Spying on Partner's Email ILLEGAL

Spying on lover's e-mail? Monitoring may be illegal
Austin police have charged two recently with activity.

By Tony Plohetski

Shawn Macleod wanted to know where his estranged wife was going on the Internet and what she was writing in e-mails, investigators said, so he secretly installed a program called SpyRecon on her computer that sent him electronic logs with the sites she had visited and messages she had sent.

His spying resulted in a four-year prison sentence.

Software programs created to monitor computer activity have grown in popularity in recent years as parents have sought ways to prevent children from accessing adult Web sites or e-mailing possible predators and as businesses have tried to curtail the time employees spend on the Internet when they are at work.

Others, too, have found a use for the software: Scorned lovers can track where their spouses or partners go online, whom they are e-mailing and what they are saying — all possibly in violation of the law.

Austin police considered Macleod's actions tantamount to illegal wiretapping and charged him with unlawful interception of electronic communication, a second-degree felony that can carry a 20-year sentence. Macleod pleaded guilty in May.

"It's pretty alarming," said Macleod's attorney, Johnny Urrutia.

Urrutia said he would be surprised if his client knew that what he was doing was against the law.

Doug Fowler, president of SpectorSoft Corp., which manufactures an Internet monitoring program called eBlaster, said law enforcement agencies nationwide have in recent months sought company records during criminal investigations, hoping the documents would show who installed the software on victims' computers.

In New York this year, a sheriff's deputy was found guilty of eavesdropping after investigators said he spied on the computer activity of a neighbor he thought posed a threat to young girls in their neighborhood.

The deputy was sentenced to five years of probation.

In California, a man was indicted on federal charges in 2005, accused of manufacturing, advertising and sending a program called Lovespy.

In that case, victims received an electronic greeting card that, when opened, would record e-mail messages and the Web sites they visited.

Austin police in recent months have charged two men, including Macleod, with the crime. The second case, filed last month, is pending.

Detective Darin Webster, who works in the department's high-tech crime division, said investigators also have looked into several other cases that didn't result in charges because the evidence had been destroyed or they couldn't conclusively determine who had installed the spyware.

"The problem itself isn't the software," Webster said. "The problem is how the software is being used. ... And in the cases I've seen, there are warnings on there that it may be against the law. In Texas, it is."

State law says it is illegal to intentionally intercept spoken or electronic communication.

The law grants some exceptions, such as to switchboard operators who might hear part of a conversation while doing their job.

The law doesn't address certain questions about computer spyware, such as whether it is legal to install the equipment on a jointly owned computer without the consent of the second owner.

Employers typically have workers sign waivers acknowledging that they know the company computers are monitored.

Parents, as guardians of their minor children, are allowed to monitor their children's activities.

According to court records, Macleod's estranged wife, Kristy, reported to police in August 2005 that she suspected he was monitoring her computer use.

A detective using a fake name sent Kristy Macleod an e-mail offering to buy the couple's pool table.

A few days later, Shawn Macleod confronted Kristy Macleod about the e-mail, according to a probable cause affidavit.

Detectives searched the computer and found SpyRecon software on it, according to the affidavit.

Kristy Macleod could not be reached for comment. Company officials for SpyRecon did not respond to an interview request.

In an online advertisement, the company asks, "Have you ever needed to secretly read the e-mail of your child or spouse?"

In the second case Austin police filed, investigators said Alexis Lugo, 29, installed eBlaster software on his ex-girlfriend's computer.

An affidavit in that case said Kara Winebright called Austin police and reported that she thought Lugo had hacked into her computer and changed the password on some of her accounts.

Winebright said she had broken up with Lugo and later had discovered some unusual activity on her account with eHarmony, a dating Web site. She checked her other online accounts and found similar problems.

Police searched her computer and found the eBlaster software.

Ordinary anti-spy software might not detect such programs, but checking to see which programs and files have been downloaded to hard drives should reveal them, said Fowler, the manufacturer of eBlaster.

Fowler said his company intended for the software to be used only by parents or businesses, not by spying spouses or partners. The company marketed the product that way several years ago but stopped, he said.

"We ultimately decided that it wasn't a market we wanted to participate in," Fowler said. "There are certainly those who buy the software for this kind of thing. But we don't encourage it."

SOURCE

Arrested for Cyberstalking His Ex

by Bob Byrne

(Pennsylvania, USA) Police have charged Anthony Ciccarone with three counts related to alleged cyberstalking after an investigation spurred by complaints from his ex-wife.

According to police, the woman complained to police, alleging that her daily activities were being monitored. While investigating the complaints police say they uncovered evidence that the suspect had "made comments to others that he had been monitoring his ex-wife's activities."

Police say they had the ex-wife's computer examined for evidence and uncovered a "Web Watcher" program that works by recording all activities on a computer without the user being aware that it is there. According to a Tredyffrin Police news release the Web Watcher program also logs every key stroke, capturing emails and internet activities.

The investigation led police to get a search warrant and an arrest warrant for Anthony Ciccarone. He was arrested last week. A $7,500 cash bail was set in the case, which the defendant posted.

original article here

Social Networking: A Bonanza for Stalkers?

"Vengeance will be mine...," declared a defiant message on MySpace.com. "I should have killed you all when I had a gun and some drugs." This violent monologue, one of several postings on the writer's site, threatened his ex-wife, who had fled the state to escape his abuse. In postings on other sites, he demanded photos of his family and warned that if he didn't get to see the kids, "it isn't going to be real good, because I'm gonna see them whether you let me or not."[1]

The increasing use of MySpace to threaten and stalk victims raises many important questions. Do social networking sites enable stalking? What recourse do victims have when these sites are used to stalk? And what tools can help block the use of these sites to stalk?

What Are Social Networking Sites?
Social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook are virtual communities where people with mutual interests meet on-line to share information and build relationships. Site visitors can chat, debate, network, and socialize. On many sites, members may post details about themselves-photos; educational backgrounds; favorite books, movies, and music; and relationship status. Others sites promote business, activism, networking, counseling, socializing, or many types of recreational interests. Sites such as MySpace, Facebook, Friendster, and Xanga have attracted millions of members, particularly among teenagers and young adults.


How Do They Work?
On many social networking sites, anyone with a computer and Internet access can become a member. Some sites require only an e-mail address, and many sites have no system to verify the validity of information that registrants provide. A few sites, including MySpace and Friendster, have minimum age requirements (14 and 16, respectively) although these sites have no reliable method to verify a user's age. Once a member, anyone can post personal information, images, music, or other data on their Web pages, depending on the site's features. On many sites, members select a circle of "friends" who can post messages on their profiles, add comments, or access pages not visible to other users. Unless the site allows members to control access to specific information (and members actually exercise those options), everything posted on a profile may be visible to all site visitors. Most sites require members to agree to terms of proper conduct, but enforcement of such terms is sporadic and often depends on members to report violations.[2]


Links to Stalking
The attractions of social networking-access to an ever-widening world of "friends"-can lead users to overlook the pitfalls of these sites. Young people, in particular, may tend to view such sites as "part of their own little world,"3 not a public bulletin board with millions of other visitors. They may not recognize that posting personal information may lead to contacts from sexual predators, identity theft, fraud, or stalking-or that anyone could post a bogus profile to disparage, misrepresent, harass, threaten, or embarrass them.[3]

Cases
Several recent cases suggest how stalkers and predators are beginning to use social networking sites. In the months before the Virginia Tech massacre, the shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, allegedly used Facebook to locate and stalk female classmates.[4] In July 2007, authorities inLorager, Louisiana, arrested a 17-year old for stalking and cyberstalking another teenage boy. The alleged stalker's MySpace page featured a video of the accused pistol-whipping another boy posing as the victim.[5]

In 2006, a University of Kansas student received death threats from someone who found her class schedule on-line. He posted photos from the victim's MySpace account on his own site, along with insults about her appearance and her major.[6] Also last year, National Public Radio's Veronica Miller discovered "Becky," a MySpace "cyber twin" who had copied a photo of Miller from Facebook and published it-along with photos of Miller's family-on the imposter's site. Although Miller's impersonator did not threaten or stalk her (and MySpace promptly removed "Becky's" site), the incident shows the potential of such sites for stalking or harassment.[7]

Features to Watch
Several social networking site features may increase users' vulnerability to stalkers and other predators. For example, new MySpace members are asked to supply a name or nickname and information about their marital status, sexual orientation, hometown, school, religion, education, interests (e.g., music, movies, television, books, and heroes), children, or income. Although most of these questions are optional, users may automatically answer them because they are using the site to meet other people. On many sites, all these answers go "public," remaining open to anyone who uses the site. Stalkers may use such information to gain access to site members.

Many social networking sites (e.g., Stalkerati) also have search tools that can simultaneously pull personal information about the same person from a number of different sites, including MySpace, Friendster, Flickr and Google. A recently shut-down site called fbstalker.com tracked changes in the profiles of users' friends while saving copies of each page to compare to subsequently updated files.5 Other sites, such as Profilesnoop and Link View, allow visitors to trace a user's Internet Protocol (IP) address (and even physical location on Google Maps) with many social networking sites, including Facebook.[8]

Stalkers can also use social networking sites to introduce spyware into the computers of their victims. Spyware infection rates are increasing, an anti-spyware company spokesman told Business Week, in part because "people are creating multiple profiles, and the links on their sites will take you to sites that will download adware and spyware."[9] Stalkers can exploit this vulnerability on their victims' profile pages. Once downloaded, spyware can help stalkers gather information about all their victims' computer activity, including e-mails, chats, instant messages, keystrokes, passwords, and Web sites visited.

Legal Recourse
Stalkers who use social networking sites as part of a pattern of stalking may be subject to criminal charges. For example, someone who repeatedly follows and tracks a victim in her car, as well as posts a lewd photo of the victim on a social networking site, can be charged with the crime of stalking. Also in many states, cyberstalking statutes enable prosecutors to charge those who use technology to stalk and harass their victims. Other states have general stalking laws that define ‘pattern of conduct' broadly enough to cover the use of technology to stalk. Most of these laws are relatively new, however, and few cases involving social networking sites have yet been prosecuted.

Victims also have options in civil or family courts. They can seek protective orders against stalkers, who can be ordered not to contact the victim, including not using any form of electronic communications to stalk the victim. Victims may also be able to file a civil tort case against their stalker, seeking damages for the impact of stalking on their lives. Also, under certain conditions, victims can sue social networking sites for failure to remove offensive or defamatory material regarding the victim from the site.

New Laws
Lawmakers are starting to propose measures to govern the use of social networking sites. In April 2007, for example, the California legislature introduced a bill to prevent individuals from using social networking sites to incite harassment or abuse against an individual. Harassment would include posting digital images or messages on Web sites to cause fear, harassment, or harm to an individual.[10]

Prevention: The Best Defense
The best defense against social networking site stalking is to use the sites with extreme caution. Wise users carefully consider what they post (see "Think Before You Post). Last names, school names, favorite hangouts, phone numbers, and addresses make it easy for stalkers to locate victims. Photos with identifiers (like school names or locations) also increase a victim's vulnerability. Posted information is permanently public. "You can't take it back," warn experts Larry Magid and Anne Collier, about information posted on-line. "Deleted" information can be recovered, for example, from Google's cache of deleted and changed Web pages and from Internet Archive (archive.org), which offers access to deleted postings.[11]

Users can also boost security by limiting on-line "friends" to people they actually know and by activating all available privacy settings. Since June 2006, MySpace has allowed all users to keep their profiles private-open only to those designated as "friends." MySpace also offers other privacy options: to control how others may add their names to friends lists, to approve friends' comments before hosting, to hide the feature that shows when they are on-line, or to prevent e-mailing photos. To activate these features, members must change their settings and choose the privacy options they prefer. Although stalkers can find ways around these protections, members who use them are less vulnerable than those who do not.[12]

Networking Safely
The social networking revolution presents complex dilemmas. The convenience and appeal of these sites are undeniable, and stalking cases that involve social networking are still quite rare. Yet as stalkers diversify their tactics, they are likely to exploit any available technology. For stalking victims as well as the public, safe social networking will require awareness and vigilance.

As the Stalking Resource Center continues to track this issue, we welcome insights from the field about these sites, related cases, and new features to keep them safe. We will periodically report our findings at www.ncvc.org/src. For more information, please visit the SRC Web site or call 202-467-8700.


[1] As told to staff by a stalking survivor.

[2] Massachusetts Attorney General, "Consumer Advisory: AG Reilly Warns Parents about the Potential Dangers of Children Using Social Networking Sites Such and MySpace and Xanga," August 29, 2006, www.ago.state.ma.us/sp.cfm?pageid=986&id=1710 (accessed February 26, 2007).

[3] Justin Pope, "Colleges Warn about Networking Sites," the Associated Press, August 2, 2006 (accessed March 4, 2007).

[4] Adam Geller, "VA Gunman Had 2 Past Stalking Cases," Associated Press, April 18, 2007, www.newsday.com (accessed July 24, 2007).

[5] Florida Parishes Bureau, "Loranger Teen Booked in Threats to Harm Other Teen, Cyberstalking," Capital City Press, July 12, 2007.

[6] KUJH-TV News, "Facebook Used to Aid Stalkers, May 4, 2006, www.tv.ku.edu/newsd (accessed March 5, 2007).

[7] Veronica Miller, "Stalking Becky, The Girl Who Stole MySpace," National Public Radio, All Things Considered, August 6, 2006, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5622009 (accessed July 25, 2007).

[8] Andy Meyers, "On-line Stalking Nothing New," The Brandeis Hoot, September 8, 2006, www.thehoot.net (accessed March 5, 2007).

[9] Arik Hesseldahl, "Social Networking Sites a ‘Hotbed' for Spyware, Business Week, August 18, 2006, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14413906, (accessed October 12, 2007).

[10] Jaikuman Vijayan, "California Eyes Stronger Cyberstalking Laws, ComputerWorld Government, 04/25/07. www.computerworld.com (accessed July 24, 2007).

[11] Larry Magid and Elaine Collier, Myspace Unraveled: A Parent's Guide to Teen Social Networking, Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press, 2007, pp. 122-3.

[12] Ibid.

original post here

Secret New Software Allows BT and Other Firms to Trawl Internet

How 'BT Sarah' spies on your Facebook account: secret new software allows BT and other firms to trawl internet looking for disgruntled customers

(U.K.)Some of Britain’s biggest firms were last night accused of ‘spying’ on their customers after they admitted ‘listening in’ on disgruntled conversations on the internet.

The companies include BT, which uses specially developed software to scan for negative comments about it on websites including Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.

Budget airline easyJet, mobile-phone retailer Carphone Warehouse and banks including Lloyds TSB are also monitoring social networking sites to see what is being said about them.

The firms claim there is nothing sinister about the practice, with BT insisting it is merely acting as ‘a fly on the wall’ to ‘listen and engage with our customers’.

But privacy campaigners have accused them of ‘outright spying’ while legal experts have suggested that firms making unsolicited approaches to customers could fall foul of data protection laws.

There are also fears the technique could be used to inundate customers with sales pitches and advertising, or be used by political parties.

Research published last year found that a negative review or comment by a frustrated customer on the internet can lose companies as many as 30 other customers.

A negative comment from a celebrity can be even more damaging. Earlier this year, BT was forced to act quickly after singer Lily Allen wrote on her Twitter page:

‘Anyone know who the CEO of BT is? I’d find out myself but my internet connection is so bad I can’t even Google. Such bad service, awful.'

BT is using software called Debatescape, which trawls social networking sites for keywords to identify anyone making negative comments about the company. Angry customers are then contacted by email suggesting ways BT can help to solve the problem.

The move comes as many of BT’s customers turn to the web to air their complaints because of the difficulties in getting through to its call centres.

Ironically, many of the comments on BT’s own Twitter page are written by those complaining they are not able to reach service staff.

Managers overseeing BT’s social networking operation claim ‘most of the feedback we get is positive – customers like it when we pick up on their BT-related issues without them asking directly’.

However, one disgruntled customer said he was stunned to be approached by the firm after he posted angry comments on his personal Facebook page.

The BT business customer, who has asked not be named, wrote that he thought ‘BT are just a bunch of unaccountable, business shafting, useless b*******’.

Within hours he had been contacted by someone calling themselves ‘BT Sarah’, saying: ‘I saw your post about having problems with your BT services. Is there anything I can do to help?’

The customer, who runs an online business, said: ‘I did not expect what I was saying to my friends to be seen. I have since changed my privacy settings so only my friends can access my page. What happened was quite Big Brotherish and sinister.’

It comes just two years after BT was involved in another internet privacy storm over its installation of software called Phorm, which delivers targeted advertising to internet customers. The Information Commissioner’s Office and the European Commission both voiced legal concerns about the system.

But Warren Buckley, BT’s managing director of customer services, defended the practice, saying the system has been used to help around 30,000 people.

‘The key is we are only looking at what people are talking about in public spaces,’ he said. ‘We are not picking up anything private. These are all discussions that can be seen by anyone on the web.

Listening in: Some angry BT customers, unable to get through to its call centres, are turning to the internet to post disgruntled messages

‘I would liken it to someone having a conversation in a pub – it’s just a very big pub. We can’t stop people saying negative things about us. What we can do is identify them and offer to address those concerns.

‘Many people we contact in this way are wowed by it. And for us it is another way to listen to what our customers are saying and to reach out to them.’

A spokesman for easyJet, which uses the internet for 97 per cent of its ticket sales, said using Twitter and Facebook was a natural extension of its online presence.

‘The initial reaction of some is that it is a bit like Big Brother watching them,’ he added. ‘They can be quite upset. But when they realise we are trying to help they are quite surprised and positive.’

A spokesman for Carphone Warehouse said: ‘We can often use this to turn a negative situation into a positive one. People complaining on the internet do it in an instant.

‘They are frustrated and use it to vent that anger. When we identify them we can often offer a solution. People we speak to are often blown away that Carphone Warehouse is listening and are overwhelmingly positive about it.’

There are continuing concerns over the level of protection given to people’s information on Facebook.

The firm came under fire last year after it introduced changes to its default privacy settings which allowed people’s personal details to be viewed by anyone from internet search engines like Google.

Dr Yaman Akdeniz, a legal expert and director of online privacy group Cyber-Rights, also warned that many of the firms could be breaking data protection laws.

‘Just because I am on Facebook or Twitter does not give BT or any other company the right to contact me unsolicited,’ he said. ‘These may be public conversations but firms should not be contacting users without their consent.

'People should refuse to speak to those companies and register a complaint with the Information Commissioner.'

Liberal Democrat MP Alan Reid called for an investigation.

‘This may well be within the law, but I don’t think I would be very pleased if a firm suddenly contacted me out of the blue after I said something on the internet,’ he added.’


original article here