Congratulations! You're an Online Stalker

by Edward Lovett

Some recent headline-grabbing cases of stalking range from frightening to downright horrific. But there’s also a subtler form of stalking, one that doesn’t require physical proximity: online stalking.

It’s one thing to occasionally check the Facebook page of an ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend, but it’s another, says psychologist and addiction expert Seth Meyers, to obsessively track someone on the web.

Here are three signs you might have crossed the line and should consider getting professional help.

1. “Spending a lot of time trying to get as much information as possible about the person,” Meyers said in an interview with ABC News’ “20/20.” Are you missing deadlines or canceling social plans because of long Web-surfing sessions and-or constant monitoring of the person’s social media posts?
2. “Your stalking behavior is done in secret,” Meyers said. This means lurking on sites, leaving no trace you were there, like a comment on a post, for example.
3. “Using multiple social media sites to get as much information as they can,” Meyers said, characterized as a “hunt” compelled by a deep-seated insecurity. “The root of it is about feeling that this other person has something that you don’t,” he said. “You’d feel more complete if you have what they have.

original article found here

DISHONESTY: JUST ONE DISADVANTAGE OF ONLINE DATING

Perhaps the most commonly recognized and deserved disadvantage of online dating is the propensity for dishonesty. There is an abundance of stories about e-liars, commonly involving six months of dating ending with the realization one of the two is married. Even more begin with sexy photographs which turn out to be taken prior to a major weight gain, tooth loss, or all-over body tattoo.

Wendy Tanaka tells the story of a man whose online interest described herself as looking like actress Renee Zellweger. Before getting together, she revealed that she was actually “an older, less pretty version of Renee Zellweger.” In one last e-mail before getting together, she said she’d “once been described as looking like John Denver”.

Users aren’t the only liars online. Online dating sites are also caught in fibs from time to time. On November 28, 2002, an article in The Spokesman Review detailed a lawsuit (on behalf of a user whose identity was kept a secret) accusing the site INeedANewGirlfriend.com of lying in order to get newly registered users to buy subscriptions. The lawsuit says that bogus e-mails with photos of beautiful women were sent to men asking them for a reply or for a date. Once the men paid their membership fees and e-mailed the women, they never heard back. The article continued on, explaining:

To prove his client’s contention, the lawyer concocted a handful of cyber straw men -- false profiles of men he believed no woman would want to be involved with. They were the Internet’s most ineligible bachelors, he said: hard-drinking, overweight, out-of-work men. Their goal, he stated in their profiles, was to meet rich, beautiful women who would support them.

The offers came rolling in.

The issue of deception online is more commonly aimed at users, however, than sites. It can be easily argued that profiles as a basis of online dating sites encourage dishonesty. For those eager to meet accepting partners, profile questions can be daunting. For instance, when signing up on Kiss.com, users are prompted to “Please describe your looks.” Possible answers are limited to: ugly; not very good looking; average; good looking; very good looking; and stunning.

Another common question, that of annual income, is a good example of one that is easily exaggerated (or lessened to protect family funds!). With questions such as these, the ultimate goal of attracting interested parties may be threatened by honest answers. Profile questions are exceedingly open to interpretation.

In the end, while the Internet may make dishonesty tempting initially, should a relationship progress to actually meeting, truths will generally be revealed. Online culture seems to have established acceptable, even expected levels of misrepresentation. (NEVER ACCEPTABLE!) Comparable to fibbing on a drivers licenses, height and weight questions are less likely to deem one a dirty liar than, say, not revealing five children and a wife. Whether disclosure makes or breaks a relationship depends on the severity of the lie and the values of the judge.


Ultimately, there is nothing fundamentally honest about meeting in-person either. Under the influence of alcohol and loud music, it is certainly easy for an unhappily married woman to remove a wedding ring before accepting a drink from across the room. Why are people tempted to misrepresent themselves when eventual meetings will reveal all anyway? Morris at Udate.com believes that it comes down to human nature. “If someone is going to lie online, they’d do it offline anyway”. The human desire to increase one’s standing among the competition is strong.

Technology does, however, lend help to those distrustful of the medium. Assuming that a correct name is acquired, the truly determined can visit the county courthouse and search for marriage licenses, divorce records and criminal histories (including felonies and domestic violence. Those with a minimum knowledge of using the Internet--and it’s assumed that online daters qualify -- can do a few quick Google searches with a minimal amount of accurate information and foil liars early on. (NOT ALWAYS!) Generic online searches can reveal work and educational history among other things. The more cynical can access “an abundance of public records, often free and easily accessible, that can tip off online daters to fakes”.

WHAT ABUNDANCE OF PUBLIC RECORDS MIGHT THAT BE?
THERE'S NO NATIONAL MARRIAGE DATABASE or CENTRALIZED CRIMINAL DATABASE EITHER!

EOPC NEVER EVER RECOMMENDS OR IS O.K. WITH ONLINE DATING! EVER!
FROM THIS SITE

Facebook - Not So Private!

By Daniel Emery Technology reporter, BBC News

(CANADA) The man who harvested and published the personal details of 100m Facebook users has spoken out about his motives.

Ron Bowes, a Canadian security consultant, used a piece of code to scan Facebook profiles, collecting data not hidden by users' privacy settings.

The list, which contains the URL of every searchable Facebook user's profile, name and unique ID, has been shared as a downloadable file.

Mr Bowes told BBC News that he did it as part of his work on a security tool.

"I'm a developer for the Nmap Security Scanner and one of our recent tools is called Ncrack," he said. "It is designed to test password policies of organisations by using brute force attacks; in other words, guessing every username and password combination."

By downloading the data from Facebook, and compiling a user's first initial and surname, he was able to make a list of the most common probable usernames to use in the tool.

The three most common names, he found, were jsmith, ssmith and skhan.

In theory, researchers could then combine this list with a catalogue of the most commonly used passwords to test the security of sites. Similar techniques could be used by criminals for more nefarious means.

Mr Bowes said his original plan was to "collect a good list of human names that could be used for these tests".

"Once I had the data, though, I realised that it could be of interest to the community if I released it, so I did," he added. I am of the belief that, if I can do something then there are about 1,000 bad guys that can do it too”

Mr Bowes confirmed that all the data he harvested was already publicly available but acknowledged that if anyone now changed their privacy settings, their information would still be accessible.

"If 100,000 Facebook users decide that they no longer want to be in Facebook's directory, I would still have their name and URL but it would no longer, technically, be public," he said.

Mr Bowes said that collecting the data was in no way irresponsible and likened it to a telephone directory.

"All I've done is compile public information into a nice format for statistical analysis," he said

Simon Davies from the watchdog Privacy International told BBC News it was an "ethical attack" and that more personal information had not been included in the trawl.

"This is a reputational and business issue for Facebook, for now," he said

"They can continue to ride the risk and hope nothing cataclysmic occurs, but I would argue that Facebook has a special responsibility to go beyond doing the bare minimum," he added.

Snowball effect
Mr Bowes' file has spread rapidly across the net.

On the Pirate Bay, the world's biggest file-sharing website, the list was being distributed and downloaded by thousands of users.

One user said that the list showed "why people need to read the privacy agreements and everything they click through".

In a statement to BBC News, Facebook confirmed that the information in the list was already freely available online.

"No private data is available or has been compromised," the statement added.

That view is shared by Mr Bowes, who added that harvesting this data highlighted the possible risks users put themselves in.

"I am of the belief that, if I can do something then there are about 1,000 bad guys that can do it too.

"For that reason, I believe in open disclosure of issues like this, especially when there's minimal potential for anybody to get hurt.

"Since this is already public information, I see very little harm in disclosing it."

Digital trends
However, he said, it also highlighted a new trend that was emerging in the digital age.

"With traditional paper media, it wasn't possible to compile 170 million records in a searchable format and distribute it, but now we can," he said.

"Having the name of one person means nothing, and having the name of a hundred people means nothing; it isn't statistically significant.

"But when you start scaling to 170 million, statistical data emerges that we have never seen in the past."

A spokesperson for Facebook said the list was "similar to the white pages of the phone book.

"This is the information available to enable people to find each other, which is the reason people join Facebook."

"If someone does not want to be found, we also offer a number of controls to enable people not to appear in search on Facebook, in search engines, or share any information with applications."

Earlier this year there was a storm of protest from users of the site over the complexity of Facebook's privacy settings. As a result, the site rolled out simplified privacy controls.

Facebook has a default setting for privacy that makes some user information publicly available. People have to make a conscious choice to opt-out of the defaults.


original article here

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ACCUSE OTHERS OF DOING ONLINE

Have you accused someone of doing something on the internet you only 'know' about through internet searches?

Have you accused someone of hacking, spamming or running a website that someone else told you and you don't REALLY know for sure?

Have you accused someone of watching porn, online shopping or online postings just through checking their IP or by assuming?

Are you really sure?

BE CAREFUL AND THINK AGAIN!

• Elaine Buckley, 50, was fired from her £19,000-a-year job for using the internet for personal use at work
• Her employer accused her of watching hard-core porn but she denied the claims and tried to appeal
• She was unsuccessful and so took her case to the employment tribunal
• No evidence was found to suggest that Mrs Buckley had viewed porn
• The court heard that sites could have been accessed by pop-up sites that Elaine did not know were there or by other people
• Mrs Buckley went through a ‘dark time’ and had to receive counselling

By Sarah Johnson

A churchgoing mother has won a £20,000 unfair dismissal case after she was wrongfully accused of viewing hardcore porn at work.

Elaine Buckley, 50, has been married for almost 30 years and regularly fundraises in her local community. But in 2010 the finance manager was called into her boss’s office to explain why she had been looking at porn sites during working hours.

She strenuously denied the claims but her employers at Waters Edge Ceramics, a dental laboratory in Oldham, fired her for gross misconduct.

The mother-of-two said: ‘The whole experience has been so humiliating. I was just horrified when they first told me of the allegations. I am a normal 50-year-old mum. I like walking my dog, spending time with my children and friends and generally being a mum - not looking at pornography. I believe that what happens between a woman and a man or a man and a man or two women in their bedroom should be kept private between them.'

Mrs Buckley said that in November 2010 the company announced that redundancies would take place. A week later she exchanged cross words with Gemma Taylor, her boss’s daughter, who had been brought in as her line manager after finishing university.

The next day she was invited for a disciplinary meeting at which it was revealed that her computer had been used to view hardcore pornography. IT consultant Paul Burton printed off a report of her computer use - which revealed that the machine had been used to view hard-core pornography. Elaine said: ‘They kept using the words "obscene" and "pornographic" websites.

‘If it was a cooking website then that might make sense because I could be looking up a recipe for a colleague but not a pornography site. I kept denying it. I couldn’t understand why they thought I had been on the sites. I had been working with the company for ten years, they knew me. My computer was used by other people too and the site could have been a pop up site where the cookies saved to the machine. But they didn’t believe me. It was such a dark, dark time for me.’

On November 11, Elaine was handed with two letters announcing her suspension. On 17 December, she was sacked from her role by a further letter. It stated that she had ‘accessed inappropriate and obscene websites’, spent a ‘wholly unacceptable’ amount of time on personal sites and failed to follow an order not to do so. Elaine tried to appeal within the company but was unsuccessful and so took Waters Edge Ceramics to employment tribunal in February 2011.

Manchester Alexandra House heard that the sites could have been accessed by pop-up sites that Elaine did not know were there or other people who used the computer. The hearing was told the company had no evidence that Elaine had viewed pornography.

On November 2, 2011, Employment Judge Diana Kloss recorded that Mrs Buckley was ‘unfairly dismissed’ under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Mrs Buckley, who has undergone counselling as a result of the ordeal, said: ‘Going to the tribunal was nerve wracking. After I had taken to the stand, I was literally shaking all over.

‘I never drink but my husband took me to a pub just down the road and ordered me a Grand Marnier on the rocks. The court accepted that I wasn’t to blame and I was innocent. But my boss has never apologised, he fought it to the death. The money was not an apology, it was for a loss of earnings. I had to have counselling for eight months, up to three times a week.’

Elaine now works as a book keeper for the RSPCA, earning £8.50 an hour.

original article found here

Social Networking Web Sites Encourage Cyberstalking

by Shelby Hill

Many college students use Facebook.com daily without being aware of the cyberstalking threat.

When students put their phone numbers, addresses and other personal information on a social networking site like Facebook, they increase their chances of being a cyberstalking victim, said Michael Kaiser, executive director of the National Cyber Security Alliance.

January was National Stalking Awareness Month and Kaiser said that because people between the ages of 18-24 have the highest victimization rate, due to the popularity of Facebook and MySpace.com, it's important for students to protect themselves against cyberstalking.

"People should be really guarded in sharing personal information," Kaiser said. "I wouldn't suggest that the Internet is a place to write an autobiography."

According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project's January 2009 report about adults and social networking websites, 75 percent of Internet users in the 18-24 age group have a profile on a social networking Web site.

A social networking Web site is a place for people to connect with each other by creating a profile that each individual can customize with pictures, contact information and details about interests, such as music and movies, to reflect that person's personality. Kaiser said an e-mail address is usually the only information needed to become part of a social networking Web site.

Some tips Kaiser had for students were install a firewall, anti-spyware, use the highest privacy settings on social networking web sites and limit the information they put online.

Kaiser advised students that they should "be really careful about who you let into your circle."

Along with the active steps that students can take to protect themselves, Kaiser suggested that students enter their names into a search engine to see if they come across information that they didn't know was there.

"People don't even know sometimes how much information about them there is on the Web," Kaiser said. "People leave trails all over the Internet and stalkers will use those trails."

He said stalkers would use anything from an e-mail address to a phone number, street address or instant message, to stalk a victim.

Nick Penta, a pre-veterinary science freshman, said he thinks an ex-girlfriend stalked him over MySpace. He said she sent him several messages and viewed his profile about 20 times a day to learn about his new girlfriend.

Kaiser said stalking is defined as repeated actions that would cause a reasonable person to feel fear.

Penta added that he wasn't scared of his ex's actions.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice's January 2009 report "Stalking Victimization in the United States," of the 3.4 million Americans who reported being stalked, 25 percent reported being cyberstalked through email or instant messaging.

Stephen Orlando, a pre-business freshman said he experienced the same jealous behavior by an ex, over the Internet.

According to the report, 75 percent of stalking victims were stalked by someone they knew.

"The vast majority of stalking is done by people who know each other," Kaiser said.

Even taking into account Orlando and Penta's experiences with exes over the Web, the two men have not chosen to make their Facebook profiles private and non-viewable to users whom they have not given permission.

Kaiser advised students to "use the highest privacy settings you can on any of the social networking sites."

Amy Cheng, a pre-physiology freshman, said her Facebook profile is private and she doesn't post her personal information on the page.

"I don't put anything on there that I wouldn't show my mom," Cheng said about information on her Facebook profile.

Emily Smith, an undeclared freshman, said that although her profile isn't private, she doesn't put any contact information on her Facebook profile.

She added that if she had more of an issue with cyberstalking she might consider changing her profile to private.

Orlando said that he thinks that cyberstalking is more of an issue for women than men.

"There's a lot more creeper stalker people looking for girls than guys," he said.

Penta said that the difference could be attributed to the fact that some women put relatively provocative photos on their individual profiles.

"They're easier targets, just because their pictures might be more revealing," Penta said.

Whatever the reason, the Department of Justice report did concede that women run a much greater risk for being victims of cyberstalking than men.

Whether the victim is a man or woman, the fact that friends and family support the stalking victim is crucial, Kaiser said.

For more information on cyberstalking, Kaiser said that students should visit the National Center for Victims of Crime's Web site, www.ncvc.org or the National Cyber Security Alliance's Web site, www.staysafeonline.org.

STILL THINK ONLINE DATING IS OK? READ THIS!

Warning sounded over 'flirting robots'

Those entering online dating forums risk having more than their hearts stolen.

A program that can mimic online flirtation and then extract personal information from its unsuspecting conversation partners is making the rounds in chat forums, according to security software firm PC Tools.

The artificial intelligence of CyberLover's automated chats is good enough that victims have a tough time distinguishing the "bot" from a real potential suitor, PC Tools said. The software can work quickly too, establishing up to 10 relationships in 30 minutes, PC Tools said. It compiles a report on every person it meets complete with name, contact information, and photos.

"As a tool that can be used by hackers to conduct identity fraud, CyberLover demonstrates an unprecedented level of social engineering," PC Tools senior malware analyst Sergei Shevchenko said in a statement.

Among CyberLover's creepy features is its ability to offer a range of different profiles from "romantic lover" to "sexual predator." It can also lead victims to a "personal" Web site, which could be used to deliver malware, PC Tools said.

Although the program is currently targeting Russian Web sites, PC Tools is urging people in chat rooms and social networks elsewhere to be on the alert for such attacks. Their recommendations amount to just good sense in general, such as avoiding giving out personal information and using an alias when chatting online. The software company believes that CyberLover's creators plan to make it available worldwide in February.

Robot chatters are just one type of social-engineering attack that uses trickery rather than a software flaw to access victim's valuable information. Such attacks have been on the rise and are predicted to continue to grow.

Mike Greene, vice president of product strategy at PC Tools, said that the company learned of CyberLover's existence earlier this week as part of its regular monitoring of IRC chat rooms and other places where talk about malware takes place.

Greene said that it is hard to tell how prevalent use of the program is.

"We don't have exact statistics, but I think it's early on," he said.

Greene said that the perceived anonymity of the Internet has desensitized people to the fact that information disclosed in an online chat can cause real-world damage.

"People are used to not opening attachments or maybe not clicking on a link that shows up in their IM," he said. "But this emulates a real conversation, so you more are likely to give over personal information, click on a link or send your photograph."

MORE HERE

DON'T TAKE GOOGLE FOR GRANTED!

Instead of taking Google for granted, we need to remember that criminals get the same easy access to information we get from a capable and quick search engine.

To see what the Internet knows about you, start by going to the Google site or by using the Google toolbar. Next, either type your name in quotations or, for a more refined search, type intext: (intext with a colon) immediately followed by your name in quotes. Now type your address or phone number, and Google may turn up a church or a social group directory listing. If this doesn't surprise or outrage you, type into Google your social security number or credit card numbers. (You can also use metasearches such as Mamma.com, Dogpile.com or others)

So never put anything personal, such as your social security number on a resume, on the Internet, not even temporarily. Be careful about using the same nickname over and over - especially if you have posts on sites you'd prefer others don't see. Sites like Archive.org can have incriminating posts of yours cached for years.

And if you find such information on a cached Web page - find out how to get it removed and do so, if possible. (google cache can be PERMANENT)

ORIGINAL POST

Hacker Jailed After Spying on Computer Users Using Their Own Cameras

A hacker spied on countless computer users by manipulating their home webcams.

Matthew Anderson, 33, is understood to have sent out 50million ‘spam’ emails containing an attachment for recipients to click on. All of those who did so – believed to be 200,000 – had their computer infected with a virus that left it effectively ‘enslaved’.

Anderson was then able to rifle through private files and saved photographs – and even switch on web cameras attached to the computers. At his leisure he then sat spying into the living rooms or bedrooms of strangers. The victims will have been completely unaware of his watching eyes.

When he was caught in a four-year police operation, officers found he had stored pictures and film of dozens of people in their own homes. Among clips was that of a 16-year-old girl bursting into tears when Anderson began changing words on her computer screen. He then gloated to a fellow hacker about tormenting her, revealing he had been using her webcam for hours, viewing her sisters, and lamenting the fact they were not naked.

Anderson was working in an international hacking gang called ‘m00p’ with at least three others. Only one other, from Finland, has been caught. He was jailed for 18 months today after pleading guilty to ‘unauthorised modification of computer systems’ at Southwark Crown Court in London. However, he is likely to serve just nine months. The court heard the father-of-five, who was born in Rochdale, carried out his crimes in the home of his mother Ruth, 54, in Banffshire, Scotland.

He claimed through his barrister that he joined online chatrooms after being left house-bound by panic attacks in his early 20s. Publicly he ran a computer security firm – offering to protect clients, ironically, from people like himself.

Simon Ward, defending, said Anderson was motivated by ‘the feeling of power that comes from the knowledge that you have control over something that others don’t know you have the control of’.

As well as private home computers, Anderson targeted the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, Oxford University and government computers. But he avoided military sources for fear of detection.

The ‘cutting edge’ software behind his virus has been ranked as among the best in the world.
Anderson was caught after the m00p gang was investigated jointly by Scotland Yard and Finnish authorities when a computer expert at John Radcliffe hospital raised concerns. Anderson was found to have profited by £12,000 by selling on to legitimate marketing firms email addresses harvested from computer address books.

But it was the webcams he used and the personal data, including nude photos and bank account details, which he had access to and copied that is particularly chilling. Investigating officer Detective Constable Bob Burls said Anderson’s initial spam emails typically told recipients they had a computer problem, and offered to fix it. When they clicked on the file, the hacker’s virus was let loose to hijack the computer, although it seemed to continue working normally. From his remote location he could record every word typed, or copy the computer screen at any time.

Anderson and his fellow gang members operated unhindered for years – with around one in 250 spam recipients being taken in.

During police monitoring, Anderson – who used online nicknames including warpig and, warpiglet – successfully enslaved 1,743 computers in just 90 minutes. His fellow gang members were known online as Kdoe, CraDle and Okasvi - with the last, real name Artturi Alm, being the only other hacker brought to justice when jailed in his native Finland two years ago.

Mr Burls said the hacker copied one victim’s will, website passwords, banking passwords.

original article here

YOUR PERSONAL INFO - JUST A CLICK AWAY?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

Minimize What People Can Find Out About You Online

People Search Engines: They Know Your Dark Secrets … and Tell Anyone
By JR Raphael, PC World

Social search engines can turn up your Amazon Wish List, photos of your kids, where your kids go to school, your address, your business, where you went to school, your musical tastes, your medical problems, all about your breakups & divorces, your mental health status and much, much more. What else is out there that you don't want everyone to know, and what can you do to protect yourself?


I know things about my lawyer I absolutely should not know. He's 55 years old, listens to the music of the band Creed, and screams like a little girl when riding roller coasters. He also relaxes with New Age spa treatments and is thinking about getting an electronic nose-hair trimmer. And that's just the start.

Now, let me be clear: I've never spent a single moment outside the office with this guy (and for what it's worth, I'd just as soon not be privy to his personal grooming habits). I learned all of these details by tracking his social footprint across the Web -- and he probably has no idea that he has left such a vivid trail behind.

In our age of social sharing, we expect some of our thoughts to be public. But as we slowly put more and more pieces of ourselves online, specialized search engines are making it easier than ever to pull them together into a highly detailed (and potentially invasive) profile of our virtual lives (read "Online Stalking Made Easy").

I'll let you in on a little secret: The picture isn't always pretty. And even if no rap sheet turns up, do you really want the world to know that you look at bad-breath cures online or post awful "Star Trek" fan fiction?

The depths of the Deep Web
You hear a lot of terms bounced around when you talk about this growing breed of search engines. Some services like to be called "social search" utilities, while others prefer the phrase "people search." Many boast of their ability to delve through the "Deep Web" that even Google doesn't touch.

"Even though most people think the size of the Web is basically the Google crawl index, there's actually a lot of information that Google doesn't crawl," says Harrison Tang, founder and CEO of Spokeo -- which, taking a mash-up approach to its identification, describes itself as a "social people search engine" service.

People search engine Spokeo is upfront about what it thinks it can find on anyone.
Spokeo, like its competitors Pipl and CVGadget, is designed to let you dig up information on friends, foes and anyone in between. Spokeo goes a step further than many of the other services, though, by importing your entire e-mail address book.

Then, for a few bucks a month, it continually monitors your contacts and lets you know whenever anyone has done anything new, anywhere online. (The site's home page promises to help you "uncover personal photos, videos and secrets," including "juicy" and "mouth-watering news about friends and co-workers.")

Each individual bit of information may seem insignificant, but the cumulative effect of seeing it assembled in a neatly packaged portfolio is enough to give almost anyone pause.

"Aggregated identity is actually a new type of identity," Tang says, theorizing about why so many people seem to use the word "spooky" when describing his service. "A lot of people know that they have a public MySpace page, a lot of people know that they have a public Twitter album. But, when combined together, it's not one plus one equals two -- you actually create a new identity."

How Spokeo works
Spokeo's system uses your contacts' e-mail addresses to track their activity on a few dozen services, ranging from basic blogs and social networks to a slew of photo- and video-sharing sites. That means the random photos of your kids you shared on Flickr two years ago (or perhaps those less innocent images from your spring-break trip a decade earlier) will pop up right under your name, seconds after someone searches for you.
Less obvious sources such as Amazon Wish Lists, Pandora playlists and movie rating sites fill in the colorful details that you may not have realized were out there at all -- things like (in my lawyer's case) an affinity for New Age jams and nasal maintenance.

I found Mr. Attorney's age on an old MySpace profile and his roller coaster behavior on a personal YouTube video, but Pandora divulged his cravings for Creed and his suggested usages for the "Spa Radio" station he had created. As for the nose-hair trimmer, he can thank his Amazon Wish List for sending that factoid my way.

For sale: Your information
Rapleaf gathers information from the Deep Web -- often posted by you -- and sells it to marketers.

Other services access the same data and then sell the information under the banner of marketing research. One highly visible example is Rapleaf, a company that describes its services as "data and people lookup." Clients pay thousands of dollars to have detailed social profiles of individuals compiled in their own customer databases. As is the case with the data that Spokeo assembles, the information is all publicly available -- Rapleaf just brings it together. "Things that people have posted are out there for anyone to come and see," says Joel Jewitt, Rapleaf's vice president of business development. "As long as you're not going beyond that, that's within the privacy norms today."

Most of Rapleaf's clients, Jewitt says, are simply trying to understand how to use social media more effectively for marketing. An auto manufacturer, for example, might want to know which car models its customers are checking out and discussing on social Internet services. Armed with the company's list of customer e-mail addresses, Rapleaf would crawl the Web and track down the information, person by person.

"It's pretty standard Web spidering," Jewitt says. "We re-create in an automatic way what someone from the general public would be able to do if they were looking."

Electronic exposure
Whether they target businesses or individuals, the services have one thing in common: Unlike the public-record-driven search tools of the past, the new people-tracking utilities build a highly detailed dossier about you solely from information that you yourself published -- a circumstance that may give you a distinct feeling of discomfort.

"What it does is make the ubiquity of the Internet and the sheer openness of the world tangible," says Internet privacy expert Kevin B. McDonald, executive vice president of Alvaka Networks, a network management firm. "It makes the whole concept of the world sharing of information and the 'no-walls' approach that the Internet was designed for very real to people."

The reality can be chilling if the information is going to certain interested individuals: a curious client, a boss big on background checks or an obsessive ex, say. A recent study reported that half of all British Internet users surveyed admitted to having used the Internet to look up information on a former flame. The ease with which someone can arrange to monitor your every electronic move certainly adds a new dimension to the idea of fixation.

"It is a little 'stalkery,'" says Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "If the information is distributed, that's actually a form of privacy. When it's gathered up in one place, it creates some new risks."

Rotenberg is no fan of companies that assemble nuggets of personal but public information to turn a profit. "The fact that someone's made something public doesn't mean that someone else can sell it," he contends. "I would say even with affirmative consent, if there's going to be a market for personal data, the user should get some percentage of whatever value the data has."

Taking control
The thing to remember, of course, is that these services aren't doing anything illegal. The information they gather is information that anyone who knew where to look -- and had the time to do it -- could find. So rather than ignoring the king-size file that may have been collected on you, McDonald suggests, you should try to use it as a tool to understand and control your online identity.

"I've come to the point where rather than be driven by the Internet, I intend to drive it to the degree that I can," he says.

"All you can do is learn to live with it," McDonald says. "That's the confines of the world that we live in."

For suggestions on concrete steps you can take to reduce your online exposure, see "People Search Engines: Slam the Door on What Info They Can Collect."

ORIGINAL

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

Holiday Greetings from an Online Predator

(he must be in heaven... on TV and something to send all his proxies, targets and friends to prove what a "nice guy" he is... classic obfuscatory move by a predator!)
*************

The Ceaseless Internet Mask of Doug Beckstead

Doug Beckstead just can't get enough of his own voice or writing (very similar to fellow cyberpath Yidwithlid). Doug makes sure his self-aggrandizing writing, constant hunt for friends (digging back as far as college & high school to find them!) and blatant display of old high school acquaintances from 30 years ago are apparently online.

Cyberpaths FREQUENTLY do this after being exposed hoping that old friends who don't know about their predatory secret lives will unwittingly 'stick up for them' using multiple posts and to push exposes like EOPC down on any searches for their name(s). This also covertly harasses their victims and helps in the cyberpaths efforts to make those they used & abused look "crazy". EOPC knows better!

It's such obvious self-promoting P.R. - we are shocked anyone with any sense continues to believe it. (our comments in dark blue)

BECKSTEAD SHAMELESS USES NATURAL DISASTER FOR MORE ATTENTION!

Here's a few of Beckstead's latest Mental Droppings from around the net:

http://www.mylife.com/dog_driver
Facebook & Yahoo Chat Groups have not been enough for this predator, he continues to advertise for more "friends" on the above. Must keep up appearances!! Twitter is next folks!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SAHS77/message/179
"I've attached the third in my series of "Memos from Mortaritaville" to let everyone know what's happening over there. All-in-all it was one hell of an adventure. I did things that I never could have imagined two years ago. And I got to see things that I had only seen on National Geographic programs before. I've seen houses made of mud bricks just like they've been made of four thousands of years and I've seen the palaces of Saddam Hussein and his perverted flaunting of the nation's wealth (and yes, I even took a leak in one of his golden toilets!)." - Beckstead

TOO MUCH INFORMATION Doug! As if we really all need to know where you're using the bathroom! Typical bad boundaries with a cyberpath.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SAHS77/message/309
"It's great seeing everyone tossing ideas around about getting together following holidays. I sure wish I could make it back for one."- Beckstead

Translation of what this predator is saying: "It is much easier for me to con you from a distance than to have you so up close and seeing how hollow & exploitative I really am."

This proves he does not see these "friends" as frequently as he has so often alluded to and lied about. Nor do they see and truly KNOW what he does behind a keyboard with his pants down. Besides it is easier to lie and keep the fantasies and lures more believable from a distance for a predator like Doug Beckstead. He craves and fishes for the constant praise and attention. Classic Narcissist.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SAHS77/message/322
"Merry Christmas!
Doug and Carol Beckstead"

Pretending to show a united front by signing for the often-betrayed wife as well. Just like Jacoby, Gash, Yid with Lid, Capers, Thomas and the rest of these married cyberpaths.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SAHS77/message/418
"I too can attest to the impact made by letters received from both friends and strangers alike when deployed. Occasionally one of the people from our Chaplains Office would come through HQ and drop off a few letters or post cards from people back home. It was always a pleasure to read them. When they had return addresses I would pick up some post cards at the BX and write a short "thank you" back to them. Every one of the letters that I received while in Iraq came home with me."- Beckstead

Pumping up his true (somewhat low) importance with his new favorite word "deployed". Elmendorf Air Force Base has been told this man has a proven predatory history and yet the Chaplain's Office hands this predator future victims on a platter? And Beckstead is NOT an enlisted man. He is NON MILITARY. This is a real slap at the men & women who truly protect countries like the U.S.A. to have a pathological liar like Beckstead piggybacking on their service.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SAHS77/message/433
"And yes, we wear body armor and everyone is armed here. The only place I go without my "best friend" is the shower and the gym. If you want to try something really fun, try eating dinner with an M-16 between your legs and the butt cradled against your arm (we can't lay them on the floor due to the tripping hazard). I think I'll be down to my old high school fighting weight by the time I leave here. Nothing like carrying around 65 pounds of body armor to take off the pounds."- Beckstead

Sympathy lures abound when reading this post in its full entirety (see link above). And the narcissistic bragging is all over the post!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SAHS77/message/437
"I try and be friendly and professional around them. Although the other day we passed a couple who were definitely not friendly. Their "Spidey Sense" goes up a few notches in those cases."
"You never know what could be lurking underneath." - Beckstead

Spoken like a true predator. Takes one to know one.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SAHS77/message/445
"RE: [SAHS77] Pics from Afghanistan"
"My most humble thanks Anne."
"To clarify the whole rank thing, I am actually a civilian with the Air Force. I am not a contractor. I work directly for the commanding general here on the base and back home when I get there."
"I live and work in sort of a gray area between the civilian and active-duty worlds. The vast majority of civilians who work for the Dept of Defense never deploy. With my job it is a requirement that I deploy because I am considered an "Emergency-Essential" employee. At Elmendorf AFB, where I work, there are four of us in that catagory, out of approximately 6,000 civilian employees." - Beckstead

Beckstead has attracted the attention he so desperately craves and works HARD for with his writing here, so he embellishes, overblows and twists the reality a little further for effect for those who are clueless to his true nature.

For those who have been following this predator's trail of lies and deceit, you will notice how he is no longer referring to himself as the "dedicated historian". Now he portrays himself as one of Elmendorf's elite - an "Emergency Essential" no less.

What happened to be "being sent to write about history as it happens?" (Beckstead's own words) Like all these pathologicals, things change on the spot - as needed - to get what they must have - victims!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SAHS77/message/446
A Movement in the Shadows
"They knelt as one body keeping their arms straight down to their sides. Then, after a few seconds, the man who was apparently the leader bent at the waist, placed his outstretched hands on the ground, then placed his forehead on his hands. The group then followed his movements as a single body. Their movements were fluid, almost like watching water flowing in a stream."

When you click on this link (see above) you will notice a sudden change of his dramatizations & writing style - proving yet again he truly is, as all cyberpaths are, a chameleon for the cause - HIS OWN. He uses words and self-inflated reports to baffle brains. Beckstead knows how to pull out all of the stops to impress the ladies & men - who really don't know any better, as you will see when you read the replies to some of his posts.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SAHS77/message/448
The Bagram Bazaar
19 September 2009
"A walk down the rows of stalls was almost like walking through an Indiana Jones movie. The first thing to impact you is the visual stimulation of a rainbow of colors. The vendors have hung fabric of red, yellow, blue and green to designate their shop space. They also extend out over the walkways providing a sort of billowing awning. The bright fall sun intensifies their brilliance and imparts a colorful hue to the scene."

Here Beckstead rolls out the descriptive imagery to reel everyone in on his magical mystery tour of Bagram. His attempts are very transparent to his victims (as they have all written to us), as over the top and truly pathetic. Not too many bites from his clueless followers this time around. Wonder if they are beginning to catch on to Mr Crucial "Emergency essential"? Self-promotion gets tired after a while but he and cyberpath Yid with Lid can't see to grasp that. No true pathological would.

"One man, who was selling all sorts of carved wooden items, including some beautiful intricately carved wooden boxes, said that they would make a wonderful gift for my wife. I asked him what made him so sure that I was married?"
"He replied, “You don't have wife?”
"I said, “Yes, I have two,” holding up two fingers."
"He held up two fingers with a look of puzzled amazement on his face and asked, “Two? You have two wives?” - Beckstead

Forever the facetious con-man Beckstead laps it up by playing more head games, this time with the wary locals. A big kick for Beckstead, but truly unnecessary. Not giving the locals a nice impression of the ethics of the U.S. military, are you Beckstead?

Like all our exposed predators, they can't help but go a step too far! Now Beckstead compares himself to Alexander the Great just because he is allegedly walking the same soil. (him and how many other 1000s of people over the ages? but Beckstead has to squeeze some polish for his image out of everything!) Truly pathetic. If only these people REALLY knew!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SAHS77/message/453
"Hmmm, I could have sworn that there were pictures with the first message I sent out about the Bazaar. Oh well, I'll just forward them around again.

Life is definitely hopping over here. The bad guys keep letting us know they're serious about trying to throw us out. But little do they know ...

Our base sits in the Hindu Kush mountains. It's a rather historic area. Just the other day I was out walking and took a good long look at the rugged mountains that surround us. Then it dawned on me. I was looking at the same view that Alexander the Great saw when he came through here in 327 BC and Ghengis Khan saw when he came through the area. Damn, there's some major history here.

Does anyone remember the Swedish exchange student we had at SAHS in our senior year? Her name was xxxx. I took her out to Valley Forge to one of those crazy Rev War things I used to be involved with. She really put a damper on it the whole Bicentennial thing when she told me, "I don't understand what you Americans are so excited about only 200 years of history. The town I live in is 700 years old."

Well, now that I'm here in Afghanistan, walking in the same places that Alexander the Great walked when he conquered people who had already been living here for thousands of years, somehow American history just seems so, uhhh, young.

So xxxx, here are your pictures. See, I really did ride the camel!"

At least Beckstead seems to have a new girlfriend in the Middle East. ;)

Exposure: Good -- Harassment: Bad

Doing this sort of thing can get YOU arrested!


A 22-year-old sailor told police Tuesday he’s not happy about getting what he called “harassing” phone calls after his information and photo were posted under the “gay section” of Craigslist, according to Bremerton, WA Police reports.

The man, stationed aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, told police he doesn’t know who’s responsible, but said two ads have been put up on the Kitsap County, Washington portion of the site and another ad has been put up on an out-of-state portion of the site.

Police are still investigating. Anyone with information is asked to call 911.

Cyberstalkers Violate Victims with Cutting Edge

By Stephen T. Watson

It can be a GPS device implanted under a car’s dashboard, revealing where the victim is at any time.

Or a video camera hidden in a home and disguised as a baseball cap or a calculator.

Or spyware surreptitiously downloaded onto a computer that provides remote access to e-mail, the user’s schedule and every Web site she visits.

Stalkers today don’t have to lurk outside an office or trail a car to keep track of their target’s every move, because technical advances make it easier for them to harass their victims.

These high-tech tools tell stalkers where their victims are, what they are doing and whom they are talking to, all from a distance and hidden behind an electronic veil of secrecy.

“We’re noticing some folks we work with are starting to say, ‘How did he know that? How did he know I was here?’ ” said Robyn Wiktorski- Reynolds, advocate program coordinator at Crisis Services. “I know it’s happening, and I know it has instilled a lot of fear in people that it could happen [to them]. It’s just the new method of doing it.”

Law enforcement officials, victim advocates and tech experts say they have seen an increase in cases in which stalkers have used old and new technologies to track their victims.

Local police and prosecutors say they have seen a handful of such cases, and a study released this year by the U. S. Department of Justice found that electronic stalking is a serious problem.

“More and more, we’re seeing stalkers using this technology to facilitate the behavior they’ve always engaged in,” said Michelle M. Garcia, director of the Stalking Resource Center at the National Center for Victims of Crime, in Washington, D. C.

Potential victims need to know that stalkers are using these high-tech devices and that they must be careful about what they share online, advocates say.

“It’s a very serious concern, and the problem with so-called stalking technology is that there’s very little that victims can do to identify or stop this covert tracking,” said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

Some of this technology — such as hidden surveillance cameras or tiny audio recording devices — has been used by criminals and police alike for years. Today, however, the devices are smaller and cheaper, and the surveillance software is easier to use and more accessible.

Getting harder to track
A January report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, an arm of the Justice Department, found that 3.4 million people reported being stalked during a recent 12-month period.

During that time, covering part of 2005 and 2006, one in four victims said they were harassed by e-mail, text message or some other form of cyber-stalking, while one in 13 victims said they were stalked through some form of electronic monitoring.

It’s easy to obscure the origin of a phone call or e-mail, and people can send text messages anonymously through any of a number of Webbased services.

In one case, a young woman received several threatening calls on her cell phone from a man who knew her name, said Edward C. Hempling, director of training at the Erie Community College County Law Enforcement Training Academy.

The calls showed up as “Blocked ID,” Hempling said, and the man didn’t stop when the woman said she would call the police. The man called again, Hempling said, and he threatened an officer when he took the phone.

The investigation into the source of the calls, which is continuing, hasn’t been easy, he added. “It took two weeks for them to get the phone number,” Hempling said. “You increase the level of the technology, you’re increasing the time and the level of expertise required to properly investigate it.”

Global-positioning system technology has made it easier for stalkers to keep track of their victims’ location.

A stalker can implant a GPS device or another tracking device in a car and keep tabs on the position of the vehicle through an Internet connection.

Listening devices are getting easier to hide, cheaper and higher-quality. Newer technology allows users to tap into every file on a cell phone’s subscriber identity module, or SIM, card, the portable memory chip used by most cellular providers.

Also, a cell phone can be hidden in a car or home and programmed so that when stalkers call a phone, they can listen in on whatever conversation is taking place.

Video cameras, too, are getting smaller and easier to hide. They can be made to look like everyday objects and operate over a wireless connection, so the footage can be monitored online.

This month, for example, a West Seneca man was charged with hiding a spy camera in the bedroom of his girlfriend’s teenage daughter so that he could watch and record her dressing and undressing.

The Internet and cutting-edge computer software have opened new opportunities for stalkers interested in illicitly obtaining personal data.

Firms sell information
Spyware, often unintentionally downloaded onto the victim’s computer, can keep track of every Web site a computer user visits, e-mail traffic and instant messaging. Keystroke logging software, once installed, goes further and covertly transmits or keeps a record of everything the victim has typed onto the computer.

“There’s some way you can send e-mail that has a Trojan horse so that I can see where you’re going on your computer,” Amherst Assistant Police Chief Timothy M. Green said.

At a domestic-violence conference held in March at ECC, Jodi Rafkin recalled a woman who was stalked and killed in 1999 outside her office by a former classmate who found out where she worked through one of the companies that obtain and sell such information on demand.

The stalker, Liam Youens, had obsessed over Amy Boyer for years and devoted two Web sites to detailed descriptions of his hatred for her and his intentions to kill her, said Rafkin, a program attorney with the Stalking Resource Center.

Boyer’s family began a crusade to try to shut down such companies, which dig up phone records, as well.

In one pending Niagara County case, a man is accused of putting tracking devices in his estranged wife’s cell phone and in a laptop computer given to their children, said Lisa M. Baehre, an assistant district attorney and head of the office’s Domestic Violence Bureau.

Experts say law enforcement officials need to devote the time and resources for better training in detection, prevention and investigation of electronic stalking.

The conference at ECC’s North Campus was a local step in that direction, but more is needed because the technology is advancing so rapidly and the cases are so complex.

‘A daunting task’
“For the law enforcement side, it’s definitely a daunting task to think that every time you take one step forward, the bad guys take three steps forward,” said Supervisory Special Agent Jeffrey A. Tricoli, head of the cybercrime program with the Buffalo office of the FBI.

Potential victims need to be aware that stalkers can use the Internet and high-tech devices in committing their crimes and that they need to be cautious while using the Web.

“We talk to people about being careful what they put on the computer,” said Laura E. Grube, a coordinator with Child & Family Services Haven House, serving victims of domestic violence,“being careful about what they share on their Facebook page [and] knowing about their privacy settings.”

Original Article

U.S. Congress has Web Privacy in Their Sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some civil liberties groups disagreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORIGINAL ARTICLE