [of your remarks]. Now there's a perception of anonymity," said Lesley Withers, a professor of communication at Central Michigan University. "People think what they say won't have repercussions, and they don't think they have to soften their comments."

Contrast that with a face-to-face conversation, or even a phone conversation, where you can judge people's moods from facial movements or vocal inflections, observes University of Texas psychology professor Art Markman. iReport.com: Second Life avatars grapple with reduced nonverbal communication

"It's hard to be aggressive when you're face to face," he said.

Moreover, he points out, aggression often carries a subtext of power.

"A lot of times, real anger is an attempt to get control over a situation where the person doesn't usually have it," he said. In that respect, comments to blog posts are attempts to strike back.

Those power games are innately grasped by children and teens, with schools serving as a perennial social laboratory.

Cheryl Dellasega, a Penn State women's studies professor, ticks off hypothetical examples that could have come straight from the scripts to "Mean Girls" or "Heathers."

"Girls who are getting teased come home and let their [aggressors] have it by putting something on their blog and starting a rumor campaign," she said. And instead of rumors simply making the rounds among peer groups -- which can be bad enough -- "they go out to a much bigger group, a worldwide group. The impact is devastating, and it's as easy as clicking a button."

"Kids don't realize that one post can destroy somebody's life forever," she added.

Indeed, such incidents have made headlines. In 2006, 13-year-old Megan Meier committed suicide after becoming attracted to a boy on MySpace who then turned on her. The boy turned out to be a hoax created by a neighbor family that included a former friend of Meier's.

In August, The New York Times Magazine did a story about trolls, some barely out of their teens, who antagonize others for the sake of "lulz": "Lulz is watching someone lose their mind at their computer 2,000 miles away while you chat with friends and laugh," one ex-troll told the publication.

Adults aren't immune by any means. A Japanese woman, angry at her online "husband," killed his avatar after he divorced her. A South Korean actress committed suicide after being harassed by online rumors following a divorce. Celebrity gossip sites are full of snarky comments about stars; reaction from readers is often brutal, turning the story into the online equivalent of a pile-on.

Markman is quick to observe that he doesn't believe there's more anger out there. But, he said, "there are more ways of expressing it on the Internet."

"We've all had interactions with unpleasant people, but we don't confront them. We take it out elsewhere," he said. "What the Internet has created is groups of people where there are no repercussions with being too aggressive."

Indeed, though electronically transmitted anger has parallels throughout human history -- the bitter letter, the village gossip -- the speed at which it travels, and the number of people who may come in contact with it, is something new, says St. Joseph's Black.

"[Electronic] media can increase potential for violence in a number of ways," she said in an e-mail interview. "First, it introduces ideas (good and bad) that people may not have come up with on their own. Second, it is easier to depersonalize the victim, facilitating perpetration. Third, aggressive behaviors may be reinforced with points, attention or status, especially in games."

Withers has seen that first hand. She teaches a course on the "dark side of communication" at Central Michigan, involving "the mean or evil things we do on a day-to-day basis," as she describes it: cheating, for example, or lying.

As part of the course, several of her students work on a collaborative project with students at other schools, and they come together in Second Life, the virtual reality environment. If someone isn't pulling his or her weight, says Withers, others can be harsh in their judgments -- harsher than in real life, because the anger is expressed at the person's avatar. Sidebar: Dealing with anger in Second Life

Which led at least one of Withers' students to forget that the avatar was attached to a real person.

"One student went off on another student and she was sitting in the classroom a few rows behind him," she said. "He knew she was there, but didn't -- there was that distancing."

Is there a way to restore civility to the Internet? Among children and teenagers, say Dellasega and Black, it's up to parents to exercise control.

"I think parents need to take responsibility," Dellasega said. "They give kids computers and leave them alone. ... When a child is 8 or 9, the computer should be in a public place. Kids should understand that using a computer is a privilege, not a right."

Schools can also play a role, she says.

Black adds that parents should set clear rules on behavior and build empathy in their kids by having them reach out to those who are different.

As for adults, human nature dictates that people will always lash out at others, whether it's over a perceived insult or simply because of a power differential. Web sites may ban the worst offenders, but they'll almost always pop up elsewhere, using a different name, e-mail address or even computer.

"Some people are just bitter and angry," said psychiatrist Dr. Terry Eagan, medical director of the Moonview Sanctuary in Santa Monica, California. "Sometimes, they're against everyone, other times against a specific group. That person can get really stimulated and can say all sorts of horrible things. But I don't think it's not like they didn't exist before."

Whether the problem will get control of us, or we will get control of the problem, is in the way we face up to it, he says. Anger, he says, is rolled up with anxiety and fear, and nothing creates more fear like a lack of understanding.

"I tell patients that I'd rather know everything about people; information is powerful," he said. "When the climate of the world is more fear-based, it permeates everything."



ORIGINAL ARTICLE FOUND HERE


SITES BY VICTIMS OF CYBERPATHS
(we believe many of these people have a right to be upset and using writing as a healing & informational tool for them can be very empowering)

Cyberstalker: Felicity Jane Lowde

Marilyn McAboy

The Laura Knight-Jadczyk Fraud

Harassment is My Job

Nancy Lynne

Too Good To Be Real

Kim Stewart - Bink, Briesis, Allie

Victim of Gareth Rodger Speaks Out

Judy Lyman (?)
Jakob Maltese

One Victim of William Michael Barber Tells Their Story

Sandra Brown MA - No License 


(readers -- if you know of others, please tell us!  thanks to those who sent us these)

INTERNET PROVIDERS & REVENGE BOARDS MAY BE LIABLE FOR PREDATORS & HARASSERS

by Jonathan Bick

The economic difficulty of pursuing individuals for bad acts has led injured parties to seek legal remedies from the companies that facilitate the platform upon which the bad acts occur. In the past, internet facilitators could avoid contributory and vicarious liability by claiming users' bad acts were beyond the facilitator's ken and control. Now, widely available, low cost e-commerce technology diminishes the viability of said defenses.

Previously, passive internet service facilitators successfully argued that they do not "collaborate" with internet users to undertake bad acts because they were either unaware of the bad acts or could not act to prevent such bad acts in a timely fashion. Advances in internet technology, however, have increased the internet facilitator's capacity for ameliorating internet bad acts automatically. Failure to employ such technology may result in an increase in the facilitator's liability for not preventing bad acts on the internet.

Internet facilitators include service providers, hosting services, blogging platforms, 'gripe' sites and social network sites, to name just a few. These internet service suppliers allow email, instant messaging, peer-to-peer communications, blogs, broad internet access, chat rooms, intranets, interactive websites, and other electronic communications. They also allow various goods and services transactions.

These transactions may result in a myriad of bad internet acts, ranging from defamation, copyright infringement, failure to protect trade secrets, harassment (including hostile work-environment issues), to criminal accountability and loss of attorney-client privilege.

The nature and extent of internet bad acts is exacerbated by the fact that internet sites are accessible beyond national borders, and no international code of internet behavior exists. Additionally, user-generated content may be a substantial portion of an internet facilitator's site content and the international legal community has yet to standardize intellectual property rights; international intellectual property standards are governed by multilateral treaties.

In the past, internet facilitators could avoid secondary liability for not stopping bad acts by showing one of two types of defenses. First, if charged with vicarious liability, facilitators could show that they did not possess the ability to supervise those who engaged in bad acts using the facilitator's Internet assets. Second, if charged with contributory liability, they could show they did not have knowledge of the bad act involving the facilitator's internet assets. See MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005).

However, as internet technology increasingly allowed automated action to enable internet facilitators to prevent bad acts by third parties on their sites, the United States implemented a statute that provided a "safe harbor" provision protecting websites and web providers from secondary liability for certain bad acts, such as copyright violations performed by users on a facilitator's internet asset. The most wide-ranging safe-harbor provision is offered by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (codified at 17 § U.S.C. 101 et seq.) (DMCA).

Though the question of interpreting this part of the statute has yet to reach the Supreme Court, lower courts have been consistent in interpreting it broadly and have applied it to any entity that provides access to the internet. In particular, the court in ALS Scan, Inc. v. RemarQ Cmtys., Inc., 239 F.3d 619, 626 (4th Cir. 2001), found that a newsgroup website would fall under the definition of an internet facilitator. The court in Corbis Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 351 F.Supp. 2d 1090, 1100 (W.D. Wash. 2004), found that Amazon.com fits within the definition as well.

However, the safe harbor also requires that the internet facilitator who is eligible for indemnification from secondary liability not have "actual knowledge" of the infringing material. The near universal use of internet technology, which provides actual knowledge of the content of the facilitator's site and the site's related transactions, may be used by plaintiffs to pierce the safe-harbor provision and require the internet facilitator to forfeit the protections of the safe harbor.

Internet technology that allows a facilitator to limit an internet user's bad acts is available. The three most important technologies are: automatic internet user monitoring systems, "net nannies," and internet tracking software.

Automatic internet user monitoring systems, such as screen capture utilities and key logger software, record all information that is sent to an internet facilitator's site. These monitoring systems can feed captured data to software tools which will prevent internet users from taking certain action to facilitate bad acts, such as installing malware and distributing unlawful spam, among other activities.

For more than 10 years net-nanny software has been providing internet facilitators with a secure means to web filter to avoid the use of its site for purposes deemed inappropriate. Net nannies may be used to stop the distribution of images of an unlawful nature, deny access to internet users whom the internet facilitator deems to be undesirable, and generally censor unacceptable behavior automatically on behalf of the internet facilitator.

Existing internet user-tracking software can usually narrow the radius of geographical location of an internet user within several hundred feet, without requiring the user's permission. This is done by sending a message to the target, and using the time it takes to bounce back, the internet user's IP address and Google Map software. Knowing the likely geographic location of an internet user can allow the internet facilitator to prevent internet bad acts, such as allowing a site user to send goods into a state which has deemed such goods to be contraband.

In combination, automatic internet user monitoring systems, net nannies, and internet tracking software are capable of removing unlawful or unacceptable content and sending an electronic message to the bad actor informing that person of the violation that has been committed. Internet technology may also mete out sanctions automatically. In particular, certain internet technology may automatically bar a bad actor's access after determining that a violation of the terms of use agreement associated with the internet facilitator's sites has occurred.

While changes in internet technology may change internet facilitators' liability in the United States, such changes may be blunted in Europe due to the implementation of local law. The European Union has attempted to deal with the liability of internet facilitators by issuing a series of directives.

These directives are known as the E-Commerce Directive, and it grants liability exemptions to passive internet facilitators. See Directive 2000/31/EC, arts. 40-58, 2000 O.J. (L 178) 1 (EC). The E-Commerce Directive exemptions only apply if the internet facilitators do not "collaborate" with a user to undertake illegal acts and must act expeditiously to remove access to any illegal information upon receiving notice of such illegal activities.

While the directive is binding on member states as to the effect to be achieved, it allows the implementation process to be designed by each member state for implementation in its sovereign jurisdiction. The directive does not address internet technology, thus the use or failure to use such technology is not a factor in assessing internet facilitator liability.

Even if the use of monitoring and control technology were integrated into the E-Commerce Directive, the result is not clear, as evidenced by the three cases considering YouTube's liability for user copyright infringement that parallel Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., in Spain, Germany, and Italy.

All three countries are members of the European Union and thus subject to the E-Commerce Directive. Yet the cases have resulted in a YouTube victory in Spain, but losses for YouTube in Germany and Italy.

original article found here

The 7 Deadliest Social Networking Hacks

Think you know who your real online friends are? You could be just a few hops away from a cybercriminal in today's social networks

By Kelly Jackson Higgins

It started with a stolen Facebook photo attached to an inflammatory profile. It led to online harassment, death threats, and emails to the victim’s boss questioning the victim’s character. But an online personal attack against Graham Cluley earlier this year is one example of how easy it is to use a social network to damage the identity of an individual -- or an entire company.

Cluley’s case shows just how rapidly social networks can spread a smear campaign or personal attack -- and how it can quickly spread to the victim’s professional life. Cluley, who is a senior technology consultant with Sophos, recently met another victim who experienced a similar attack on Facebook, Kerry Harvey. He says it was apparently an acquaintance of Harvey’s who built a phony Kerry Harvey Facebook profile that branded her occupation as a “prostitute,” complete with her cellphone number.

Could such a thing happen to you or employees at your company? You bet. Social networks are the next major attack venue for trolls, spammers, bot herders, cybercriminals, corporate spies -- and even jilted ex-lovers or enemies -- to make money, or just plain wreak havoc on their victims’ personal lives, security experts say.

“It's the easiest way to passively gain intelligence on the largest groups of society and nearly every walk of life,” says Robert Hansen, aka RSnake, founder of SecTheory LLC.

The root of the problem is that social networking sites by nature aren't secure. They typically don’t authenticate new members -- you can’t always be sure that your online friend is who she says she is -- and attackers can easily exploit and capitalize on the “trusted” culture within the social network. Users often don't deploy the security and privacy options that some of these sites offer, either.

Social networking application development tools like OpenSocial and third-party tools on Facebook, for example, can be abused by attackers to readily spread malware or lift personal information. There’s also the very real risk of corporate espionage, with attackers culling tidbits from personal or professional social net profiles to wage targeted attacks on businesses via their employees. And popular Web attacks, like cross-site scripting, can also be used against members of social networks.

And don’t think for a minute that your “private” or closed profile keeps you safe from an attack or potential personal embarrassment, either. “There is no such thing as privacy on the Internet,” says Adam O’Donnell, director of emerging technologies for Cloudmark. “You are only delaying the inevitable information leakage for any content you put online. My recommendation is to treat the Internet as if all content there lasts forever.”

Attacks on social networking sites have only just begun, so think twice before you get too personal with what you post on them, or too loose about accepting and trusting new friends and connections.

“You’re only going to see these attacks on social networks go up,” says researcher Nathan Hamiel, who along with colleague Shawn Moyer recently conducted some relatively simple but scary hacks recently on various social networks that they demonstrated at Black Hat USA and Defcon 16 this month. “We’ve noticed some weird social networking attacks since we did our talk” at those hacker conferences, he says.

Here's a look at the seven most lethal social networks hacks:

* 1) Impersonation and targeted personal attacks

* 2) Spam and bot infections

* 3) Weaponized OpenSocial and other social networking applications

* 4) Crossover of personal to professional online presence

* 5) XSS, CSRF attacks

* 6) Identity theft

* 7) Corporate espionage

1) Impersonation and targeted personal attacks
You’d think security experts would be relatively immune from social networking hacks since, well, they’re security experts. But a recent wave of nasty hacks targeting security industry figures such as Alan Shimel of StillSecure and Petko Petkov of GNUCitizen, where their personal email accounts and other private data were raided and posted on the Net, have demonstrated that a determined attacker can even get to the experts.

Putting yourself “out there” with a social network presence basically leaves you open for all kinds of attacks, even personal ones. Just ask Sophos’s Cluley, who faced hate messages, death threats to his wife, and his photo being superimposed on some pornographic images after his Facebook photo hack. “They didn’t use my name,” he says, but all it took was someone to recognize his face.

Twitter, the microblogging site where members post quick updates on what they’re doing or comments to multiple “followers,” introduces a whole other element to social networking security -- physical security, experts say. “I never talk about where I am, who I'm with, where I'm going, or any other specific details,” RSnake says. “But that doesn't stop anyone else who knows that same information from doing that behind my back - maliciously or not.”

Sophos’s Cluley says posting too much information on Twitter, such as your whereabouts or trip plans, leave you wide open to things like burglary or stalking. “Twitter is a fascinating thing. To be honest, it could lead to all sorts of physical problems, such as physical theft…or jealous ex’s” tracking what their ex is up to, says Cluley, who “tweets” his blog titles. “When I post to my blog, I’m not saying ‘I’m at the supermarket.’ First of all, who cares? I much prefer to wait until I get back” from the store to say what I’m doing, he says.

And as Hamiel and Moyer demonstrated at Black Hat USA and Defcon 16, you don’t even have to have a social networking profile to be targeted. The two researchers were able to easily impersonate security icon Marcus Ranum (with his permission) on LinkedIn, the social network for businesspeople. Ranum doesn’t have an account, so the two basically lifted Ranum’s photo off the Internet and gathered information on him online and built a convincing phony Ranum profile. (See LinkedIn Hack Demonstrates Ease of Impersonation.)

They channeled Ranum so well that they amassed 42 LinkedIn connections within 12 hour, even duping Ranum’s own sister into friending the phony Ranum profile.

2) Spam or bot infections
Spammers -- for plain old advertising, click fraud, or for bot recruitment -- need mechanisms that efficiently and effectively deliver and spread their messages, malware, or both. And attackers have already honed in on the social networking community, hijacking accounts and using their address books to spread spam, worms, or other malware.

“We’re seeing more and more malware via spam and links in spam. We’re seeing this with malware text on Facebook and Twitter that’s designed to draw people to particular pages,” Sophos’s Cluley says.

Most recently, attackers hijacked some Facebook accounts, and posing as members sent messages to their friends to dupe them into viewing a video clip link, which instead was actually a Trojan that silently downloaded malware onto their machine once they opened the link.

A recent report by ScanSafe found that in July, up to one in 600 profile pages on social-networking sites hosted some form of malware, mostly adware and spyware.

3) Weaponized OpenSocial and other social networking applications
Users often don’t think anything of installing an application in their browser. “But these applications can all have the same levels of access to their system, and some of the most private information is often [stored] in the browser, so it can be more dangerous,” Moyer says. “It blows my mind how people can think that downloading [these applications] is not as bad” as downloading some application to their system.

That makes third-party application services like OpenSocial a dangerously handy tool for attackers. “The addition of the third-party application service also allows for another avenue for code-based attacks to occur,” Cloudmark’s O’Donnell says.

It’s not that all of the developers of those social networking virtual kisses, secret crushes, or birthday reminder widgets are necessarily malicious. OpenSocial, for example, offers an option for writers of these tools to limit malicious JavaScript in these applications, but inexperienced developers typically don’t bother or know to use these measures, O'Donnell says.

“These are opt-in only, and a limited number of developers use the tools. What ends up happening is that developers with a limited amount of security-sensitive development experience create these applications that spread like wildfire, allowing a new vector for infection on many profiles -- and by infection, I primarily mean attacks focused inside the social network,” O’Donnell says.

Users don’t always realize that the third-party widgets for Facebook, for example, weren’t written by Facebook. Some have holes that collect more information on users than necessary or safe, and others have been written specifically to install adware or generate revenue. “To their credit, Facebook has closed down some of these apps that behaved inappropriately,” Sophos’ Cluley notes.

A rogue application called “Secret Crush” was circulating around Facebook earlier this year, spreading spyware instead of love. (See 'Secret Crush' Spreads Spyware, Not Love.) It sent victims an invitation to find out who has a secret "crush" on him or her, and lured them into installing and running the Secret Crush app, which spread spyware via an iFrame. The attack got more advanced and worm-like when it required the victim to invite at least five friends before learning who their “crush” was.

“They [these sites] are basically under constant attack,” Moyer says. “We think a lot of the Web 2.0 problems [with these sites] are more about how much trust is being placed on the client side.”

4) Crossover of personal to professional online presence
Even if you keep a MySpace account for personal use, and a LinkedIn one for professional networking, there’s no guarantee that those late-night partying pictures aren’t going to end up in front of your colleagues on LinkedIn, or worse, your boss.

“Consider everything on a social network to be public, whether it’s private photos or work history,” Hamiel says. “You can’t stop a ‘friend’ from copying your stuff and putting it wherever” they want.

There are some measures social networkers can take to prevent the details of their social and personal lives from spilling over to their professional ones. Cloudmark’s O’Donnell says he doesn’t bother with separate personal and professional social networking accounts: “For me I find it far easier to not keep them separate, and to present a professional face on both my personal and my professional profiles."

You can set up “limited” profiles on sites like Facebook. “I can add someone as a limited friend, and they don’t know they’re limited. They can’t see my holiday photos,” for instance, Sophos’s Cluley says. That way, “I’ve really tied down and parceled up what I want as my real close friends” on the site.

There are also privacy settings that can control what information you share with others on the social network, and what information Facebook apps can get and share about your profile.

5) XSS, CSRF attacks
Cross-site scripting (XSS) and cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities are obvious attack vectors, and some social networking worms have used XSS flaws to help propagate themselves. But most social networks have tightened their defenses against XSS attacks, security experts say, and CSRF attacks are not yet common.

XSS and CSRF do pose a big risk to these sites, especially when it comes to social networking applications, experts say. In an XSS attack, malicious code is injected into vulnerable Web applications and users who view those pages can get hacked. In a CSRF attack, an attacker basically tricks the victim's browser into making a request on his behalf -- as the logged-in user.

“Anytime [that] you, an attacker, can force a user to load HTML, the potential is there for browser exploits, botnet infections, and account manipulation via XSS/CSRF,” says HD Moore, director of security research for BreakingPoint Systems.

A CSRF attack could potentially jump and spread across multiple social networking sites that the user is logged onto -- effectively spreading the attack from one social network to another. It could, for example, force a victim viewing a CSRF-infected page on MySpace to post something on his own wall on Facebook if the wall-posting function was vulnerable. “I think [CSRF] certainly is one useful vector that's being overlooked now,” Moyer says.

Meanwhile, with the openness of social networks, attackers don’t really need to bother with complicated XSS or CSRF attacks. “But if you [the attacker] combine attack vectors, you could be a lot more effective. We think as long as [social networks] allow users to create markup in profiles and comments and link to external content, this will continue to be a problem,” Moyer says.

6) Identity theft
A social network profile can give away some valuable tidbits –- victim’s name and date of birth –- that identity thieves can use to guess passwords or impersonate them, and even eventually steal their identity, some security experts say.

But that doesn’t mean that identity thieves are crawling all over social networks, Hamiel says. “I just think that the claims that social networks are an identity theft magnet are overblown."

Social networkers sometimes inadvertently hand over the goods themselves: In a study Sophos conducted over a year ago, about 41 percent of Facebook users in the study gave out their email address, date of birth, and phone number to someone they didn’t know.

One safety tip for social networkers is not to answer all the questions posed to them by the site, and don't provide your true date of birth, Sophos's Cluley says. “You don’t need to tell Facebook your educational background, your phone number, etc. You don’t even have to tell them your real date of birth,” he says. “I want the identity thief to get the wrong date of birth.”

You can even make up a phony maiden name for your mother. “Don’t make it something that’s a matter of public record,” he says.

Even so, social networks basically tap into human nature’s innate need to socialize, and the bad guys know it. “People aren't very good at security,” RSnake says. “We were built to work in teams, we're pack animals.”
7) Corporate espionage
Even if an employer blocks access to social networks from the office, the organization still could be susceptible to corporate espionage attacks via its employees’ personal profiles.

To pull off a spear phishing attack, for example, all an attacker has to do is search for Company A’s employees on a social networking site and then pose as someone within the organization -- such as the head of human resources -- and email the employee addresses he finds, for example. A phony HR spear phish could look something like this, Sophos’s Cluley says: “Dear Fred Jones, Congratulations on joining XYZ Company. Click on this link to access our HR Intranet and then log in with your regular network username and password so we can update our files.”

A newbie to the company could easily fall for the ploy and hand over access to the corporate network, he says.

The only shot at preventing this hack is for social networkers to limit what they post publicly and to keep their employer’s name out of their profile. “Keeping the name of your employer... far away from your personal profiles can reduce the chance that someone will target your employer through you,” BreakingPoint’s Moore says. “The trouble is that even with completely separate personal and professional identities, it only takes one scrap of public information linking the two to negate all of the time that went into separating them in the first place.”

That’s because the “six degrees of separation” rule applies on most social networks: You’re only a few hops away from a bad guy. “We know that there are bad people on these networks using them to steal information,” Cluley says. “You may be only a half a dozen hops from an identity thief if we’re all connected.”

Responses to: editors@darkreading.com

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Many thanks to support group member, Gypsy for this gem!

Beauty Queen's Stalker and Cyberharasser is Jailed

A BEAUTY queen cried “my nightmare is over” as her obsessed stalker was sent to prison yesterday.

Chloe Hopkins, 20, was the victim of a two-year hate campaign after spurning the advances of Anthony Mantova, 34.

Multiple sclerosis sufferer Mantova spread cruel lies online about the 2010 Miss Prestatyn — and even turned up at one of her beauty queen events to make jibes at her.

Chloe told Prestatyn Magistrates’ Court she feared going out in case Mantova — who admitted harassment earlier this month — was waiting.

Jailing him for 18 weeks, chairman of the bench Sanjay Bhalla called his actions “entirely unprovoked”.

original article found here

Warning: About Posting Abuse on Twitter and Facebook

By Declan Harvey

The government's top legal adviser has issued a new warning over abusive tweets and Facebook posts.

Attorney General Dominic Grieve said users should be aware of how easy it can be to break the law. But he said the government didn't need to introduce new laws because existing ones already make it illegal to "grossly offend" or "cause distress".

It comes after 21-year old Liam Stacey was jailed for mocking footballer Fabrice Muamba on Twitter.

Dominic Grieve said: "If somebody goes down to the pub with printed sheets of paper and hands it out, that's no different than if somebody goes and does a tweet. The idea that you have immunity because you're an anonymous tweeter is a big mistake. If necessary we will take action. I don't want to take action but if I think it is necessary to prevent crime, such as racially aggravated harassment, then I won't hesitate to do it."

He says they are leading the way internationally when tackling it.

"The warning is this," he said. "We fight for people's rights in order to make free comment. But with that comes a responsibility to act within the law".

Mr Hyde also said they could quite easily trace owners of online accounts even if they had been closed.

Sarah, 21, is a student at Pontypridd in south Wales and thinks schools should teach children about the risks. She said: "You don't really know much about what you can and can't say, so you don't know what's a case you can report and what's not. So until you know that, you're not going to report anyone."

'Unlawful purposes'
In a statement Facebook said: "Facebook is a safe and positive platform for people to share things with the people who matter to them. On the rare occasions when people come across content or behaviour which makes them uncomfortable, there are reporting tools on almost every page of the site.

"We co-operate with the police to the extent required by law to make sure the tiny minority of people intent on causing harm to others are brought to justice." Twitter referred to their terms of use, which say: "You may not use our service for any unlawful purposes or in furtherance of illegal activities. Accounts engaging in these behaviours may be investigated for abuse. Accounts under investigation may be removed from search for quality. Twitter reserves the right to immediately terminate your account without further notice in the event that, in its judgment, you violate these rules."

original article found here

Amanda Craig Tells Her Horrifying Story of Being Cyberharassed

By Amanda Craig

(U.K.) What is it that makes people want to send vitriolic abuse, including death threats, to a total stranger?

I can’t begin to imagine. But this year, thanks to Twitter and Facebook, I do know what it is like to be on the receiving end of such embittered hatefulness.

Why? Because I’d dared to write a piece in this newspaper about my teenage years spent at Bedales, the progressive public school that was embroiled in a scandal earlier this year concerning shoplifting and under-age sex.

As a pupil at the school in the 1970s, I had experienced a level of bullying and abuse that I still find disturbing to think about to this day and which inspired my second novel, written 20 years ago, A Private Place.

Yet when I set down my painful memories of my formative years on paper, I never imagined I’d be setting myself up as a sitting target for a new breed of modern-day bullies, who choose not the school playground, but the internet to target their victims.

‘Cyberbullying’ isn’t confined to children — it is a contemporary menace in which people can be targeted anywhere, at any time. When my email inbox began to fill up with awful messages, my first reaction was one of exasperation, quickly followed by cold contempt.

I was totally unprepared for the slew of virulent messages that, for the next month, pinged into my inbox via both my Twitter account and my public Facebook page. Many of these messages are unpublishable in a national newspaper, but they included threats to my personal safety, disgusting sexual abuse, venomous comments about my looks and personality, a flurry of one-star Amazon reviews of my novels — and several attempts to hack into my Wikipedia entry.

Astonishingly, those behind them were girls and boys of between 15 and 21 years old, many of whom declared themselves to be current or former pupils of Bedales. They defended the school by calling me bitter, greedy, bitchy and, what’s more, claimed that I ‘deserved to be bullied’. Then they said that the school was wonderful, and that bullying didn’t exist there, and that ‘every single one of (the abusive comments that had been posted about me) was understandable and acceptable’.

The poisonous mob mentality these messages displayed actually did far more to show any current or prospective parent the ugly side of a ‘liberal’ education than what I had written. I was told that ‘we know where you live, so watch out’, ‘your [sic] dead, bitch’, ‘die, you ugly c***’ and so on.

‘You are insulting an establishment you show no understanding of, in a way in which you can only expect a [sic] outraged reaction. You have not only insulted our way of life, our home but us as individuals. I feel personally attacked,’ wrote one boy.

A couple of current pupils were moved to express sympathy and to assure me that things had changed, but these, like the nicer kind of Bedalian student of my own time, seemed far and few between.

One posted a more moderate, thoughtful comment about my article — and his peers turned on him: ‘Stop s***ing her d**k Toby, and stick up for the f*****g school. Your [sic]

The abuse was so remarkable that two national newspapers picked it up, and one even wrote a leader page column. Yet when the Head of Bedales, Keith Budge, was approached for comment, his response, as quoted in the Daily Telegraph, was to say his pupils were simply defending their school.

The Old Bedalian magazine, edited by a former member of staff, decided to publish a sneering piece, which included a photograph of me printed upside-down and — a lovely touch — an encomium of the school’s creativity by Kirstie Allsopp.

Nobody in authority has attempted to contact me to apologise, and no pupil, as far as I know, has been reprimanded. Now, I don’t take the ravings of over-excited teenagers seriously. But neither do I think anyone should be allowed to get away with this kind of behaviour — least of all the privileged pupils of a £30,000-a-year school.

For such mindless venom to come from privileged children living in conditions which the majority can only dream of, and attending an institution that prides itself on its liberal outlook would be especially offensive.

Every contemporary school is aware of the life-long emotional and psychological damage that bullying can cause, and the responsible ones, both in the state and private sectors, have strong protocols about dealing with such issues, especially online.

Cyberbullying is worse and more cowardly than playground bullying. Even as an adult, I found the abuse deeply offensive. It was extraordinary that I was being addressed as if I were still the vulnerable, innocent 12-year-old I had been all those years ago. What I had described was so painful that I thought nobody in their right mind could feel anything but shame and compassion — and, more importantly, concern about whether the ills I described were still happening.

Instead, it seemed to provoke the opposite reaction. It was extraordinary — and ludicrous. But that’s the thing about the internet. While it has transformed the way people can communicate, it has also allowed some to say the most unkind things to someone they don’t know, have never met, and wouldn’t dare to confront face-to-face.
Bullies beware: Anonymous messages can be traced back to the location and computer they were sent from (posed by model)

These so-called ‘trolls’, inspired by envy, rage and spite, appear to live in a parallel universe in which they believe they can threaten, stalk, intimidate and libel anyone with impunity.

You don’t have to do something as provocative as write about your unhappy schooldays to set them off. Just being pretty, happy, or good at what you do is enough. Whole families can be affected by the fall-out, if my experience is anything to go by.

‘Why do people keep saying horrible things about you on Facebook just because you were bullied at school?’ my 15-year-old son asked me, bemused. ‘Because they’re total losers,’ replied my 18-year-old daughter. Having been forewarned by their schools about how to handle online abuse, they were far better placed to deal with it than me.

My husband was the most shocked — and angered — at the hate-filled messages I showed him. He was the one who then had sleepless nights — and who became the most worried about our physical safety. I am not easily intimidated, but I was admittedly depressed by this evidence of how little had changed about the mentality of bullies. On the flipside, however, the attempts to undermine me caused something rather wonderful to happen.

A number of distinguished authors, journalists and lawyers — many of whom had, ironically, become friends of mine through Facebook — saw what was being posted on my page and sprang into action, unasked, to defend me with both eloquence and wit.

'For the victim, an abusive Twitter message or email is no different from receiving verbal abuse'

To see the likes of Philip Hensher, Nicholas Lezard, Louisa Young, Chris Priestly and Katy Guest all pouring scorn on these abusive bloggers was rather like the scene at the end of C.S. Lewis’s Narnia novel, The Silver Chair, when the bullies who have been terrorising the children at the progressive Experiment House are punished.

Alarmed by this unexpected challenge, the trolls began, one by one, to delete their messages. Today, they are all gone — though I, and several others, took copies of them, in case they feel tempted to strike again.

People who do not have Twitter and Facebook accounts may be rather mystified by all of this. Meanwhile, those who do may wonder why I have dared to risk further online abuse by describing my experience here.

The answer is two-fold. One is that I believe bullying will never stop unless there is a concerted effort from the top to confront it, and that while any school continues to appear to condone its own smug cult that will not happen. Second, if you haven’t experienced bullying, you have no idea what a scar it leaves on the soul. Just because I learnt how to use my rage in creative, positive ways, writing novels, doesn’t mean that it’s not there.

Connecting with readers and writers through the web can be one of the greatest delights of 21st-century life, as Twitter and Facebook host a vast virtual conversation, in which people share views and exchange ideas about everything, from trivial thoughts to breaking news. But more and more bloggers and writers are complaining about the intimidating attacks made on them.

Caroline Farrow, a vicar’s wife and mother-of-three who blogs for the Catholic Voices website, recently revealed she receives at least five sexually threatening emails a day.

One of the least offensive read: ‘You’re gonna scream when you get yours. F*****g slag. Butter wouldn’t f*****g melt, and you’ll cry rape when you get what you’ve asked for. Bitch.’ That anybody can get away with writing in such a horrific manner to another human being beggars belief — but, thankfully, the law is slowly catching up.

The Police Central e-Crime Unit is responsible for investigating malicious communications. For example, a man of 60 has been charged with sending threatening Twitter messages to MP Louise Mensch.

Perhaps the threat of arrest, a criminal record and punishment will help the bullies think twice. For the victim, an abusive Twitter message or email is no different from receiving verbal abuse, or getting a poison-pen letter.

For the bully, though, there is one key difference: although they think the internet affords them anonymity, every message can be traced back to a location and a specific computer. Cyberbullies would do well to remember that before they click the send button.

Amanda Craig’s novel A Private Place (Abacus) is being re-issued as an e-book in February.

Civil Servant is a CyberHarasser

By Nick Fagge and Christian Gysin

When Katherine Jenkins hit out this week at the ‘pathetic’ cyber bully who had harassed her for more than a year, she stopped short of naming names.

But an online trail followed by the Daily Mail leads inexorably to a 43-year-old former civil servant called Geraldine Curtis. From her run-down home in South London, Miss Curtis has repeatedly attacked and denigrated the Welsh classical singer on a personal blog.

She has now been blocked from the star’s personal Twitter page.

Miss Jenkins, 31, had kept quiet about the seemingly endless tirade of abuse to which she has been subjected – including attacks on her Twitter site.

But she broke her silence on Sunday after appearing on the BBC’s Something For The Weekend show, where presenters asked her questions supplied by the public. To viewers, the question: ‘What is the difference between a mezzo soprano and a bel canto?’ appeared inoffensive enough. However for Miss Jenkins the identity of its supplier - named as ‘KJMezzo’ - was the last straw.

Within half an hour, she issued a withering statement describing her anonymous attacker as ‘sad’ and a ‘bully’. Shortly afterwards KJMezzo’s Twitter account was shut down, apparently in response to a request by the singer, and a blog written in the same name also disappeared.

Miss Curtis, an accountant, who lives alone, is also suspected of having posted anonymously on the We Love Katherine Jenkins website. One recent observation read: ‘KJ is an over-hyped talentless slut with no discernible talent … she is despised by opera buffs.’ Moments later, another contributor asked: ‘Is it you, Geraldine Curtis?’

Interviewed by the Mail at her semi-detached cottage in Brixton, Miss Curtis insisted she is not the person behind the KJMezzo Twitter account and did not send in the question to the BBC show on Sunday which so enraged the Welsh star. ‘I did not watch it - I did not know it was on,’ she said. ‘I had a stinking hangover. Too much red wine on Saturday.’ She later admitted, however, that she had watched the show online on the BBC iPlayer.

And, with little prompting, she launched into a bitter tirade against Miss Jenkins.

‘She can’t sing,’ said Miss Curtis. ‘She is not an opera singer. She criticises opera singers. For years her website has said that opera singers are histrionic, overweight and frumpy. ‘She claims that she has “brought opera to ordinary people” who are too stupid to like opera, that’s her attitude. She is very critical of other people but she cannot take criticism. My comments about Katherine Jenkins are critical but she is in the public eye.’

In recent days, Miss Curtis has clashed on her Twitter account with Samantha Cox, a representative of Miss Jenkins’s management company. Claiming that if you criticise Miss Jenkins ‘her heavy mob turns nasty’, Miss Curtis tweeted: ‘If my Twitter account suddenly disappears, blame Katherine Jenkins … and check my blog for details!’

Earlier Miss Cox had tweeted to Miss Curtis: ‘The vile things that come out of your mouth! ... calling someone else horrible and nasty is like the pot calling the kettle black!’

The style of attacks by KJMezzo is similar to postings placed by Miss Curtis on her own blog in the past two years. Examples include an entry in which she says: ‘Dress is too tight … she’s a Barbie doll … she looks cheap/needs her roots doing.’ She claims Miss Jenkins exploits her appearance at the Remembrance Sunday service and the death of her father when she was 15 to sell records, adding: ‘She says, “Feel sorry for me my daddy died. Buy my album”.’

And she accuses Miss Jenkins of ‘jumping on the bandwagon of the abuse of female bloggers’ with her own claims that she is being bullied.

On her personal Twitter page less than 24 hours after Miss Jenkins’s outburst, Miss Curtis wrote: ‘I expect KJ & her entourage will now accuse me of cyberbullying. They’re on a roll, with traction. Criticism is not bullying.’

On her Facebook page, Miss Curtis has posted an album of 46 photographs showing her with opera stars including Placido Domingo, Erwin Schrott, Jonas Kauffman and Rolando Villazon. Its title is ‘Stalking’.

A spokesman for Miss Jenkins said she was glad the online hate campaign against her appeared to be over and added: ‘Katherine is pleased that the Twitter account that was sending the abusive messages has now been deleted. ‘She loves using Twitter and it’s great that she can continue using it without the constant hurtful and damaging comments made by that individual.’

original article found here

Breakup then... Cyberstalk?

By Dane Schiller

Soon after a Massachusetts college student dumped her Houston-area fiancé, he sent her email and text messages to find out what happened, maybe win her back.

It didn't work. Things got ugly.

The ex-boyfriend is now accused of unleashing a torrent of hundreds of messages that grew so violent that the woman sought help from the FBI.

"I will tear you limb from limb," read one of the messages, according to copies shared with a magistrate. "I want to watch you suffer" and "I will come for you," read others.

Federal prosecutors accuse Christopher Hlavinka, 24, of using the Internet to cause "substantial emotional distress." He faces up to five years in prison if convicted.

On Tuesday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen Smith ordered Hlavinka, who was first taken into custody in June, to be released to his family pending trial. He also is to be tracked by GPS and largely confined to home and is not allowed to use computers or cell- phones with Web access.

One email can land him back behind bars and facing even more time.

Spotlight on stalking
The case highlights increasing concern about online harassment and stalking.

Hlavinka's former fiancée, identified in court by the initials S.H., was pushed to the edge by the harassment, according to the FBI. She moved multiple times to hide and sought psychological counseling as well as police protection.

FBI Special Agent Ryan McKee testified that Hlavinka mocked a protective order as well as police, and sent personal information about S.H. to her family and associates. "Jail does not scare me," Hlavinka reportedly told her. "Isn't it cute you think you can get protection against me?"

Hlavinka's computer showed he went to Google maps and other sites to research where S.H. and her parents lived, McKee said.

3 motivations
Defense attorney Brian Laviage argued for Hlavinka's conditional release at the hearing, saying his client has no criminal record; no history of physical violence; and that he belonged with his family and getting help rather than in prison.

He said Hlavinka's arrests, first by Fort Bend authorities and then by federal agents, and his time behind bars helped him accept that the relationship is over. He just wants to get on with his life, Laviage said.

David Buss, a psychology professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said by phone that stalkers usually exhibit three major motivations: They either want to get back together with the ex-partner, to interfere with an ex's romantic life, or to exact revenge.

"Cyber-stalking can be especially vicious because the stalkers are sitting behind computers, and so feel that they can stalk with the safety of their own house or work," he said.

original piece can be found here

Top 5 Technologies used to Cyberbully

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

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

Hire-A-Hitman Online? Go to Jail

A young lady who was jealous and enraged about the fact that her ex-boyfriend had moved on, has been charged for trying to hire a hitman to kill his new lover with stolen credit cards from Paypal: Marissa Mark, 28, from Allentown, Pennsylvania is alleged to have hired Essam Ahmed Eid through his amateurish website www.hitmanforhire.net. She wanted him to kill Anne Royston for $37,000 in 2006. She is accused of paying a $19,000 deposit with three stolen credit cards through website PayPal. Marissa Mark, left, is accused of hiring Las Vegas poker dealer Essam Eid, left, through his website www.hitmanforhire.net to kill her ex-boyfriend’s new lover. The shoddy website said: ‘Whether you are trying to put an end to a domestic dispute or eliminate your business competitors, we have the solution for you’. The hire-a-hitman website, which has since been taken down, said: ‘Assassinations are the most practical solutions to common problems. Thanks to the Internet, ordering a hit has never been easier. We manage a network of freelance assassins, available to kill at a moment’s notice.’ Court documents show that PayPal refused to transfer the money Mark allegedly paid from three stolen credit cards, meaning Eid never received any money. According to FBI accounts and court documents, Royston – who worked as a loan broker – was first contacted by Eid in September 2006 under the pretence of wanting to refinance his house. He visited her officers in Woodland Hills, California with one of his two wives, Theresa Engle, posing as his assistant, and told her ‘Somebody wants your head. Somebody wants you killed and they hate you a lot.’ He said he decided against killing her because she reminded him of his own daughter and she could save her life and see Mark dead by settling the balance of the contract.

In this current case Mark was arrested in Jersey City, New Jersey and transferred to Allentown, Pennsylvania where she appeared in court charged with conspiracy, identity theft and other counts. She was granted bail on a $150,000 bond.

There are rumours that the events could be turning into a movie.

original article here

Cyberbullying: Ain't Just Kid Stuff!

The "new mail" sound pinged and I clicked. "I would love to watch you get punched senseless. ... You are a (expletive) failure, a typical New York failure. If I ever find any of your written nonsense on MSN or Yahoo, it will probably get ugly."

The "in-real-life" bullying I endured in middle school was so bad that I used to come home in tears, wishing that I wouldn't wake up the next morning. And yet, here I am, more than a decade and a half later, dealing with a far more virulent strain: cyberbullying.

E-mails, comments, Facebook, Twitter. If there's a way to reach people electronically, there's a way to make them cry.

My haters love to focus on my physical appearance. I have body parts I didn't even know could be called hideous - "sausage fingers" and "elephant knees," for example. But it doesn't stop there. One commenter wrote: "Julia, you are a despicable person. Ugly inside and out, with ZERO redeeming qualities. ... (D)espite your best efforts to scrub it all and land a husband ... which will NEVER happen, btw."

This represents just a fraction of the hate that has been thrown my way - as well as in the direction of my friends, family, boyfriends and employers. Why? As a columnist and as a social media user, haters feel I am fair game. They do it because they can. Because I "asked for it" by sharing anything at all.

We live in a world of more than 600 million Facebook accounts, 160 million blogs, 190 million Twitter accounts. Are we all "asking" to be cyberbullied?

The White House convened its Conference on Bullying Prevention on March 10 and launched StopBullying.gov.

"This isn't an issue that makes headlines every day, but it affects every single young person in our country," President Obama told the conference.

I would amend that statement: Cyberbullying affects all people, not just the young.

Bullying spans generations: 45-year-old bullies raise children who become 13-year-old bullies who grow up to be 28-year-old bullies. And here's my "controversial" proposition: Kids aren't the only ones who should be protected from them.

Until we agree that cyberbullying is an absolutely unacceptable way to treat other people, the cycle of harassment will continue.

The government's new website defines bullying as when someone uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker. Online dynamics are such, however, that a handful of haters can become a mob and target anyone, regardless of age, economic status or "real-world" power.

"It goes beyond name-calling," said 37-year-old A.B., a veteran blogger who has experienced the devastating effects of motivated online bullies. The hate wormed its way insidiously into her life. She posted, "What would make you stop?" Her bullies' response: "Die."

"People are like, 'Oh, don't read it,' but how can you not stand up for yourself?"

Especially when no one else is.

One of my readers, Sara, described encountering nasty comments about herself online. "It KILLED me. I was devastated. I felt it physically; I could literally feel the blood drain from my body every time I found a new one."

Following someone around on the street while screaming insults at them would be considered at the least, crazy - and at the most, criminal harassment. So why is it accepted online?

"All of us have an obligation to think about how we're treating other people," Obama said at an MTV forum in late 2010. "What we may think is funny or cute may end up being powerfully hurtful."

We must go further. Internet companies have long brushed aside complaints about often-anonymous users who engage in personal attacks. "Not our problem," seems to be their prevailing sentiment. Individuals cower behind anonymity, and because it can be difficult, time-consuming and costly to discover true identities, they remain de-facto exempt from libel and defamation laws.

Our government should step up and enact protections for citizens of all ages. A cyber police force doesn't sound like such a bad idea.

We can't force people to like someone, but we can and should ensure that they don't hurt others.

Julia Allison is a columnist, TV personality, public speaker and former Wired cover girl. Visit SocialStudiesColumn.com

original article here

Harassing Texts & Posts Can Land Poster in Jail

by Hayley Peterson

Harassment using text messages or social networking sites could soon be a crime in Maryland if lawmakers approve two bills making their way through the General Assembly.

"In many different schools, Facebook is being used to harass people," said Sen. Bryan Simonaire, R-Anne Arundel, sponsor of one of the bills. "Right now, current law doesn't handle Facebook and Twitter-type postings. We have to advance with our technology."

Lawmakers added e-mail to Maryland's harassment laws in 1998. The law defined e-mail as a message sent electronically from one person -- or one computer's Internet protocol address -- to another, ignoring the prospect of Web site or blog postings, Simonaire said.

His bill would expand the definition of electronic harassment to include making an "Internet transmission or posting with the intent to harass."

The bill would also increase the maximum sentence for electronic harassment from one year to three years and slap on a maximum $5,000 fine -- bringing it in line with Maryland's sentencing for telephone harassment.

Michael Swartz, director of the Maryland Blogger Alliance, said the blogosphere has "matured" and there's no need for such a bill.

"It seems to me three years is pretty excessive for sending a slew of e-mails," he said. "You can ignore e-mail harassment to an extent."

He said enforcing the law would be nearly impossible, because IP addresses can be faked.

Montgomery County police spokesman Capt. Paul Starks said he hasn't dealt with many cases of electronic harassment, but added that enforcing the law might be even easier than telephone harassment because the Internet can provide a "snapshot" -- from date, place and time to what was communicated -- of the alleged crime.

Another bill in the works from Sen. Delores G. Kelley, D-Baltimore, would add texting to the mix of electronic harassment mediums.

Kelley's bill would make harassing a minor through texting, Internet postings or e-mail a misdemeanor with a maximum three-year sentence and a $5,000 fine.

The bill says people may not "make an electronic communication with the intent to terrify, intimidate, or harass a minor, or threaten to inflict injury or physical harm to a minor."

"The Maryland code is outdated with current technology," Simonaire said. "This is just about getting into the 21st century."

original article here