E-Stalkers On the Prowl

by Rizanuzzaman Laskar

While conventional stalking has received much attention lately, harassment through mobile phones and the internet has grown to be a silent epidemic in the last few years.

The Daily Star has recently interviewed 30 women at random about the issue, and found every one of them has been harassed electronically by ex-boyfriends or strangers.

"It is sexual harassment of the new millennium," said Sultana Kamal, rights activist and former adviser to the caretaker government. “And almost all the victims are women."

Kamal said the anonymity of the electronic communication devices makes it more likely for a person to indulge in stalking. “Some people are turning to these tools to do and say things they otherwise would not do.

The women interviewed were middle and upper class professionals, students and a housewife.

One was a schoolgirl who spent sleepless nights because of crank calls; another was an industrialist's daughter who stumbled across obscene pictures and her personal details on a Facebook profile someone else had opened in her name.

Naima Hossain, a college student, was taunted and teased over the phone for a week by a person she had never met. The stalker, who asked her out several times, threatened to throw acid on her face for refusal.

"That they [stalkers] do not have a face makes it even more traumatic for the victims," said Shamim F Karim, a psychology professor at Dhaka University.

Getting stalked by someone the victim knows can be no less unnerving.

Shamrin Afia Adiba, a BBA student, knew her stalker. For three years, she got taunting phone calls almost every hour.

About the nightmare she had gone through, she said it felt like her life was being slowly poisoned.

The stalker, a jilted male friend working at a telecom operator, used her cellphone number to track her location in real time. He let her know he was watching her, and threatened several times to kidnap her.

Switching to a different operator did not help, as he managed to trace Shamrin's new number through a friend working there.

While no statistics are available to confirm the number of electronic stalking victims, social experts point out that almost every woman using a mobile phone or the internet has suffered abuse at one time or another.

From January to July this year, 44 women reported harassment to the cyber crime prevention cell of the police's detective branch. In response, the police have blocked 46 SIM cards.

The law enforcers however admit that blocking SIM is not enough, as most people own multiple numbers, and a new subscription is only some cash away.

They said the existing laws appear toothless when it comes to fighting e-stalking, as some of them are more than a hundred years old.

Mustafizur Rahman, officer-in-charge of the New Market Police Station, said, "The laws require us to know the stalker's identity to take action against him. This is a major problem since in many cases the perpetrator remains unidentified."

Supreme Court lawyer Nina Goswami, director (mediation) at Ain O Salish Kendra, the rights group which has received two cyber-stalking cases this year, stresses the need for a law against cyber crimes.

"It is difficult to take action against the stalkers as there is no specific law,'' said the lawyer, herself a victim of mobile phone harassment.

A proposed act to curb cellphone-related crimes and harassment promises some respite. The draft law defines stalking, both physical and digital, as sexual harassment, and prescribes punishment.

Experts, however, fear the new law may prove ineffective, as most of the stalking incidents tend to go unreported.

Arifa Hossain says she perhaps knows why victims are reluctant to complain to the police. She went to the local police station to report abusive phone calls but thought better of it.

"You won't expect much from the cops once you see how they fumble with the mouse and eye the computer as if it's an alien thing."

A police representative admitted there is a lack of tech-savvy officers needed to hunt down high-tech criminals. He said this is a reason why the detective branch's cyber crime cell, set up in 2008, exists in name only.

Exceptional cases, however, receive special attention from the police. When a youth posted offensive materials on Facebook to taunt politicians in May, he was arrested within days and the whole social networking website was banned for a week.

"Banning an entire website is out of the question. But there should be some sort of a law or policy to safeguard our young women," said Dr Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, a professor at Shahjalal University of Science and Technology.

Experts believe fear of social stigma is another reason why victims are loath to file complaints with the police.

"Forget police, women do not tell anyone about being harassed for fear of being stigmatised," said Shamim F Karim, psychology teacher at DU. "Women, especially those in the city, have become somewhat accustomed to harassment in everyday life."

She suggested that anyone experiencing harassment over the phone or the internet should inform her family members immediately. "The family members can go to the police if necessary."

She noted that some young women, who are actually unaware that they are being subjected to a form of sexual harassment, try to laugh off the matter.

Some do not.

Trisa Gloria Rodriguez, for one, has been receiving irritating phone calls for some time. The stalker calls from different numbers and makes loud smooching noises.

She tried to reason with him, but it did not work. Yelling did not bring result either.

"Disgusting. I feel like kicking him,” says an irate Trisa

original article here

FOR THE VICTIMS: BETRAYAL, YOUR FEAR & THE CYBERPATH

Once you find out what the cyberpath is they may do a combination of any of the following:

• Disappear and/or block you and/or change their nicknames, identity & emails
• Lash out at you
• Smear you
• Belittle you & call you names
• Tell everyone that you both know you are "crazy" or "stalking them" or (the oldest one there is) you're a "scorned man/woman."
• many other nasty, malicious things worthy of a 9 year old

This is betrayal. This is what pathological people do when their 'mask of normalcy' is pulled off. You reel from it because you can't understand. You can't imagine what happened to the attentive loving guy you met who seemed understanding. Nothing happened. That wasn't the REAL PERSON. This monster who is out for your virtual heart is the real person.

Everything else? was a lie.

All you will get now is narcissistic rage. Anger that you busted them. And threats of harm to you, your family and so on. Just read through the stories on the right of our exposed predators and see how they treated their victims.

Take a look at Ed Hicks, Doug Beckstead, Dunetz/ Yidwithlid, Brad Dorsky or Dan Jacoby . Look at how they were to their targets once they got bored or angry with them. Watch their rage, their blame-shifting, their guilt tripping and their disappearing acts from the lives of people who people who really loved and cared about them.

The one thing we can tell you here at EOPC is that 90% of the time, the threats are a form of "control by temper tantrum." Like a 6 year old they are mad that you won't play their game or said "NO MORE" to them. Or they got bored and don't want to play with you anymore, so your emails and attention is suddenly ANNOYING. Now they kick, scream, say rude things & stomp away hoping you will be so upset you will let them start up their game again. Either with you or someone else.

Or, that you are so scared of them you dare don't expose them or tell others. DON'T FALL FOR IT!

And don't for a second think they haven't told their online friends, offline friends, partner/ spouse, job... that you are "obsessed with" them or a "scorned" person. So when you send just one more email or make one more call hoping for explanation, closure, something... they say "see!! see how she is!! she's nuts and won't leave me alone! she's trying to manipulate me!"

What childish bull.

If you really want to help them? Expose them. Make them accountable. Don't let them scare you into silence. Help others stay away! Maybe they will get their relationship/ marriage right. Maybe they will go into LONG TERM counseling. The odds are 98% of them don't.

"The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

But don't let them scare you. Stand up to a bully no matter how long or what it takes. Take back what they took from you. Your power, your dignity and your peace of mind. - EOPC

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Betrayal, when realized, is a phenomenal existential feeling. Suddenly, your world is no longer the one you believed in. You question reality, but most of all you question yourself.

How, you wonder, could I have been so naive, stupid, blind, trusting, unseeing, unknowing? It may be difficult to believe, but these questions are good. YOU are the normal person, the one who aligns reality (he was so nice to me, he was my friend) with a cognitive belief: he ACTS as if he likes me, he TELLS me he likes me, I see no reason not to believe him because in my past, people who act and speak this way, CAN be trusted. There is congruency. But not now.

Suddenly, you learn that someone trusted - a spouse, lover, family member, close friend - has been putting you down, lying, manipulating others against you, and yet maintaining a stance of intimacy with you.

The world is not clear, the ground you stand on is wobbly. You will never feel good about this. You will not "Get Over" it. But you CAN move forward. You can do so by realizing that no matter how awful the betrayal, YOU are the normal person and this betrayal comes from rage.

This person envies you in some way, is enraged about it, and MUST put you down behind your back. They MUST harm you.

They have no choice. But you do.

In the world of normals, after we get over the shock, we can use this experience to become stronger, to help others, to learn to avoid this particular toxin, and to calm ourselves that the higher moral ground is ours. It's too bad this person acted as he did, we wish he did not, but we are NOT diminished by their pathology. Wiser, sadder, but never diminished.
~~~~

EOPC believes that cyberpathy is a form of pathology. Either narcissistic or sociopathic/ anti-social. Because its exploitative and the cyberpath has no remorse or guilt. Therefore we publish this article for the victims of cyberpaths.

Don't believe they aren't hurting you on purpose. They are. You are not the 'object' they treated you like. Stand up and tell them. They will probably disappear from your life while painting themselves as the victim - OF YOU!

Stop giving them the opportunity - stop trying to "get through" to them, stand up for yourself and starting healing you!

Hurting You Isn't Something Narcissists Do by Accident
by Kathy Krajco

In all the jabber about narcissism, the worst noise is this idea that hurting you is something narcissists do by accident.

If you get nothing else out of "What Makes Narcissists Tick," get the message that frees you of that ridiculous belief. Which is nothing but a baseless assumption.

I don't ask you to take my word for this. Test what I say when I say that narcissists hurt you on purpose. Anyone can test any narcissist.

Here's how: The next time the narcissist is hurting your feelings or making you feel low, let your feelings show and tell him or her how they are making you feel asking them to stop it.Be prepared for a shock. Any normal human being would soften and let up, but a narcissist will do exactly the opposite.

What does that mean?

Is revving up their engines, kicking in the afterburners, and running you right over an "accident" after you show your soft underbelly and beg them to let up on you?

It's no "accident," that's for sure.

Want to see a narcissistic rage? That's no "accident" either. The test: Just fall to your knees in tears begging them to have a heart and stop kicking you around like dirt.
The narcissist's response? He or she blows up into a rage. Is that rage an "accident" when nothing but how deeply they are hurting you provokes it?

No, it's a willful and wanton outrage.

Now hear this: THEY DON'T DO IT BY ACCIDENT. They aren't just inconsiderate and touchy.

Test their "touchiness" (if you can do so safely, or have somebody not at the N's mercy test it - someone who can defend themselves).

Rage right back in their face. Act just as wild right back in their face. Threaten right back. Speak abusively right back.

Now any normal person would be provoked to rage by your doing this in their face. But narcissists are so UNtouchy that they do the opposite. Watch how instantaneously the raging narcissist becomes meek and mild and switches to his "I-wouldn't-hurt-a-fly-mask."

Don't take my word for it. Test it.

You CANNOT insult a narcissist who isn't in a position to bully you! It's impossible. Try it, you'll see. Your lack of vulnerability gives them skin a foot thick! (Not to mention a rubber spine.)

"Touchy" my you-know-what.

They aren't touchy at all. So perceived slights aren't what set them off. The VULNERABILITY of a TARGET OF OPPORTUNITY is what sets them off - IF there are no witnesses.

That's predation, not touchiness.

Narcissists aren't inconsiderate of your feelings. To the contrary, they are extremely considerate of your feelings. Your feelings are exactly what they are trying to affect. They closely observe how you react every time they do something to hurt you.

And they are like sharks, able to smell a drop of blood a mile away. Why? Because your hurt feelings are their pain killing drug.

They are addicted to it. Ever since childhood.

That's what their mental illness is, an addiction. (In fact, all addictions are classed as mental illness.)

So where do people get the stupid idea that narcissists aren't to blame for what they do?

It's asinine to think that narcissists can't control themselves when we see them controlling themselves perfectly whenever witnesses are present. So, what? being behind closed doors makes them suddenly out of control of themselves? Baloney.

Their problem isn't lack of self control; it's lack of conscience. Conscience is what makes people behave the same in the dark as in the light of day.

Okay, they have an addiction to trampling people. They are hooked on the childish high they get from throwing somebody down, stepping on the victim's back, and thumping their chest with a Tarzan yell.

But since when does an addiction amount to a carte blanche? An addiction is just a TEMPTATION. It doesn't remove the addict's responsibility to resist that temptation.

If a heroin addict sees you with heroin, he will attack and may kill you for it - IF there are no witnesses present.

But do we absolve him of his responsibility for the crime just because he's addicted to heroin? Of course not.

Same with the narcissist. Since childhood he has done this mind-altering drug of abusing people and is addicted to it. He addicted himself.

Yet addicted as he is, he demonstrates the ability to control himself by behaving whenever witnesses are present, misbehaving only when he thinks he can get away with it.

Innocence that is not.

He does what he does because nothing but getting his drug matters to him. So he has no conscience. He lives to get it, whenever he can get away with it.

So, hurting others isn't something narcissists do by accident. It's how they live.

The victims of narcissists must understand this. They must quit falling for the masks predation conceals itself behind.

I don't care how much the poor, little, ole narcissist whines that he didn't mean to, and claims that he has an excuse because HIS feelings were somehow hurt, and weeps about what a miserable childhood he had and how sad and forlorn he'll be if you go away, and all that crap. It's a joke.

Painful as this is to admit, the victims of narcissists MUST understand it. It's the bottom line. It predicates your choices.

Don't take my word for it: test and see. 2 + 2 = 4. Always. Even on Thursdays.

SOURCE

ONLINE ATTACKS

by Robin M.

Why So Many Feel Big When They Hide Behind A Screen

I’ve often joked that the internet is the last place that beating up women in public is still considered acceptable. Ask any woman who writes online, be it politics, women’s rights, often even parenting and more mundane social issues, and you will hear a nearly universal admittance that she has at some point been attacked for her views by at least one anonymous commenter. Not an “I disagree with you because x, y,z…” response, but a “You stupid bitch, why do you think you can write what you write.”

I used to be amazed by the vitriol. Then I was saddened. Eventually, though, I saw that as just another part of the territory when you open yourself up as a writer online.

I accepted it. We all pretty much accept it. That is the part that should make us all angry — our now inherent acceptance of the idea that if you write online, you will be harassed, especially if you are a woman.

As Nina Funell explains in this piece in the Australian, “The internet has absolutely changed the nature of public debate. The anonymity and the immediacy it gives people who want to indulge in abuse and hate… I don’t know if it actually makes it more or less dangerous [to have a public profile] but when you’re seeing a whole heap of hate speech written about you in separate forums, targeting you via email or in comments, I do know that it has a profound impact on your sense of safety…”

I’ve always been lucky to feel safe, despite opening a great deal of my private life online because of my writing about infertility and reproductive health. Although I have had my own share of comments, both with real names (I assume) attached or sent anonymously, I have learned to ignore them as simply a part of my work. I never stop to question why it should ever be a part of anyone’s “work” to deal with online harassment.

Once, things escalated beyond just comments and insults. It was a shocking realization of not just how exposed you actually do leave yourself online, but how free those who disagree with you feel it is allowable to step beyond the normal bounds of public and private life in order to “teach you a lesson” about how wrong you are about the things you believe.

I learned my lesson well. I learned that to allow someone to silence you online is to lose your power, and that when your personal life goes on line, you don’t go quiet, you identify it for what it is — an attack by someone who wants to intimidate you from acting on your beliefs. You must learn to change that attack into something that can become a positive for you, a chance to show your strength, expand your audience, whatever it is that they are trying to stop you from accomplishing.

The internet may always be the last place for attacks, especially attacks on women, to thrive. But we don’t have to accept it, we have to fight it.

original article here

Woman Posts her Stalker's Details to 'Defend Herself'

By Chris Parsons

Taking action: German high jumper Ariane Friedrich posted 

her stalker's personal details to 'defend herself'

A sleazy Internet stalker who sent explicit photos to a world high jump star got more than he bargained for - when she posted his personal details to her thousands of fans. German athletics star Ariane Friedrich - who also works as a police officer - named and shamed her online stalker after being emailed photos of a man's genitals.

The 28-year-old star, who will be gunning for high jump gold at the London olympics, posted the man's name, email address and home address on her Facebook page 'as a way of making clear that I am prepared to act'. Friedrich, a bronze medalist a the 2009 World Athletics Championships, said she posted the man's details to 'defend herself' from the many inappropriate emails she receives. In her role as a police officer, the German is also thought to be planning to bring charges against the man. In one post on her official Facebook page, Friedrich, from Frankfurt, told her fans: 'I’ve been offended in the past, sexually harassed and I’ve had a stalker before. 'It’s time to act; it’s time to defend myself. And that’s what I’m doing. No more and no less.'

She defiantly insisted in another post that just because she has a higher profile than others, she does not believe she should be the subject of those who want to 'attack, insult, or sexually harass'.

Friedrich's manager, Günter Eisinger, attempted to play down the incident amid concerns it could affect her preparations for London 2012.  Mr Eisinger told The Local on Saturday: 'The issue has nothing to do with the public. 'We can do without any stress factors.'

original article found here

Jailed for Facebook Threats

A Fort Myers man is accused of cyberstalking two former co-workers using Facebook – and threatening their lives. Lee County deputies say the suspect created several fake Facebook accounts to make the threats. One of the victims said she feared for her life.

Jacobe Swanson was arrested and charged with threatening to kill or injure two women. The written threats were made on a popular social networking site Facebook.

"He had been threatening me for a long time," said one of the victims.

She said Swanson began stalking her two years ago.

"We were coworkers and nothing more. He showed interest in me and I rejected him and he decided he would start harassing me because I wouldn't give him the time of day," the victim said.

Swanson allegedly left threatening notes on her car.

Then he allegedly began stalking her and another former female coworker online.

"There were pretty horrific threats made against them like they were going to die. They were afraid to go to work and now he's going to face the consequences for that," said Sergeant Stephanie Eller of the Lee County Sheriff's Office.

According to the arrest report, Swanson threatened to chop off the head of one of the victims with a machete, then kill everyone in her house.

Swanson allegedly threatened the other woman saying "She was going to die either at home or at her job" and that she would die soon.

Detectives subpoenaed Facebook for the I.P. address associated with the threatening messages.

That address came back to the Fort Myers home where Swanson lives with his mom.

No one answered the door at Swanson's home.

Swanson is still in jail, where his victims hope he will stay for a long time.

"I hope he gets time for it and I hope he gets some psychiatric help because I believe he needs it," the victim said.

Swanson has been charged with aggravated stalking, intimidation (write, send threat to kill or injure) and contempt of court (violation injunction).


original article here

Man Rapes Girl, then Sets Up Facebook with Her Name

(U.S.A.) Travis Davis is facing stalking charges after he allegedly set up a Facebook account using the name of an ex-girlfriend he raped in Ohio to contact a more recent ex in Pennsylvania. He tried to force the woman he contacted to come back to him by threatening to distribute a secretly filmed sex tape.

The 23-year-old Indiana man was arrested Aug. 15 outside the second ex-girlfriend's home in Delmont, about 25 miles east of Pittsburgh, after someone called 911 to report a man sleeping in a suspicious vehicle outside, police said.

He had a .45-caliber pistol, three magazines of bullets and a box cutter, and the car had a stolen Pennsylvania license plate taped over the Indiana plate on his car, police said.

Davis had created a Facebook profile in the name of another ex-girlfriend, a woman he had raped in Preble County, Ohio, and used it to contact the Pennsylvania woman and her current boyfriend's family, police said.

A week before his arrest, police contend Davis sent the Pennsylvania woman a video of him having sex with her when both still lived in Indiana. The woman "never knew that this video was filmed in the first place and obviously never gave consent to send the video to anyone," a criminal complaint said.

Davis threatened in an e-mail to "send the video to everyone if she did not return to Indiana for him," a criminal complaint said.

A few days later, the Pennsylvania woman received a friend request from the Facebook page Davis created using the identity of his Ohio rape victim. Davis - pretending to be the Ohio woman - threatened to send the video to the Pennsylvania woman's current boyfriend if she did not move to Indiana, the complaint said.

Davis, still posing as the woman he raped, then messaged the Pennsylvania woman and told her he would keep the video a secret if she agreed to a "sexy video chat" with her ex-boyfriend over the Internet. Police say the Pennsylvania woman consented to the chat Aug. 12.

The next day, Davis called the woman claiming that his Facebook alter ego had sent him the video and "advised her, in sum and substance, that it may be in her best interest to return to Indiana," the complaint said.

On Aug. 14, nude images of the Pennsylvania woman were sent from the Facebook page to the woman and her boyfriend's mother, police said. Authorities said they have contacted Davis' accuser in Ohio, who confirmed the Facebook page wasn't hers.

Davis pleaded not guilty and faces charges of violating a protection from abuse order and stalking.

Davis remains in jail on $75,000 bail and his lawyer says he intends to prove his innocence.

original article here

Wife Traumatised by Husband's Harassment

(U.K.) Fireman Ben Walker began a campaign of harassment against his estranged wife just hours after being convicted of violently assaulting her. The violent thug was convicted of punching, kicking, throttling and even holding a power drill to the stomach of Amanda in May. But the abuse did not stop after he was convicted of assault by beating and common assault.

Newcastle Magistrates’ Court heard the “obsessed and intimidating” former crew manager at Gateshead East Community Fire Station bombarded his wife with text messages leaving her “suicidal”.

Walker, 31, who has been living at his father’s house in Staffordshire since moving out of the High Heaton home the couple shared, pleaded guilty to harassment and said afterwards he hoped he could now “start his life again”.

Prosecutor Rebecca Gibson said Walker’s “vile campaign of harassment” against his wife who he met on the internet and married after a six-month romance, had started the same day he was convicted and quickly escalated.

“The Crown requested a restraining order but the defence claimed that it wasn’t necessary because Walker accepted that the marriage was over and he was going to move away,” she said.

“But since that day he has sent her over 100 text messages.”

Magistrates heard that on May 8 Walker went to his former marital home, on Southlands, and persistently banged on the door for over half an hour. When his wife didn’t answer, he waited until she left the house and then followed her and prevented her from getting out of the car.

The court also heard a Facebook page was also set up to support Walker, with 220 members, on which many “vile and threatening comments” were posted.

Ms Gibson said Amanda was “traumatised” by what had happened and that she has gone from a “happy, highly confident individual to a physical wreck”. She said: “Her peace of mind has gone, she feels a prisoner in her own home and is scared to answer the phone or socialise with friends as she fears retaliations. She has had substantial time off work due to stress and her job is at risk.

“Her faith in men has been shattered and she can’t start relationships. It’s turned her world upside down and she can’t sleep. It is an ever present worry. She will spend the rest of her life wondering if she is at risk. She is under the long-term care of her GP and at her lowest she felt suicidal.”

When arrested Walker admitted sending texts with the aim of reconciling the relationship. Denise Jackman, defending Walker, said her client had misunderstood an instruction to send future legal letters directly to Amanda as a sign she was contemplating reconciliation.

“Walker thought it was her way of wanting to sort things out,” she said. “He accepts he texted her but nobody has seen all of these 100 texts. He knows the position he’s in.

Ms Jackman added: “He met this lady and then his life went down the pan. He accepts his marriage is at an end.”

Walker was handed a 24-month community order, with supervision, and 66 hours unpaid work. He was also slapped with a two-year restraining order with conditions not to contact Amanda Walker unless through his solicitor.

Speaking outside court after the hearing last week, Walker said he wanted to put his “disastrous” marriage behind him. He added: “I’m very sorry to be leaving the North East.”

original article here

U.K. Threatens to Post Intimate Photos of His Ex Online

A MAN from rural north Northumberland threatened to post intimate pictures of his teenage ex-girlfriend online after their relationship broke down.

The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, appeared in court in Berwick last week charged with harassing his ex-girlfriend’s father and grandmother.

The court heard he also called her a ‘dog’ and alleged she was promiscuous in texts to the 17 year-old’s father and grandmother.

Magistrates heard that the 26-year-old, who pleaded guilty, had sent the texts and made phone calls to his ex-girlfriend’s family after their two-year relationship broke down and she started seeing another man.

James Long, prosecuting, said the girl’s family had never approved of the relationship and when it ended he said the defendant sent a text message to her father which said ‘your daughter is a dog’.

This was then repeated in other texts the defendant sent to her father over a period of a few days in January.

Mr Long said that the girl’s grandmother also received phone calls and text messages from the defendant, which he said were ‘abusive and threatening’.

He said the defendant then started to threaten the girl’s grandmother that if they contacted the police he would post pictures of his ex-girlfriend on the internet.

Mr Long said that the grandmother believed from the threats that these pictures were of a ‘sexual nature’.

In other messages to the girl’s grandmother, the defendant called the teen a ‘dirty little slag’ and alleged she slept around.

Mr Long added that on receiving the first text the grandmother had replied that she was going to contact the police, while the girl’s father had not responded to any of them.

Ian O’Rourke, defending, said that his client and the 17-year-old had since got back together and were planning to move away in an attempt to re-build their relationship.

He said: “The defendant and X are now back together and their take on this is that it is just her family ganging up on him. It’s probable that the truth is somewhere in the middle.
The context of this case is that X and the defendant had a relationship of in excess of two years. This started when she was 15 and at one stage she was pregnant and last year had a termination."

“It is fair to say that her family did not approve of the defendant – they did not get on at all.
“They split up as there was another man involved and then text messages and telephone calls started going between the defendant and X, essentially being childish and abusive to each other. The defendant then involved her father in this and it is fair to say on his behalf that there are not that many messages to her dad.”

Mr O’Rourke added: “He accepts by his plea that it was quite wrong of him to send the texts to X’s father and grandmother at all. They were not appropriate at all and were conducive to harassment.

“The threats about putting photos on Facebook was a two-way thing, as X had intimate photos of him and threatened to put them on Facebook. It does seem rather childish,” he said.

The case was adjourned for three weeks for reports.


original article here

Cyberstalker Invited Men to Woman's Home

By MARK MORRIS

As Shawn D. Memarian remembered it Wednesday, his relationship with a woman he met online in 2006 “ended in a sour way.”

Classic understatement.

Memarian, 29, of Kansas City, pleaded guilty to a federal cyberstalking charge for relentlessly harassing the woman through threatening and intimidating e-mails and by posting bogus Web ads inviting men to her home. Many men appeared — expecting sex.

Memarian, who faces up to five years in prison, said he understood that he went way over the line.

“I know what I did was wrong,” he told a federal judge before pleading guilty. “I did cause her distress, and I’m very sorry for what I did.”

The two met in mid-June 2006, while he was working as a civilian contractor at Fort Leavenworth. By July 15, the relationship had cooled. In court records, Memarian agreed that he wanted her to return some personal items and reimburse him $76 for the cost of one of their dates. He later wanted her to pay half of his lawyer’s fee for defending him against an order of protection she had filed.

In court Wednesday, Memarian said he also was upset that someone had scratched his vehicle, and he suspected it was her.

“Oh and I don’t make threats, I get even,” he wrote on July 27.

When his victim told him she was saving his e-mails for police, Memarian reminded her of claims he had made earlier that he once had dated a woman related to a Kansas City organized-crime family.

Subsequently, the woman received threatening e-mails from an alias — “Sal Civella” — created on Memarian’s computer at the Army post.

Memarian ramped up the harassment in August and began posing as the woman, creating two online personal ads on MySpace.com and Craigslist.com. He posted her phone number and home address in the ads and described her as a “sex freak” seeking sexual encounters.

She received phone calls and visits at her home from about 30 unknown men in August and September 2006.

“She did, in fact, have men knocking on her door at all hours of the day, thinking they were about to have sex with her,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney John Cowles.

Memarian also posted personal ads on Facebook.com and created a Web site on the now defunct GeoCities.com to threaten the woman. Prosecutors said that between August 2006 and May 9, 2008, the date of his arrest, he sent more than 75 threatening e-mails to the woman, who since has moved out of state.

“Since his arrest there have been no more communications,” Cowles said.

Most people who face federal charges on computer-related offenses are unaware of just how well their computers preserve evidence for investigators. Memarian would appear to be the exception.

He holds a bachelor’s degree in information systems and worked as an applications developer while at Fort Leavenworth. His resume shows skills in 11 computer languages and technologies.

Still, when the FBI and police went knocking, Army criminal investigators willingly provided a copy of the hard drive from Memarian’s government computer. That revealed evidence of the e-mail accounts he used to threaten the victim and showed how he used Facebook.com to intimidate her.

ORIGINAL

One of our exposed Predators - Jeff Dunetz/ YidwithLid - has DONE THIS SAME THING and gets away with it! (because apparently, he & his wife have 'friends' in their police department!)

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

Facebooking Your Boss - Good or Bad?

by Michelle Wilding

Facebook is blurring the boundaries between work and private life and sometimes the consequences are at the employee's expense, writes Michelle Wilding.

Maria's nightmare began after a long weekend when she logged on to check her emails only to find: "The boss added you as a friend on Facebook" staring at her through her inbox screen.

Above this was a message notification sent via Facebook candidly asking why she denied accepting her boss as a friend. Maria had not even been online for almost 36 hours. Having no choice, she bit the bullet and accepted her boss as a Facebook friend.

Facebook now boasts 108.3 million users, reports Nielsen Online. As the world's most popular social networking site, it's not too comforting to know online bullying tactics from your boss are enough to knock down your safeguarded Facebook page that was once locked by private settings.

Unfortunately, former service operator Maria was cornered: she was vulnerable to her "unscrupulous service manager" at one of Australia's leading supermarket chains. Maria says she was fearful, vexed and defenceless when her boss began using her online information to manipulate her work life.

It started with inappropriate innuendos regarding Facebook photos. More seriously, Maria's work hours were exploited and she received abusive confrontations and phone calls questioning her availability and every move.

"My boss was a gossiping, domineering, contriving megalomaniac and her behaviour dramatically intensified when she used Facebook to pry," Maria says.

"I'm a student, so it's very rare to have a night out. If plans came up, she would purposely make me work. If I needed money, she'd take advantage of that need and cancel my shifts, stripping me of my dignity.

"I don't know where she got off. She was worse than Stephanie from The Bold And The Beautiful. She played with employee lives like we were her toys. It upset me so much I finally stood up for myself and quit. I feel like I got my freedom back and can breathe again."

Maria notes one occasion when she RSVPed on Facebook to attend the Future Music Festival with workmates. Unexpectedly she was rostered on the early morning shift the next day, something she believes was calculated.

"As a senior, I was told I wasn't allowed to work weekends . . . Then, all of a sudden, the weekend Future is on I was put on first thing the next morning. I found it interesting that my boss could bend the 'no seniors on weekends' rule when it suited her," she says.

The executive director of UNSW's Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre, David Vaile, says Maria's case is a useful example of how personal information stored on a Facebook page can be abused, noting the consequences of posting personal information online aren't necessarily clear because it's relatively new technology.

"Privacy law has a gaping black hole that does not protect employee privacy and Facebook is outside of that," Vaile says.

"I think it's an abuse of the boss's prerogative to threaten and use their power over their employee's contract to require access to their Facebook page. On the other hand, there is no idea that Facebook is safe for anyone. Maybe Facebook is required by law to let police have access to a person's page."

A range of legal and business reputation risks attached to Facebook concerns Vaile. He says the risks are serious and users should think twice before signing up or sharing private information on Facebook.

"Cyber stalking, harassment, defamation, breach of duty, damage to reputation of workplace: the inherent reliability of that, in the same way that it's sort of a dangerous and cheap temptation for individuals and also businesses, employers and universities, is a data mine for tragedy," Vaile says.

Maria's isn't the only case of employer Facebook abuse. Former discount retail employee Grace Leasa, 19, was shocked when her then boss made a derogatory remark on her page.

After a quarrel with a friend, she updated her Facebook status to: "Grace just can't do it any more." To which her boss commented: "You Pussy."

"I was just surprised because at work he'd act like a friend to the other employees but he'd never been like that with me before," Leasa says.

"It was sort of degrading because I don't even talk to this guy."

Another element through which businesses can intimidate and keep track of their employees is on Facebook groups. Cosmetic retail representative Lucy (not her real name) received two requests to join her work group before she "reluctantly" accepted. The 20-year-old says she was pressured to attend optional work meetings via the group's listing and experienced online bullying.

"I received updates on meetings and events," she says.

"I felt the need to put 'maybe attending' due to university commitments. If I put 'not attending' I would be encouraged by phone to attend. It was pretty much like they were looking into my personal life. But now that I've left the group, I feel liberated.

"I also didn't want to be a part of the group so Facebook users could check up on where I work. That's another invasion of privacy."

Not all Facebook employer-employee relationships are troublesome. Doughnut shop worker Kimberley Driver, 20, says she never thinks twice about writing on her Facebook page because she gets along with her boss.

"It would suck if my boss was different," Driver says.

"It's your profile to express what you're feeling and what you want to say. You shouldn't have to be restricted or toned down by anyone."

One major problem many users are oblivious of is that their profile is automatically set to be on public view.

Media arts production student Chris Noble, 21, found that out the hard way. He signed up to Facebook 10 months ago and couldn't figure out why random people were contacting him.

"I couldn't believe that. I thought [my Facebook profile] was set to private mode. I felt vulnerable and annoyed that anyone, complete strangers, could view my page and information and I had no idea that it was my duty to change the default settings from public viewing to private. It's ridiculous," Noble says.

At the end of the day, if you're going to use Facebook, make sure your profile settings are appropriate. Take advantage of friend category lists such as family, colleagues, friends and acquaintances to filter your relationships and content.

And if your boss does decide to add you on Facebook, it's not career suicide if you place them on limited profile, where certain parts of your profile content become restricted to them.

After all, do you really want them seeing a photo of you in a bikini or Speedos roaming freely on the beach?

Let's face it: Facebook was designed as a personal platform for social communication - and for some people, that means leaving work relationships at the office.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Australian Police Warn About 'Hate Sites"

By Matt Neal

PEOPLE harassing or threatening others by posting abusive comments on websites can be charged with cyber-stalking - an offence that carries a maximum jail term of 10 years.


That's the message Warrnambool police are sending to the public after concerns about offensive website forums were raised this week.

One particular website, which the press has chosen not to name, has drawn the attention of police after a spate of Warrnambool and south-west people used it to anonymously insult and attack residents. Most of the offenders and victims are believed to be young people, causing police to urge parents to monitor the internet usage of their children.

Detective Sergeant Lee Porter said anyone who felt harassed or threatened by comments posted anonymously on open website forums should contact police.

"People should contact police if they feel they're being subjected to crimes like harassment," Detective Sergeant Porter said.

He said that if it caused people to feel fear, apprehension and intimidation, it could come under the heading of cyber-stalking and people could be charged.

"People have got to be very careful what they put on (these sites)," Detective Sergeant Porter said.

He said that people who posted comments on web forums could also be held in contempt of court.

"Referring to witnesses in a matter that's before a court, or harassing or interfering with witnesses before a court . . . all these things will be vigorously pursued by us," he said.

Detective Sergeant Porter said that aside from cyber-stalking or harassment, people posting insulting comments about others on such websites were also leaving themselves open to civil defamation suits which could cost thousands of dollars in pay-outs.

He said anonymous posters on website forums could be tracked down in the same way police have caught people involved in uploading or downloading child pornography.

"People can be tracked down . . . and they will be dealt with," Detective Sergeant Porter said.

"Police are able to establish who posts these sort of things.

"There are various avenues open to police to track down people who do this.

"They will be charged and prosecuted. If they are committing offences they will be held accountable."

Legally, an act of cyber-stalking is defined as including when a person stalks another person by publishing on the internet or by an email or other electronic communication to any person a statement or other material with the intention of causing physical or mental harm to the victim or of arousing apprehension or fear in the victim for their own safety.

ORIGINAL

"Get Anyone to Do Anything and Never Feel Powerless Again"

Psychological secrets to predict, control and influence every situation

[Chapter 9, Pages 42-43]
By David J. Lieberman, Ph. D.

From the bedroom to the boardroom learn how to see clearly and easily evaluate information without being swayed by those with selfish interests and unkind intentions. The manipulator's bag of tricks is stocked with seven deadly tactics that can leave you jumping through hoops. The good news is that by knowing what they are, you can watch out for them, and...never be manipulated again.

These powerful manipulators are: guilt, intimidation, appeal to ego, fear, curiosity, our desire to be liked, and love.

Anyone who uses any of these tactics is attempting to move you from logic to emotion-to a playing field that's not so level. She or he knows that she or he can't win on the facts so they will try to manipulate your emotions with any one or a combination of the tactics below.

1. Guilt: "How can you even say that?
I'm hurt that you wouldn't trust me.
I just don't know who you are anymore."

2. Intimidation: "What's the matter can't you make a decision?
Don't you have enough confidence in yourself to do this?

3. Appeal to Ego: "I can see that you're a smart person.
I wouldn't try to put anything past you.
How could I? You'd be on me in a second."

4. Fear: "You know, you might [not get "it" if you go take a pee/act un-coach able] just lose the whole thing.
I sure hope you know what you're doing.
I'm telling you that you won't get a better deal anywhere else.
This is your last shot at making things work out.
Why do you want to risk losing out on being happy?"

5. Curiosity: "Look, you only live once.
Try it? You can always go back to how things were.
It might be fun, exciting - a real adventure.
"You never know unless you try and you regret never seeing what happens."

6. Our Desire to be Liked: "I thought you were a real player. And so did everyone else.
Come on, nobody likes it when a person backs out...this can be your chance to prove what you're made of."

7. Love: "If you loved me you wouldn't question me.
Of course I have only your best interests at heart.
I wouldn't lie to you. You know that deep down inside, don't you?
We can have a wonderful relationship if you'd only let yourself go and experience the wonders that the future will deliver to us."

Strategy Review:
Look and listen objectively--not only to the words but also to the message.The abusive maneuvers interfere with your ability to digest facts. When these emotions creep into your thinking, temporarily suspend your feelings and look at the messenger as well as the message.

If you hear anything that sounds like these manipulators, stop and reevaluate the situation. Don't ever act quickly and emotionally. Wait and objectively gather the facts so you don't become a hand puppet.