IS IT LEGAL (redux)

We are reposting this article due to popular demand:
IS IT LEGAL (To Expose a Cheater or Abuser Online)? by EOPC

CLICK HERE TO READ

And an excerpt from a recent article along the same legal lines:

"Obviously, the men (or women) have the option of attempting to sue the person who post information about them, if they can figure out who they are. No one yet has been able to unmask a poster or sue an exposure website successfully. (as of this writing) "(Of course the women can then countersue for INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS and ALIENATION OF AFFECTION (if married and allowed in their state.). Since many women develop permanent PTSD [Emotional Rape Syndrome] adrenal fatigue and severe depression from Cyberpaths - these women's claims may be easier to prove.)

--------------------------------------------

If the Postings are False, Are They Defamatory?

....Moreover, "substantial truth" - truth in substance, but not in the details -- is a full defense to a defamation claim. So any man who is contesting a claim of infidelity, probably should never have been unfaithful.

The truth is a 100% defense to defamation. Those who post it can not be sued for "defamation" if they are simply reporting information. They are then covered by 'citizen journalist' rights. However, you can be sued for inciting others to harass someone, twisting facts, accusing, posting someone's address, phone or other private information online.

(EOPC's legal release requires the victim(s) to take FULL, 100% responsible for their posts and what is said. Additionally, they must hold EOPC harmless and those posted can only try to take action against the poster, not us. We are reporting and giving opinion only. EOPC can't adjudicate. We absolutely do not get involved with any of these cases (example: contacting employers, etc.) We can't diagnose or take legal action against anyone for their posts. We REQUIRE posters sign and verify they are telling the truth and leave the burden of proof to them. Many cyberpaths try to get around this by guessing who we are and then harassing who they think is us. We are still here. This is absolutely the same for other exposure sites as well. EOPC merely provides a platform and is held harmless.)

"...The owner of DontDateHimGirl who was threatened with a lawsuit, later sued and the court threw out the suit completely says:

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

and

"If someone posted my picture/profile in a database and I learned of it but it wasn't true, then I probably wouldn't waste my time even rebutting it. Why? Because if I'm innocent, then the burden is not on me to prove such, at least not under American jurisprudence — legal or moral. And I don't use and abuse people online or off - so I am not afraid of scrutiny.

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

and

"A former U.S. attorney Scott Christie was quoted in the New Jersey Star Ledger,

"Yes, it's all legal. If I were the owners of (such a) site, I wouldn't be concerned. They're providing an outlet for people to express their opinion.

It's much like hosting a bulletin board for people with a common interest,. People are giving their opinion about other people - they're entitled to it under the First Amendment."

And this from Canada.com:

According to a privacy lawyer from Halifax, (snip)

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

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

FOR THE ENTIRE ORIGINAL ARTICLE
CLICK HERE

Ex-Boyfriend Sued For Cyber Harassment

by Alexis Shaw

A Virginia woman is suing her ex-boyfriend after he tormented her and her teenage daughter by posting their photos on prostitution sites, sending dozens of men to their home, and distributing nude photos of the woman to her co-workers, her daughter and her daughter's friends.

The year long harassment caused the woman to lose her job in a bank and forced her to change her name, the woman's complaint states. ABC News is withholding the woman's new name.

Soraida Hicks' ex-boyfriend, Bruce Stimon, pleaded guilty in December 2012 to stalking, felony identity theft, and extortion. He was sentenced on Jan. 25 to three years in prison.

Now Hicks and her daughter Pam, 16, have filed a $20 million civil suit against Stimon. She is claiming slander, libel, and infliction of emotional distress, according to court documents.

"I didn't think that he was going to be crazy," Hicks told ABC Washington D.C. affiliate WJLA. Hicks could not be reached for comment by ABCNews.com.

Hicks and Stimon, who is 46, met on a plane traveling from Boston to Washington in the fall of 2011, and the two started a long-distance relationship. Hicks lives in Arlington, Va., and Stimon lived in Kensington, N.H.

According to Hicks' attorney, David Shurtz, Stimon showered Hicks with gifts, even buying Hicks an iPhone and paying for her service on his family plan.

But Shurtz said Stimon used the iPhone as a way to make himself the only man in her life, and he gained access to Hicks' contacts and emails in order to control her.

According to the complaint, "the gift was a deliberate plot to surreptitiously keep track of all the contacts and comings and goings of [Hicks]."

Hicks was unaware of her boyfriend's monitoring until January 2012 when she learned that Stimon "had created a web site advertising her services as a prostitute," according to the complaint. At the time Hicks was in Paraguay visiting her parents, a trip Stimon had financed.

Stimon posted Hicks' name and address, as well as her photos, on web sites advertising prostitution, and listed Hicks' supervisor at her workplace as her point of contact, the complaint states.

"He was creating an artificial theory so that he would be the only man she would contact," Shurtz said. "And the theory was that she was under a cyber attack. And he came to her and said, 'Ah ha! I will be your white knight and I will stop the cyber attack.'"

Instead, Hicks broke up with Stimon and reported the harassment to the Arlington County Police Department.

"From January to probably about March, we were just trying to compile information and figure out what was going on," said Det. Angela Comer of the Arlington County Police Department.

Stimon's cyber attacks escalated. He sent explicit photographs of Hicks to her friends and co-workers, causing Hicks to lose her job as a financial sales consultant at a bank, according to the complaint.

He created a fake Twitter account and sent videos of Hicks and himself having sex to Hicks' daughter and her daughters' friends. The videos were taken without Hicks' consent, the complaint said. It also stated that Stimon also advertised both mother and daughter for sex, sending men to her apartment nearly 60 times.

The investigation involved several sections of the Arlington County Police Department.

"The commonwealth attorneys, the tactical unit, just about every unit in our department had a hand on this case," Comer said.

Comer said Hicks filed a protective order against Stimon in June 2012. When he came to court to dispute the order, he was arrested for "stalking, unlawful filming, and use of a person's identity to harass," but was released on bond a few months later, Comer said.

Woman Sues Ex-Boyfriend for Cyber Harassment

Police tried to keep Hicks' phone number a secret from Stimon, but it frequently needed to be changed as Stimon would figure it out and harass Hicks, Comer said.

In November police caught Stimon slashing Hicks' car tires near her home. He was arrested and charged with destruction of property, stalking, and violating the protective order Hicks had filed against him.

"What was so devastating to Mr. Stimon was that when he was caught, his computer and cell phone were in his car, and they became evidence," said Shurtz.

original story found here

Online Gossip: Entertainment? or Harassing Smear?

By Kianga Kelley

To some it's entertainment, but to others it's just down right cruel. Have internet gossip blogs, revenge sites and message boards gone too far?

You might remember Lori Drew, the recently convicted Missouri mom accused of harassing a teenager on MySpace to the point where she committed suicide. Well, there's a young lady in Baton Rouge looking to prevent these types of tragedies.

Many people enjoy a little gossip every now and then, but what happens when those gossip blogs are about you? Kavon Davis, a senior at Southern University, knows first hand how it feels.

Davis says she was shocked when her name appeared more than once next to what some would consider vulgar and harassing information on a Facebook group called "The Questions."

"It really hurt because I didn't know him and I didn't know why he wanted to do that to me."

Davis isn't the only victim of this blog; the site also targets university officials as well as politicians. Fed up with the humiliation, Davis says she complained to the university urging them to put an end to the blog. She says a hearing was held last week and the student responsible was placed on probation, a decision Davis says isn't good enough.

"If you're not in school for higher learning or to prepare yourself for corporate America you shouldn't be here and this institution shouldn't allow him to be here."

We contacted Southern officials but were told by law the university cannot release any information regarding a student hearing.

And these types of message boards are not just happening in Baton Rouge. As a matter of fact there is a website called juicycampus.com where students nationwide post anonymous written attacks on anyone.

LSU freshman Alex Baynhan says, "Sometimes the stuff they say is just unnecessary. Not everything people do has to get out to the public."

Katherine Gordon, a senior at LSU, says,

"Freedom of speech I understand, but there comes a point you're crossing the line, you're starting to hurt people's feelings."

Not everyone is disappointed with the Facebook group; many students are backing up the site's creator. Kavon Davis says she came forward because she feels sites like these could turn some people to violence or even suicide and she wants them to stop.

She says she's working on finding an attorney.

SITES IN QUESTION
Don'tDateHimGirl.com
Womansavers.com
DatingPsychos.com
LiarsCheatersRUs.com
CheaterExpose.com
FilthyLiar.com
Cheaterville.com
WhoScammedYou.com
DumpOnYou.com
CheaterExpose.com

ORIGINAL ARTICLE FOUND HERE

Website Ordered to Close Because of Harassment

(U.K.) A website that allows users to 'name and shame' lawyers whose services they are unhappy with has been ordered to close after the High Court ruled its publisher had breached libel, data protection and harassment laws.

The High Court ruled that solicitorsfromhell.co.uk should be shutdown and its publisher Rick Kordowski permanently barred from re-publishing some information contained on the site in the future. Kordowski was also banned from transferring control of the personal data contained about solicitors named on the site from himself to others.

The Law Society, representing all firms and solicitors in England and Wales, led the calls for the injunctions against Kordowski. It successfully claimed the comments on Kordowski's website contained "malicious and defamatory allegations about solicitors" and that personal data contained on the site had been processed unlawfully. It also successfully argued that Kordowski had caused harassment to the lawyers because the postings had caused them distress and alarm.

Mr Justice Tugendhat said that Kordowski was a "public nuisance" who was "in effect a vexatious litigant who is a defendant". The judge rejected his claims that solicitorsfromhell.co.uk provided a "public service". Kordowski had said the 'blacklist' of firms and solicitors contained on the site helped people choose legal services and encouraged members of the public to "expose wrongdoing" in the legal profession.

The judge rejected Kordowski's claims that the comments contained on the site were protected by a general right to freedom of expression. Kordowski had failed to claim "any defence known to the law of libel" in order to justify the comments about lawyers and firms on his website, he said

"He has not pleaded truth or honest opinion, and although he mentions [the right to freedom of expression] and public service, he has not formulated any defence of qualified privilege on a basis recognised by the law," the judge said.

The judge ruled that Kordowski be banned from further libelling law firm Hine Solicitors and individual lawyer Kevin McGrath. Kordowski was also banned from further personal data processing and harassment in relation to Hine's lawyers or McGrath. Mr Justice Tugendhat applied the data processing and harassment ban to all solicitors named or at risk of being named on solicitorsfromhell.co.uk, permanently preventing Kordowski from unlawful personal data processing or harassing activity against those individuals in the future. The judge said that it was "beneficial" to extend the ban to cover those individuals and said it was in the public interest to do so.

"Freedom of expression can only advance the objective of truth if the participants in a debate aim at truth," Mr Justice Tugendhat said in his ruling.

"If a free market is to work, consumers must assume that suppliers are offering their goods or services in good faith, and not deliberately misleading the public. Participation in a market involves responsibilities. In the same way the right to freedom of expression ... is subject to ... responsibilities. Deliberately to introduce falsehoods into public debate is like contaminating food in the shops. And where the internet is concerned, the motive is often the same: extortion or revenge," the judge said.

"Discouraging people in need of legal advice from instructing good lawyers is as much against the public interest as encouraging them to instruct bad lawyers. At worst it may lead to miscarriages of justice ... At the least it will lead to restrictions on the consumers' freedom of choice, and to distortion of the free market in legal services," he said.

"If restrictions are to be enforced on behalf of the public, Parliament normally does this by legislation which makes the conduct in question a criminal offence. The Data Protection Act (DPA) goes some way towards this. It can protect from unfair discrimination those suppliers who trade as individuals, as solicitors happen to do, as well as employees or prospective employees. And it does create criminal offences and a mechanism for enforcement by the Information Commissioner. Where the DPA does not apply, the suppliers who have large resources may invoke the common law to protect themselves. But there is a need for someone to protect the public. The procedural remedy of representative proceedings, coupled with an injunction, may be the best that the law can offer at present to protect the public from the unjustifiable dissemination of false information about the suppliers of goods and services. It is also the means by which the court may protect its limited resources in time and judiciary from having to deal with large numbers of claims by different claimants against the same individual on the same or similar facts," the judge said.

Mr Justice Tugendhat said that because solicitorsfromhell.co.uk had contained false statements about lawyers Kordowski, as the data controller, had breached basic principles of UK data protection laws that require personal data to be accurately stored and processed fairly and lawfully.

Because Kordowski had not processed lawyers' personal data in accordance with their rights – another principle of UK data protection laws – the judge ordered Kordowski to "block, erase and destroy the data which is the subject of this action".

Under the DPA "if a court is satisfied on the application of a data subject that personal data of which the applicant is the subject are inaccurate, the court may order the data controller to rectify, block, erase or destroy those data and any other personal data in respect of which he is the data controller and which contain an expression of opinion which appears to the court to be based on the inaccurate data".

The Law Society had written to Kordowski asking him to delete the personal data of lawyers mentioned on the site but Kordowski said he would only delete the information if he received a fee to do so. When Kordowski indicated his intention to transfer ownership of the data contained on the site to foreign owners the Law Society obtained an injunction temporarily banning the transfer. The Law Society claimed that transferring ownership of lawyers' personal data contained on the site would amount to unlawful data processing and harassment.

Under the DPA individuals have a right, under certain conditions, to require organisations that store their personal data to "cease, or not to begin" processing of that information if it "is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted".

Mr Justice Tugendhat ruled that the requests made in its letter to Kordowski were justified because Kordowski had not processed personal data of lawyers listed on the site fairly and lawfully. The judge therefore ordered Kordowski to stop processing that personal data. He also extended the temporary ban on Kordowski transferring ownership of the data to permanent.

Under the DPA "If a court is satisfied, on the application of any person who has given a notice [that they want damaging and distressing personal data processing to stop] which appears to the court to be justified (or to be justified to any extent), that the data controller in question has failed to comply with the notice, the court may order him to take such steps for complying with the notice (or for complying with it to that extent) as the court thinks fit".

The Law Society had argued that solicitorsfromhell.co.uk contained "malicious and defamatory allegations about solicitors" which "causes serious damage to the reputations of the solicitors, firms and others who are listed on it, causing them financial loss, embarrassment, anxiety and distress". It said Kordowski was "harassing those listed" on the site and doing the public a "disservice" by "encouraging them to use inaccurate information to choose a solicitor".

Under the Protection from Harassment Act a person is generally deemed to have committed an offence if, on more than one occasion, they "pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another, and which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment" of someone else.. Under the provisions of the Act a person is deemed to "ought to know" that their conduct "amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment".

Those who are in breach of the Act can be jailed or fined. The High Court can issue an injunction "for the purpose of restraining [an individual] from pursuing any conduct which amounts to harassment" and if the person who requested the injunction believes that the individual "has done anything which he is prohibited from doing by the injunction", they can "apply for the issue of a warrant for the[ir] arrest".

Mr Justice Tugendhat ruled that because solicitorsfromhell.co.uk was a "prominent website" and contained "ongoing" publication of the comments made about solicitors that it would be "reasonable to infer in every case that those [lawyers] posted [about] would suffer such distress and alarm on at least two occasions". The judge has prohibited Kordowski from harassing the lawyers listed or at risk of being listed on solicitorsfromhell.co.uk in the future.

original article found here

DEFINING SPIN

by Michael Roberts of Rexxfield

(Watch Michael's story on 60 Minutes)

Victims of Internet smear campaigns must understand the sociopath's or narcissist's expert employment of “SPIN” in their online smear campaigns. This is singularly the best way to begin to understand the way I and many others have found ourselves so frequently gasping in their wake of carnage.

When executing their anti-social agendas, their modus operandi is to sprinkle enough truth in any given lie to add credence to their deceptions.  

Alternatively, sometimes they will “kitchen sink it”, that is to say, they overdose the performance with too much information; the end result is very muddy waters in which no reasonable person can navigate. The kitchen-sink approach is often reserved as a "last stand" when the sociopath's make-believe walls begin to crumble bolstered only by charm, persuasion, sophistry and divide/conquer tactics.

If a lawsuit for Internet libel is to ensue, it is important to put the "spin" on the back burner and build your case around the clear statements of fact that can be proven to be deceptive, thus making for a stronger case. As for the spin, you will need to persuade the judge or jury that the statements were woven in a way so as to cast a false light on the facts. You would need to show that the spin would reasonably be understood to be an expression which would attack a person's integrity or moral character and/or expose the person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule and /or deprive the person of the benefits of public confidence and social dealings and /or injure the plaintiff in the maintenance of his or her business.

Read Also: How to avoid dismissal of libel lawsuit under Anti-SLAPP legislation.

THE PRACTICAL DEFINITION OF “SPIN”:
The most common referents for spin are:

• a form of deception which tries to redirect the way (or whether) one thinks about an issue and / 
• or; a way of giving a positive or negative cast to a story.

Spin at its best:

• Cannot be factually disproved. 
• Looks like it is addressing an issue directly but is not.

In early 2009, I was told by a libel victim who read these pages that he almost cried with relief because he had found others who know exactly what they are going through. 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE FOUND HERE

Warning About E-Personation Bill

By Edward Berridge

Online Human Rights Group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has warned that a bill working its way through the California legislature will make it a crime to impersonate someone online in order to "harm" that person.

The law will make it illegal to create a Facebook or Twitter account with someone else's name, and then use that account to embarrass that person.

The EFF said that "impersonating" corporations and public officials has become an important and powerful form of political activism, especially online."

"For example, the Yes Men, a group of artists and activists, pioneered "identity correction," posing as business and government representatives and making statements on their behalf to raise popular awareness of the real effects of those entities' activities, like the failure to DuPont to adequately compensate victims of the Bhopal disaster and the U.S. government's destruction of public housing units in New Orleans," the EFF said.

Last year, the activists staged a thinly veiled hoax by presenting themselves at a press conference and on a website as the Chamber of Commerce and promised to stop lobbying against strong climate change legislation. The Chamber promptly sued the Yes Men based on a trademark complaint.

Spoof sites and "identity correction" raise awareness about community issues, environmental threats and, most recently, the historical roots of Haiti's economic problems, the EFF said.

The people behind the bill said that there is nothing to worry about as it only applies to "credible" impersonations. They claimed that at the moment victims of online harassment and defamation have little legal recourse.

However the EFF replied that laws against fraud and defamation are already on the books, and they apply online as well as offline.

original article here

NOTE: THIS BILL PASSED IN CALIFORNIA and NEW YORK
CLICK HERE FOR MORE

Cyber Bullying: A Virtual Menace

By Tejaswi Agarwal

Key Primers
Bullying has been defined as a behaviour that is intentional, harmful, repetitive, and reflects anabuse of power. In today's hyper-connected world via social media, bullying has taken a gigantic form whereby the perpetrators utilise the technological means to harass, denigrate and stalk people. In order to put it in words of Ben, Cyber Bullying involves the use of information and communication technologies such as e-mail, cell phone and pager text messages, instant messaging, defamatory personal Web sites, and defamatory online personal polling Web sites, to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behaviour by an individual or group that is intended to harm others.

Contemporary Situation
In today's socially connected world, accessing information has become the easiest tasks. The evil elements of the society never leave a chance to defame anyone. In the current scenario, cyber bullying has taken various forms. The defaulters send angry confrontational messages, often using explicit and vulgar language, referred to as flaming this often results in hypothetical situations leading to havoc in the society. Approximately 32% of all teens who use the Internet regularly have reported being victims of cyber bullying, according to a 2007 poll by project. The exodus of the North-Eastern residents of India was one such act of Cyber Bullying which tore apart the well fabricated sheet of harmony. All sorts of chat rooms are one of the prime locations of virtual harassment which results in hazardous consequences. Recent instances of Meier, Ryan, Tyler Clementi reflects the serious consequences of the matter concerned. 

Global Efforts
Bullying, an initiative of The Alanah and Madeline Foundation conducts National Coalition Against Bullying Conferences every year which hold testimony to the fact that people are uniting against the menace of bullying. Numerous reports by NCAB elaborates on the emerging issues of Cyber Bullying. Evelyn M. Field, psychologist, writer and a Board Member of NCAB authored book," Bully" targets the uncovered issues of bullying in real as well as the virtual world. There are all sorts of help available on the internet which will guide one to avoid being bullied online. bullying.org, cyberbullying.ca are such efforts in the right direction.

Legislation Against Cyber Bullying
As far as India is concerned; there is no law that directly regulates cyber bullying. The Information Technology Act of 2000 (IT Act) are a set of laws to regulate the cyberspace but hardly do they focus on interpersonal criminal behaviour such as cyber stalking to the fullest.

In United States of America, Megan Meier Cyber Bullying Prevention Act was brought before the House of Representatives to prevent further events which happened with Megan Meier. Every State's legislation refers to the cyber crime laws with utmost seriousness. 

Word of Caution

• Keep your internet connection password protected. 
• Do not provide personal information like credit/debit card details to anyone on chat. 
• Don't open a message from someone you don't know on Facebook, Orkut or Google+. 
• Read the terms and conditions properly before providing personal details on any website. One needs to make sure that your personal information is utilised wisely and for appropriate purposes. 

Public View
Saurabh Jha, a prolific blogger feels that any form of bullying is no good to the society as it deeply hurts a person psychologically. There is a dire need for new legislations in India which bring about a change and also a fear among the perpetrators.

"Cyber Bullying has created a fear among the common people who use internet for their daily purposes. The social networking websites such as Facebook, Orkut have become a direct medium to bully innocent people. The current situation calls for an urgent mechanism in these websites to filter content which aims at hampering the social harmony "- says Ravi, a third year B Tech student at VIT.

original article found here

Man's Blog about Ex-Girlfriend Ordered Down

Takedown of Man’s Blog Harassing Ex-Girlfriend Upheld

by David L. Hudson, Jr.  -- First Amendment Scholar

A Minnesota trial court did not violate the First Amendment rights of man by entering a harassment-restraining order that forced him to remove a blog about his relationship with his former girlfriend.

Andrew John Arlotta and Ann Johnson had a romantic relationship from late 2008 to September 2009. After the relationship ended, Arlotta continued to contact Johnson against her wishes. Johnson successfully obtained an HRO for six months that prevented Arlotta from violating her security or privacy or contacting her by any means.

Two days after the HRO went into effect, Arlotta created a blog called “Help Anna Johnson” that documented his relationship problems with Johnson. It questioned her mental health and stability. Arlotta sent messages about the blog to her relatives, friends and high school classmates. He also sent a message to her employer.

As a result of the blog, Johnson obtained another order from the court imposing an additional restraining order that was to last until March 2062 — for 51 years. The new HRO ordered Arlotta to remove his blog about Johnson from the Internet.

Arlotta appealed the trial court’s order. He contended that the new HRO was an unconstitutional prior restraint on “pure speech” in violation of the First Amendment. Prior restraints are laws, regulations or orders that place significant pre-publication hurdles on speech or prevent speech from occurring altogether.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals determined in its Dec. 12 opinion in Arlotta v. Johnson that the order was legitimate because Arlotta had engaged in a pattern of conduct that substantially violated Johnson’s privacy. The appeals court also rejected the idea that the HRO order was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. The state has a compelling interest in protecting Johnson from harassment, the appeals court said, further concluding that Arlotta did not engage in protected speech, but unprotected harassment.

“Because the HRO prohibits unprotected speech, we conclude that it is not an impermissible prior restraint,” the court wrote.

Minnesota law allows harassment orders to remain in place for up to 50 years. The appeals court reduced the effective period of the order against Arlotta by only one year.

original article found here

What is Google's "Humility Algorithm™"?

[Grant Crowell's Interview with Michael Roberts - October 30, 2010.]

GRANT: What is the "Google Humility Algorithm?"

MICHAEL: Please understand that I am answering these questions with the presupposition that it does in fact exist because my assertion is based on my empirical observations... I believe it really is out there!

Originally I called it “Google's Humiliation Algorithm”; however, I realized that I might have been jumping to conclusions because in context “humiliation” could imply that Google is deliberately humiliating the subjects being Googled. I opted instead for “Google's Humility Algorithm” to give Google the benefit of the doubt with respect to intent; humility is considered by right minded people to be a noble state of being although I would argue that it should be voluntary. I believe the humility algorithm is a provision within the Google search formula giving what would otherwise be unmerited high search rankings for a small number of web pages containing derogatory or demeaning words in close association with proper nouns such as personal and business names.

GRANT: How does it occur?

MICHAEL: I don't know; I would expect that Google guards its algorithms like KFC guards its secret recipe. Notwithstanding, although I cannot see the wind, I see its effects. Based on my observations and the tests our team have run, if I were to hazard a guess I would say there is a list of “humility words; nouns and adjectives that bring the hypothetical algorithm to life. These words include ponzi, scammer, abuser, whore, tax cheat, playboy, felon, conviction, indictment, bankrupt, molester, fraud, cheater, pyramid scheme, etc -- I'm sure you get the idea. There are also some web sites apparently designated as humility domains by default and they include the likes of ripoffreport.com, complaintsboard.com and, interestingly, blogspot.com.

GRANT: What is the reason for it occurring?

MICHAEL: I sincerely hope that Google's intentions were pure and that they were simply trying to ensure that the search results were diverse and balanced; lest genuinely bad individuals and organizations use expensive SEO techniques to bury legitimate dissent, competition and whistle blowing.

GRANT: What effect does it have on Google's search results (and search relevancy)?

MICHAEL: The humility algorithm seems to have special reservations for positions 3 and/or 4 on page one of Google search results. My close observations suggest that these high-ranking results have almost without exception, some type of a humility keyword in close proximity to the search subject's name. This year's "Caffeine" release of Google search has shifted the weight somewhat with humility search results being more random between #1 through #4 on page one and now it seems that #1 on page two has been reserved for humility results, but not always.

GRANT: What examples can you provide as evidence (can cite both existing and past)?

MICHAEL: I cannot really go into too much detail here because much of our work is based on real-life cases for clients. In some instances we have individuals literally on the verge of suicide because of the problems this was causing; unfortunately the child of one of our clients succumbed to the pressure several months ago. That being said, now that your readers have been told what patterns to look for, it won't take long to verify my assertions. And I would invite any brainiacs out there who have a better head for maths than I, to do some serious testing. I would appreciate being privy to the results.

GRANT: If you are correct, what do you think this is this accidental or intentional on Google's part?

MICHAEL: I believe the algorithm is very deliberate; but it is the intent that I am more interested in. In other words "humility vis-à-vis humiliation", or "don't be evil vis-à-vis evil is relative".

GRANT: If intentional, what would you argue is Google's motive or motives?

MICHAEL: If it is a humiliation algorithm [i.e. evil], then it could be argued that Google could benefit when users decide to click on a Google AdWords link to a humiliation victim's competitor once the user has read the negative results for the business he or she found in organic Google search results.

GRANT: What are the problems this creates?

MICHAEL: That is a whole 'nuther conversation which stretches from mild emotional annoyance for some individuals right through to suicide and breakdowns. I have personally witnessed these two extremes and everything between in the last three years. For businesses, the same emotional toll for the individuals involved through to insolvency; once again I have seen it all. I would even go so far as to say that the Wild-Wild-Web combined with the US Congress' existing subsidy for Internet libel, through Section 230C of the Communications Decency Act, is a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States. A competitive market driven economy can no longer function on a level playing field in these conditions; in many vertical markets the only businesses that can win are those willing to stoop to either “doing evil” by smearing their opposition with "googledoo", or looking the other way when it is within their power to act. I am referring here to the many thousands of tear soaked letters sent to Google et al, begging for the removal of egregious allegations from search engine results. These are usually met with canned template responses encouraging the victim to simply create more online content with positive spin to dilute the negative postings.

I find such narcissistic corporate cultures to the reprehensible on at least two levels.

(1) The very law that gives ISPs the immunity to turn a blind eye to such requests is in fact titled “Good Samaritan” protection, clearly implying that it was Congress' intent that the recipients of such letters would do the right thing.
(2) Such letters encouraging the creation of more online content serves the purpose of creating more advertising platforms for AdWord campaigns; victims effectively become slaves at worst or indentured servants at best to Google by creating more of what it devours and profits from, information.

GRANT: In your opinion, would this put Google in a position of increased liability? Or are they fully protected by the CDA?

MICHAEL: This would be a good opportunity to make it very clear that I am not an attorney, although I consult for many of them in these matters. As such, I would rather defer to the wisdom of suitably qualified, but more importantly qualified professionals to express such opinions.

GRANT: What do you think needs to be changed and why?

MICHAEL: I would start with the human heart and the nastiness epidemic, but that comes only from a miracle of God. Otherwise, if I could wave a magic wand I would like to see some common sense amendments made to the communications decency act which still gives generous immunity for Internet service providers but conditional upon reasonable attempts to comply with the intent of the “Good Samaritan” clause which is found specifically in TITLE 47, CHAPTER 5, SUBCHAPTER II, Part I, § 230(C).

GRANT: What questions do you think Google needs to answer for in light of this evidence?

MICHAEL: My questions would be simple:
(1) “Does the humility algorithm exist, and why?”

(2) Do your family members receive the same cookie-cutter responses when they ask you for junk results to be removed from your search index?

original article found here

OUR THANK YOUS TO THE SUPPORTER WHO SENT THIS TO EOPC!

The 7 Deadliest Social Networking Hacks

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

By Kelly Jackson Higgins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* 1) Impersonation and targeted personal attacks

* 2) Spam and bot infections

* 3) Weaponized OpenSocial and other social networking applications

* 4) Crossover of personal to professional online presence

* 5) XSS, CSRF attacks

* 6) Identity theft

* 7) Corporate espionage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responses to: editors@darkreading.com

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

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

You Too Could Be Slimed - Fighting Internet Insults

Former NFL exec Matthew Couloute Jr. was anonymously branded a devious Don Juan on the Web site LiarsCheatersRUs.com. He is suing two exes he says are responsible for the cybersmear, roller-derby skater “Malibu” Stacey Blitsch and Amanda Ryncarz.

Blitsch has denied posting, but Ryncarz says her screeds are protected free speech.

“Our relationship didn’t last long, as I figured him out pretty quickly, but for others, BE FOREWARNED, HE’S SCUM! RUN FAR AWAY!” one post on the site reads.

Here, Couloute, a former Connecticut prosecutor, speaks out at length for the first time on the cybertrashing -- and how it could happen to you.
______________________

Both of my exes were youthful indiscretions. Everyone has that person they dated in their life where you say, “Oh, that’s a mistake.” I have a child with my mistake.

Amanda’s my other mistake. I dated her on and off since 2008, and now she’s shown up and has been in contact with Stacey.

As we date people through our single lives, we get to know them and their true colors. That is what happened along the way with both Stacey and Amanda. I didn’t marry either because they weren’t the right fit for me. I had a son with Stacey, and I love him more than anything.

But everything they said is false.

And that’s why I took the approach I did with the federal lawsuit. I’m seeking unspecified damages, but this is not about money. This is about removing those posts.

Stacey is using this as a tool in order to get custody of our son. We broke up in 2006 and had joint custody until 2008, when a judge deemed me the more fit parent.

Last year, I filed a motion to relocate him to Connecticut, where I moved after working in Florida -- a requirement by law in the state -- and it’s become a contentious battle to relocate him. That’s what her posts are really about.

Look, I’m not here to badmouth Stacey, but read what she’s posted online and what she wants to do with her career and her life. The way she portrays herself online, scantily clad in bikinis, it’s clear that the most important thing for her is not my son.

The posts came up when I was purchasing a house with my wife. Clients ask me about what’s going on. It’s the first thing that comes up when you Google my name.

And I have to answer those questions.

Even my mom was upset with me -- for lowering myself to deal with their online bashing.

The point is you should not be able to anonymously defame people on a Web site set up in Panama -- outside the laws of the United States -- and get away with it. I’ve had a successful career my whole life, am good at what I do, and have absolutely no recourse against this company. And neither do you. I can sign on to the site and post your name and write anything I want about you.

So my voice is the only thing I have, and that’s why I’m speaking out.

I fought too hard in my life and career and to be a good man to sit back and be maliciously lied about on the Internet and media.

Women should never be afraid to speak out. But no one should be able to defame an ex-flame because they’re not happy with the way the relationship ended.


WITH THANKS TO LoveFraud.com

original article found here

(THIS IS EXACTLY WHY EOPC HAS MORE THAN ONE 'WEBMASTER' AND VICTIMS ARE REQUIRED TO SIGN A LEGAL RELEASE WHERE THEY TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT IS POSTED AND ITS TRUTHFULNESS. WE DO NOT GET PERSONALLY INVOLVED WITH ANY CASE. WE ARE LEGALLY FULLY HARMLESS FOR WHAT IS POSTED HERE.)

Defamation in the Internet Age

With the proliferation of the Internet, communication is fast, easy and convenient. Within the past few years, social networking has grown at an astonishing rate. Sites such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter allow us to share our thoughts and ideas with the masses. But, what if those thoughts are not so nice?

Can you bring a defamation suit against others who have made negative public postings about you? It depends on what is said and to whom.

Defamation comes in two types: spoken statements (called slander) and written statements (called libel). On the Internet, I would submit that it is possible to encounter both types. For example, a YouTube video could contain spoken statements (such as from a person's webcam) that would constitute slander. On the other hand, Twitter or Facebook posts are typed statements and would be examples of libel.

The key to establishing a defamation case is to prove someone made false statements with a degree of fault to one or more third parties. There also has to be some type of harm.

Falsity is a must. Basic trash talk or calling people names does not count. Opinions do not constitute defamation either.

Most of the cases I see, especially from the Internet, fall into this category. That's not to say that you have to sit and take it, but it is not defamation. Such statements still could constitute false light, invasion of privacy, infliction of emotional distress, harassment, etc., but those are potential topics for other columns.

If someone makes a false statement to your face, that is not defamation unless it is heard by someone else. The statements have to be made to a third party, but it is not necessary that you hear it firsthand. As long as you can prove the statement was made (such as a public forum), that is good enough.

Whether the statement is made or published to a third party is a tough element to prove in slander cases. It usually is a he-said, she-said case. Who is the jury going to believe? If there is some type of recording of the statement, that is the best proof of what was said. Obviously, written statements are easier to prove as to their content. (If it was said on a private forum or private email - it can not be considered defamation or libel)

You also must prove there was some sort of harm done. You do not have to show actual monetary loss. Damage to your reputation, humiliation, and mental anguish are examples of harm.

What about that "degree of fault" language I mentioned? Well, if you are a private citizen, you have to prove only that the false statements were made negligently by the offender. However, for public figures, it is harder to prove defamation because you must show the statements were made maliciously. If you are a public figure, you have placed yourself in a position of some important public controversy. You are willingly in the limelight. So, if you ever run for public office, make sure you have a thick skin.

There are other nuances to the law, but those are the highlights. If you believe you have been the victim of defamation, consult an attorney.

DISCLAIMER: Every situation is different. Nothing in this article should be considered specific legal advice.

Jonathan Schmidt is a partner with Benson & Schmidt LLP.

(this does not cover "False Light" when truthful statements can be made in a 'false light' to discredit another's reputation - which is actionable in many states in U.S.)

original article here

WHY PEOPLE ARE SUCH JERKS ONLINE

The concept of the flame war online is certainly nothing new. It's been around since before most people were even aware the internet existed. However, more people are starting to look into the issue of why people tend to be such incredible jerks online when they might be perfectly nice in person. It seems that there are few different things contributing to the effect.

First is that people somehow feel "disinhibited" when sitting behind a keyboard and monitor -- whether it's because of the supposed anonymity, the fact that you're effectively "invisible" or even the fact that there's a time lag between being a jerk and any response to it. The fact that you're somewhat separate from the response just makes it that much easier to be a jerk.

Some feel that it has even more to do with the lack of direct human contact in terms of either seeing hurt feelings or hearing someone's voice. There's just less empathy involved in seeing black and white text then seeing a physical reaction to being mean. Some of the latest research on this actually looked at how brains process messages during a conversation, and noted that in a normal conversation the person is tracking a variety of different cues in terms of how the other person is responding, and those cues help moderate what we say. Without any such cues when sitting behind a keyboard, you don't get any of the warning lights to moderate what you're saying, and the natural tendency is just to go right to the extreme edge without ever cooling off.

( EOPC has been dealing with a individuals - one on another discussion board where we occassionally posted; who have strung together a bunch of unrelated facts to try and indict us for our anonymity. Most of the facts revolve around victims we helped who they are trying to 'prove' is us. These victims went on to do a lot of work with DV victims like themselves. Unfortunately DV advocated attract just as many disordered naysayers who are desperate to place blame as we do. We are hanging in there.

If things like this are happening to you - take a breath and step back before you react to accusations or disordered or negative individuals (such as your cyberpath) who string together unrelated things in attempts to construct a 'gotcha' moment for you. If you try to defend yourself? These 'jerks' will take it as your 'admission of guilt' thereby setting up a no win situation for you. Stay in what you know to be truth and distance yourself from these types of people. We are.)

Of course, so far, it doesn't seem like the research is coming up with many good solutions to get people to moderate what they say online -- other than suggesting that using video communications might help. Other than that, perhaps just being more conscious of the fact that it really is a human being at the other end might help -- but so far that kind of "self awareness" hasn't caught on. And, even if it has, as long as one person in the group is unable to moderate his or her speech, it tends to set off many others as well.

Warning: About Posting Abuse on Twitter and Facebook

By Declan Harvey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

original article found here