Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

By Laura Parker, USA TODAY

A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."

Legal analysts say the Sept. 19 award by a jury in Broward County, Fla. - first reported Friday by the Daily Business Review - represents the largest such judgment over postings on an Internet blog or message board. Lyrissa Lidsky, a University of Florida law professor who specializes in free-speech issues, calls the award "astonishing."

Lidsky says the case could represent a coming trend in court fights over online messages because the woman who won the damage award, Sue Scheff of Weston, Fla., pursued the case even though she knew the defendant, Carey Bock of Mandeville, La., has no hope of paying such an award. Bock, who had to leave her home for several months because of Hurricane Katrina, couldn't afford an attorney and didn't show up for the trial.

"What's interesting about this case is that (Scheff) was so vested in being vindicated, she was willing to pay court costs," Lidsky says. "They knew before trial that the defendant couldn't pay, so what's the point in going to the jury?"

Scheff says she wanted to make a point to those who unfairly criticize others on the Internet. "I'm sure (Bock) doesn't have $1 million, let alone $11 million, but the message is strong and clear," Scheff says. "People are using the Internet to destroy people they don't like, and you can't do that."

The dispute between the two women arose after Bock asked Scheff for help in withdrawing Bock's twin sons from a boarding school in Costa Rica. Bock had disagreed with her ex-husband over how to deal with the boys' behavior problems. Against Bock's wishes, he had sent the boys to the boarding school.

Scheff, who operates a referral service called Parents Universal Resource Experts, says she referred Bock to a consultant who helped Bock retrieve her sons. Afterward, Bock became critical of Scheff and posted negative messages about her on the Internet site Fornits.com, where parents with children in boarding schools for troubled teens confer with one another.

In 2003, Scheff sued Bock for defamation. Bock hired a lawyer, but he left the case when she no longer could afford to pay him.

When Katrina hit in August 2005, Bock's house was flooded and she moved temporarily to Texas before returning to Louisiana last June. Court papers that Scheff and her attorney David H. Pollack mailed to Bock were returned to Pollack's office in Miami.

After Bock didn't offer a defense, a Broward Circuit Court judge found in favor of Scheff. A jury then heard Scheff's arguments about damages. Pollack did not seek a specific amount for the harm he says Scheff's business suffered.

"Even with no opposing counsel and no defendant there, $11 million is a huge amount," says Pollack, adding that Scheff is considering whether to try to collect any money from Bock. "The jury determined this was a significant enough issue. It's not just somebody's feelings are hurt; it's somebody's reputation is ruined."

Bock says that when she moved back to her repaired house over the summer, she knew the trial was approaching but did not know the date. She says she doesn't have the money to pay the judgment or hire a lawyer to appeal it. She adds that if the goal of Scheff's lawsuit was to stifle what Bock says online, it worked.

"I don't feel like I can express my opinions," Bock says. "Only one side of the story was told in court. Nobody heard my side."

ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

thanks to BETH for this find!

Stronger Laws Needed for Web Threats

This is undoubtedly one case where there ought to be a law. Society must catch up to the malevolence all too prevalent on the Internet. Some should be deemed criminal.

The case in point: Drew and Joyce Kesse have been living a parent’s worst nightmare for the past four years — the unsolved abduction of their 24-year-old daughter, Jennifer, in Orlando. The Bradenton couple’s efforts to secure information about their daughter’s disappearance includes an Internet site stocked with images, appearances on national television and other publicity.

Their determined and admirable efforts have generated a great deal of sympathy, encouragement and leads, especially in postings on the Web at www.jennifer kesse.com.

Compounding their anguish, though, are the miscreants and parasites who exhibit twisted behavior and threatening comments via the Internet — all beyond the pale. “Weird crap,” Drew Kesse told Herald reporter Beth Burger for an in-depth article Sunday on the fourth anniversary of Jennifer’s kidnapping.

One lowlife attempted to extort millions, maintaining he held her for ransom. Another even claimed to have killed her along with more than a dozen others in a YouTube video.

But the veiled threats from one person — posted across some 100 pages on the family’s Web site — are deeply disturbing.

Plus, someone left threatening phone messages, one stating: “You’re gonna pay.” With some detective work by a Webmaster and prosecutors, the Kesses discovered the source of the phone calls matched the residence of the threatening poster’s computer.

Unfortunately, the Kesses have discovered that as abhorrent as all this is, criminal it is not.

The Manatee County Circuit Court declined to grant the family an injunction in the case, ruling the perpetrator’s identity had not been proven and the threat was not credible enough by legal standards.

Florida lacks a law against menacing threats delivered via electronic media. The state’s cyber stalking law requires threats be credible, which means the comments must be explicit about personal harm or death and the perpetrator must have the means to execute the threat.

Apparently, the Kesses’ tormentor has not quite crossed that line. In addition, proving who’s working the keyboard beyond a reasonable doubt is difficult without witness cooperation or a confession.

Come March when the regular session of the state Legislature convenes, lawmakers will be met by a bill that makes online written communication with threats of bodily harm or death a second-degree felony. That would cover e-mail, social networking sites like Facebook and postings on sites such as www.jenniferkesse.com.

In Burger’s report, Bradenton criminal defense attorney Mark Lipinski advocated the legislation include menacing communication as well — which would then cover the Kesses’ case.

Nobody should have to endure that kind of endless and senseless harassment. Florida law needs to catch up to technology and provide protections from these kinds of online threats, which should be considered terrorism of a sort.

original article here

Lawyer Loses Defamation Suit Against Website

By Staci Zaretsky

A lesson that Matt Couloute Jr. is learning.

It’s a sad fact, but almost everyone has had the opportunity to partake in a bad romance or two. And although it may sound elegant when Lady Gaga sings about it, in real life, it can be devastating. That’s why websites like LiarsCheatersRUs were created — so that jilted lovers could have a place to unleash their angst about failed relationships caused by a lover’s supposed infidelity.

But what happens when you’re a lawyer and a scorned ex-girlfriend lets loose on the internet about your infidelities? That is apparently what happened in the case of Matthew Couloute Jr., a former prosecutor and Court TV analyst, after he allegedly cheated on Amanda Ryncarz.

Now he’s suing Ryncarz and another ex-flame, roller-derby diva Stacey Blitsch, both represented by [ ] lawyer to the wannabe stars, Gloria Allred. Thus far, we’ve kept our coverage of the drama to Morning Docket entries (here, here, and here), but now, Matt Couloute has spoken out about the situation on television.

For those of you who haven’t been following this story as it makes its rounds on New York’s finest tabloids, here is the LiarsCheatersRUs entry that Couloute is suing over (click here)

Ouch, way to hit him where it hurts — his wallet. Couloute’s ex, Amanda Ryncarz, was outed as the “anonymous” writer of this review, and now she’s airing her grievances even more publicly. In a press conference organized by Gloria Allred last September, Ryncarz announced that she posted on the website “because [she] wanted to warn other women in order to protect them from what [she] suffered.”

Stacey Blitsch, on the other hand, completely denies posting LiarsCheatersRUs, but many suspect that this response to Ryncarz’s original entry was penned by her hand (click here)

Well, if she did write that, then this Blitsch has got balls. Hell totally hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Aww, Couloute just wants a clean Google search. You can’t fault the man for that, but you’ve got to wonder if this attorney is getting what he deserves. Recall from 1L year that truth is a defense to defamation. If you don’t remember, then Gloria Allred is here to help you out:

“I think the minimum the women should be allowed to do is to speak out and speak the truth about the men who they have had relationships [with] and about the men who have hurt them. We believe lawsuits like this should not be allowed. This is free speech. Women must have a voice and be able to speak to each other on matters of common interest without fear of being dragged into court.”

You hear that, ladies? You can say whatever you damn well want to say on the internet, and if you happen to get sued over it, then Girl Power Gloria will have your back.

Couloute’s lawsuit will be heard in court early this year, and when we get more details, we’ll be sure to pass them along to our readers. For now, if you’re thinking of cheating on your significant other, just remember that the internet is kind of like that Rockwell song — somebody is always watching you. But don’t even think about suing them for their online rants, because they’ve probably got Gloria Allred on speed dial.

original article here

____________


Couloute loses his Defamation Suit:

Couloute was called a cheating “scum” who, according to Amanda Ryncarz, dumped her over the phone five days before marrying another woman. Blitsch has a son with Couloute.

Baer ruled that the statements were opinion and “clearly hyperbolic.” Couloutee identified the following statements on the site as defamatory and injurious to his status as an attorney:

Ryncarz statements:

1. “[Mr. Couloute] lied and cheated all through his 40 years of life.”

2. “[Mr. Couloute] [u]ses people/his son/women to get what he wants then dumps you when he’s done with them. Has no long term friends. He rents or finances everything and owns absolutely nothing.”

3. “He is very very manipulating. he’s an attorney so he’s great at lying and covering it up without batting an eye.”1 .

Blitsch statements:

1. “[W]hat these ladies have said about his character is very true. I met him and dated briefly and I was taken in with the charm and instant “connection” he claimed we had . . . [A]s soon as I started asking questions about other aspects of his life and figured out he wasn’t comple[tely] honest he turned cold then disappeared. And of course another male is going to say Matt is a “solid dude” . . . if you agree with lieing [sic] and manipulating any female you come in contact with I guess he could be considered that. . . .”

2. “I came across this site by accident by following a UFL news feed, so your friend Matt has more problems than these posts if in search for the league his name is associated with this site.”

Couloute insisted that these comments included factual misrepresentations. Notably, one of the comment came with the following observation:

“This is the absolute truth about this man!! He will stop communication with you suddenly, then reach out years later as he did with me trying to sweet talk you and make you feel like you’re the most special woman in the world that he’s been looking for. He is very very manipulating. he’s an attorney so he’s great at lying and covering it up without batting an eye. Our relationship didn’t last long as I figured him out pretty quickly but for others, BE FOREWARNED, HE’S SCUM! RUN FAR A WAY!”

Couloute originally alleged only tortious interference with prospective business relations — perhaps in recognition of the opinion defense. However, he later amended to add the defamation claim.

Nevertheless, Baer (the judge) found that these comments, except one, were clearly opinion found on a site filled with one-sided accounts:

With the possible exception of the statement that Plaintiff “rents or finances everything and owns absolutely nothing”—a statement clearly capable of being proven true or false—the comments, even if viewed in isolation, are opinion. Defendants state that Plaintiff “lied and cheated all through his 40 years of life”, and that, because Plaintiff is an attorney, “he’s great at lying and covering it up without batting an eye.” Comments such as these are clearly hyperbolic. And when viewed within the larger context of the website on which they were posted, there can be no doubt that a reasonable reader would understand the comments to be opinion. As Defendants note, liarscheatersrus.com is “specifically intended to provide a forum for people to air their grievances about dishonest romantic partners.” Id. at 9. The average reader would know that the comments are “emotionally charged rhetoric” and the “opinions of disappointed lovers.” Id. Of course the Internet makes it more likely that a greater number of people will read comments such as these, and thereby amplify the impact they may have on a person, but this does not change the underlying nature of the comments themselves.

Couloutte plans to appeal.

There is a site with Couloutte’s name that contains the following odd statement from “him or her”:

Put Matt Couloute into the Google Search engine and you will not find Matthew Couloute’s background regarding his / her time as a news reporter on Court TV. You won’t learn Matt Couloute once represented a football league. An individual won’t learn this individual ended up being the assistant district attorney throughout Connecticut record.

Not at all, you will end up forwarded to liarscheatersrus.org, a site wherever ladies admit regarding extramarital affairs of the these people out dated or perhaps married.

Well Matt Couloute has decided to deal with the problem. In his or her case he recorded a lawsuit towards Amanda Ryncarz, his former sweetheart, that admits putting up on the spot relating to a few year romantic relationship. . . .

Matt Couloute has additionally within the go well with his / her child’s mom whom furthermore published on the website. She declines it but states the lady nevertheless believes Couloute is often lies. spouse.

It is not clear who has created this site, but it is one of the first sites that comes up when you try to find any site from Couloute. Here is his site. He includes a specialty in dealing with “cyberbullying.”

The case is Couloute v. Ryncarz, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20534.

original article here

Staying Safe Online -- Are You REALLY Anonymous?

It's tempting to feel that you're anonymous online, protected from potential cyberstalkers by cryptic user names and website privacy settings. But is that really true? How easy is it for a malicious person to track someone down, based solely on personal information they've made available?

We launched an investigation to find out.

The process started by picking a random person on Flickr. She had an unusual user name that we're going to call French Puppy (although all personal details have been changed), so no obvious clues there, but her profile linked to a personal website, LeahTphotos.com. First name Leah, but what was the T?

Website registration details often include the name and address of the creator, so we searched for "LeahTphotos.com" at whois.net. No luck, though, as it was registered to the name of a web design company, presumably the folks who built the site.

People often use the same user name around the web, and so we next tried searching for "French Puppy" at Google. Some hits, but not the right person.

Maybe her website name was the key? We tried another Google search for "LeahTphotos.com" and Leah, and success - we found a reference on another site that included her full name, a real breakthrough.

Entering this at Facebook gave us several hits, but we recognised her photo as a match for others on Flickr. The account was private, but revealed that she was in the Brighton network, and provided a list of all her friends. Within 60 seconds we had her phone number from BT.com, while 192.com helped out with her address, details of the neighbours, and even a handy map revealing how to get to her house.

That was enough, and we then emailed our test subject to explain what we were doing and why. She's since removed the page that linked LeahTPhotos.com to her full name, and so is a little safer as a result.

But what's really worrying isn't just that we could uncover so much in less than five minutes work on the very first person we tried. It's that the next two individuals we investigated were even easier to track down. And that suggests your privacy could be compromised just as quickly, unless you follow very strict rules about what you say online.

Seven rules for staying safe online

1. Don't give away your real name unless it's absolutely necessary.

2. If you register a domain name for a website then consider getting privacy protection as well. This lets you register with your real details, but ensures they're not available to the public, and is an option now offered by many companies (1steuro.net say they include it for free).

3. Don't tell people where you live, or work. Don't hint at it, perhaps saying you've just visited a particular place because it's "just around the corner".

4. It really should be obvious to say don't post details like your phone number online, but astonishingly people do this quite frequently. Try a Google search like "my cell number is" site:myspace.com to see what we mean.

5. Don't post links between your various internet homes, for example telling people on favourite forum A that you also post on message board B. And don't register the same user name everywhere. This only makes it easier to stalkers to follow you around the web, put together clues from different places, and uncover useful information.

Minimize What People Can Find Out About You Online

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORIGINAL

Minnesota Man Sentenced for Shaming Website

An Eagan man has pleaded guilty to attempting to coerce a man he believed to be a love rival, also admitting to disorderly conduct.

Emmett Salberg, 45, had for years poked fun at local officials as the creator of two websites that had resembled the city of Eagan's website. That had led to such confusion on the public's part, and embarrassment for the city, that the city council agreed last June to buy the two Web domains from him for $2,000.

Then, a year ago, Salberg was charged with two counts of attempted coercion and another count of harassment in a different matter, in which he allegedly created a website to publish insults and images of a man who Salberg believed had an affair with his wife. He allegedly tried to collect $5,000 from the man to pull down the website, according to the charges.

On Wednesday, Salberg pleaded guilty in Dakota County District Court to attempted coercion and another charge that had been added, misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Judge David Knutson sentenced Salberg to six days in jail, with credit for three days served, and four years on probation. He must attend a court-ordered anger-management course and pay restitution, but the amount has yet to be determined.

Salberg also was ordered to shut down the domain in which he had published the derogatory material and to submit to random checks by authorities of his Internet use.

original article here

Woman Fears for Her Life due to Cyberstalker

by Angela Sachitano

FLORIDA resident Deborah Riley hasn't been able to find a job in months. Google her name and she understands why.

Log on to deborahkayriley.com and a website dedicated completely to trashing her repuation appears.

Comments like 'she is on cocaine and crystal meth' and 'sleeps with anyone on the first date.'

This is only a small part of what Riley's ex boyfriend, Alex Dimusto, is accused of writing on the site he created.

"I feel violated and hopeless," Riley said. "It seems like there is nothing in place to protect the victim."

Riley says Dimusto purchased her name and other similar domains like it a few weeks after she broke up with him in January.

She says he has continued to fill the pages with lies.

"I wrote to web.com and they sent me to the abuse team," Riley said. "They told me I had to get a court order."

Riley has gone to the courts to get the website taken down and is currently waiting on a hearing, which could take another week.

In the meantime, we got in touch with Dimusto over the phone today.

When asked if he created the site, Dimusto answered, "I did not but I might know someone who did."

But according to godaddy.com, Dimusto is in fact the owner of the domain 'deborahkaeyriley.com.'

We also talked with a lawyer, who says Riley could have a strong libel case on her hands.

"This could be actionable," said attorney Barry Balmuth.

Riley says she not only fears for her reputation, she fears for her life. She says she only dated Dimusto for two months and wonders how far he will go to ruin her.

"He has told me he is going to put me in a dark place where no one can find me," she said.

According to Balmuth, here is what it takes to prove libel on the web - or anywhere for that matter:

Statement of fact - such as "She's a drug addict." Not a stated opinion, such as "I don't like her."
Has to be proven false.
Statement made carelessly or intentionally.
Damage to reputation.

original article here

Cyberstalkers Violate Victims with Cutting Edge

By Stephen T. Watson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original Article

Repeated 'Sex-Tortion' for Online Sex-Seeker

A married, multimillionaire DuPont heir was extorted three times after meeting women for sex and online chats through a "sugar daddy" Web site, court records reveal.

Stephen Dent -- a 54-year-old with an estimated $100 million fortune -- willingly paid the women, whom he called his "slaves," more than $200,000 for hotel trysts and Web chats, according to police reports cited by the Greenwich Time newspaper.

In one case, the Greenwich, Conn., investment-firm chief coughed up $15,000 for a sex session with a "sugar baby" whom he met through SeekingArrangement.com, Greenwich Time reported.

But it wasn't enough for some of the women.

In three cases, court records claim, the women or associates of theirs blackmailed Dent for nearly $150,000 by threatening to expose his philandering, which one defense lawyer reportedly said included "vile and vulgar" acts.

Dent, a great-grandson of one-time DuPont company chief Alfred Irénée du Pont, was married in 1986 to Valerie Johnson, the granddaughter of a former Pennsylvania congressman.

In March 2008, Queens. New York resident Roy Sipel, 22, pleaded guilty to larceny and was sentenced to 16 months in prison for extorting $40,000 from Dent after learning he had had sex with Sipel's girlfriend, the newspaper reported.

Dent nevertheless visited SeekingArrangement.com again, and again was blackmailed, this time by an Ohio couple, Dawn and Christopher Jessop, records state.

The Jessops were busted this March after extorting $100,000 by threatening to release "chats, e-mails and photographs of me, to my wife and office employees," Dent told Greenwich cops.

Dent paid $9,000 to a third woman who extorted him, court records state.

SOURCE

(guess guys like Jacoby, Beckstead, Yidwithlid and Capers should be relieved this hasn't happened to them... YET!)

Website Criticizing Business Wins in Court

Web sites are a great way to spread the word about a business.

As for spreading the bad word about one? That can have mixed results.

A Web site dedicated to criticizing a Lorain County home builder won a court battle last month to stay on the Internet. Just as significantly, the owner maintained his ability to run the Web site anonymously.

But the owner, listed as "John Doe" in the court filings, warned that taking on a person or company in such a Web site can bring a cost. He and the builder, Powermark Homes Inc., fought over the site in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court for more than a year and a half.

"If there is a lesson in this, it is to be careful, be very careful what you say or put on the Internet," he said through his lawyer. "Even if you are only making innocent comments on a blog, you can wake up one day and find out you are being sued simply because someone didn't like what you wrote, and the nightmare begins."

The first Web site targeting Powermark was disconnected before the man started a second, www.powermarkhomessucks.com.

Powermark lawyer Bruce McLain, who handled parts of the defamation and invasion of privacy suit, said it matters who owns the Web site.

"We are quite sure this person is not a consumer at all but another business," he said, but he conceded: "We can't prove it."

Powermark Homes Inc., based in Columbia Station, builds large homes throughout Greater Cleveland, according to the company's Web site.

The site www.powermarkhomes.net caught the attention of the company in 2007 with the words "Powermark Homes Alert: Do you really want to do business with this Ohio home builder?"

The site also had a photo, taken from Powermark's official site, showing owner Mark Powers and his wife, Lisa, with several messages superimposed over it, including, "The Truth Exposed."

That site was taken down by the hosting company after McLain filed a copyright infringement claim because the photo was used without permission.

The site later returned under the new name. Although it contains a few comments about the builder, it mostly lists links to entries in local courts for lawsuits involving Powermark.

Lawyers for John Doe stated in court filings that consumers have a right to know about problems with the home builder. They noted that most of the material on the site is part of the public record anyway.

Powermark's lawyers did not go into detail about statements they found objectionable, other than the Web site's address. Instead, they tried to compel the site's creator to testify.

At a 2007 hearing, Lisa Powers objected to the site's owner remaining anonymous.

"Why don't they say it directly to my face personally?" she asked, according to a transcript. "That's what I don't understand. They can hide under a John Doe shield, but they can post my face over something that I had nothing to do with."

The case sat mostly quiet for more than a year before Judge Timothy McCormick dismissed Powermark's claims on Dec. 15. He did not issue a written ruling and declined to comment this week.

Greg Beck, a lawyer who backed the Web site through the public interest group Public Citizen, said that barring an appeal, the site will remain up.

He said that preserving the right to anonymous speech -- whether to avoid harassment or firing or retribution or simply by preference -- was key.

"It shows that in Ohio, what you say anonymously online will stay, unless someone has a very good reason to take that anonymity away," Beck said.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Internet Harrasser Identified in Federal Lawsuit

Two female students at Yale Law School who say anonymous, defamatory comments were made about them on the Internet identified one of the defendants yesterday in their federal lawsuit.


The women filed new documents in US District Court naming Mathew C. Ryan of Austin, Texas. Through subpoenas to Internet service providers, the women have learned the identities of several other defendants but are trying to resolve their claims against those people before deciding whether to name them, according to court papers.

The move threatens to expose law students and

renews debate about whether anonymous Internet scribes should be identified - and held legally responsible - for malicious postings.

The case is not unprecedented, but it is a reminder that anonymous postings on the freewheeling Internet can be traced, legal analysts say.

"A lot of people don't really think about that," said Daniel Solove, a professor at George Washington University Law School. "I do think it's going to have an effect on what people say. It's one of the most prominent cases of its type."

The women's lawsuit, filed last year, charges that they were defamed by repeated postings they considered sexually harassing and threatening.

The postings were made to AutoAdmit, an Internet discussion board about colleges and law schools that draws 800,000 to 1 million visitors per month, according to court papers.

The women say Ryan made sexually charged slurs about them on the Web, including a false claim that one of the them had a sexually transmitted disease. The lawsuit also says Ryan encouraged further attacks on the other woman and used anti-Semitic language.

A telephone message and e-mail seeking comment were left for Ryan yesterday.

Ryan attended the University of Texas, according to Mark Lemley, attorney for the Yale students. Most of the other defendants are law students, he said.

Posts by other defendants included remarks about one plaintiff's breasts and a claim that women with the same first names "should be raped." Some postings discussed the women's family backgrounds and supposed sexual exploits while invoking racially and sexually charged slurs.

Some people who posted the Web items threatened to rape one of the women and attempted to start rumors that one of the women had died or committed suicide, according to the lawsuit.

The anonymous posters also started a website devoted to "rating" female law students from around the country. Some participants in the contest sent photos of one of the women without her permission, according to the lawsuit.

The judge overseeing the women's lawsuit has agreed to let them proceed under pseudonyms because of their fears of further harassment. No trial date has been set.

The lawsuit sparked a countersuit from a University of Pennsylvania law graduate who lost a lucrative job offer after he was linked to websites that crudely discussed the female law students.

Anthony Ciolli's libel lawsuit charges that the Yale students sued him although they knew he did not control the message boards at either AutoAdmit.com, where he was an editor, or at a now-defunct site that ranked the looks of top women law students.

The women dropped Ciolli as a defendant in November.

In sworn affidavits, the women say the stress caused their work to suffer at school and on the job and one took a leave of absence from school.

Their classmates and job supervisors were aware of the salacious postings, they said.


The person accused of writing the rape comment fought a subpoena to have his Internet provider disclose his identity. In a motion filed under his online name, "John Doe 21," he argued that the rape remark did not specifically harm or threaten either woman since millions of women share their first names.

He calls the online postings "unsavory but legally innocuous" - and argues that his free-speech rights outweigh the women's right to seek redress.

"Few courts have considered this question, but it is becoming a crucial one, particularly in light of the increasing number of cases where those who have been criticized on the Internet seek to use the machinery of the courts to unmask, intimidate, and silence their online critics," he wrote earlier this year.
A judge, however, ruled in June that the women had shown enough evidence to support a libel case.

CLICK HERE FOR THE WHOLE ARTICLE

NOTE: Please be aware if you enter “Matthew C. Ryan” and “Austin, Texas” into Google, links to Matthew C. Ryan and his firm come up first. This is NOT the same Matthew C. Ryan mentioned in this article. They are two separate and different persons.

TO ALL OUR READERS

As you can see -- we have a new design. However, it needs a lot of work so please bear with us over the next couple weeks as we tweak things.

The blog was looking messy and jumbled... as our site grew the design tried to grow with it. Finally we chose to upgrade.

We hope to make it cleaner and more accessible. We still have LOADS of links to put back up so if you don't see what you want -- come back in a couple days! We are working hard to get back to normal.

Keep reading -- we will continue our consistent updating of posts!

Thank you,
The Fighter Team

Website Posts Sex, Gossip, Hate, Rumor

The Cornell University junior was in his dorm between classes when the text message came in from a friend. Check out JuicyCampus.com, it said.

The student found his name on the Web site beside a rambling, filthy passage about his sexual exploits, posted by an anonymous student on campus. The young man could only hope the commentary was so ridiculous nobody would believe it.

"I thought, `Is this going to affect my job employment? Is this going to make people on campus look at me? Are people going to talk about me behind my back?" said the student, who asked not to be identified. He also wondered about his 11-year-old sister, who is spending more time on the Internet. "What if she Googles me? What will she think about her big brother?" he said.

JuicyCampus' endless threads of anonymous innuendo have been a popular Web destination on the seven college campuses where the site launched last fall, including Duke, UCLA and Loyola Marymount. It recently expanded to 50 more, and many of the postings show they've been viewed hundreds and even thousands of times.

But JuicyCampus has proved so poisonous there are signs of a backlash.

In campus debates over Internet freedom, students normally take the side of openness and access. This time, however, student leaders, newspaper editorials and posters on the site are fighting back -- with some even asking administrators to ban JuicyCampus. It's a kind of plea to save the students, or at least their reputations, from themselves.

"It is an expression from our student body that we don't want this junk in our community," said Andy Canales, leader of the student government at Pepperdine, which recently voted 23-5 to ask for a ban.

The vote came after a long and emotional debate on the limits of free speech, and was swayed by stories from students such as Haley Frazier, a junior residential adviser. She had recently come across a teary transfer student who had been humiliated on the site barely a week after arriving on campus.

"I can't imagine the disgust she must have for Pepperdine if that's what (students) say," Frazier said.

College administrators say they are appalled by the site but have no control over it since students can see it outside the campus computer network. They say all they can do is urge students not to post items or troll for malicious gossip -- and hope that in the process they learn about how to get along.

That tactic may be having an effect.

Playground meanness on the Web
At a number of campuses where JuicyCampus was a hot topic even just a few weeks ago, students and administrators say use and complaints have tapered off sharply. That's hard to confirm; Internet tracker comScore Inc. says the site's visitor numbers are too low to be counted by its system.

But more and more postings criticize the site, with comments like, "let's not ruin each other's lives," and, "If you can't personalize any of the stuff you read or write here, imagine it happening to your sister or your best friend."

"People have gotten just extremely sick of hearing all this stuff," said Rachelle Palisoc, a freshman at Loyola Marymount in California, who joined a Facebook group called "Ban Juicycampus!!!!" that has about 850 members.

Free to use and supported by advertising, JuicyCampus is a simple conduit urging users to post gossip and promising them total anonymity. There are threads on campus hook-ups, who's popular and who's overweight.

"Top ten freshman sluts" reads one typical thread, and "The Jews ruin this school" another. Homophobia is common. Many postings combine the cruelty of a middle school playground, the tight social dynamics of a college campus and the alarming global reach of the Internet.

JuicyCampus pledges that it blocks its discussion boards from being indexed by search sites like Google, and that appears to be true.

"College students are clever and fun-loving, and we wanted to create a place where they could share their stories," said Matt Ivester, the site's founder, who agreed to answer questions by e-mail.

"Like anything that is even remotely controversial, there are always people who demand censorship," he said in response to calls he has rejected -- including one from his alma mater, Duke -- for him to shut down the site. "However, we believe that JuicyCampus can have a really positive impact on college campuses, as a place for both entertainment and free expression. Frankly, we're surprised that any college administration would be against the free exchange of ideas."

Duke's vice president for student affairs, Larry Moneta, said the school asked Ivester to consider "moderating the venom or at least moderating the opportunity for venom." However, "my sense is that's not that person's interest," Moneta said.

Slut's okay, shooting's not
Under U.S. law, sites like JuicyCampus generally bear no responsibility for what their users post, said George Washington University law professor Daniel Solove, author of the recent book "The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet."

But Solove believes Congress and the courts have gone overboard protecting such sites. It's one thing to protect the owner of a Web site when someone posts a defamatory message unbeknownst to the operator. But Solove says sites like JuicyCampus exist solely to propagate gossip and should be held to a different standard.
In fact, JuicyCampus seems designed to shield its users from the threat of libel claims. The site's privacy page notes that it logs the numeric Internet protocol addresses of its users, but does not associate those addresses with specific posts. That is unlike mainstream social networking sites, which do maintain such detailed logs.

JuicyCampus also goes further by directing posters to free online services that cloak IP addresses. "Just do a quick search on Google and find one you like," JuicyCampus advises.

The site's companion blog reminds users that "our terms and conditions require users to agree not to post anything that is defamatory, libelous, etc." But a few paragraphs later, the blog implies that it will rebuff anything short of a public safety query: "If your school calls upset about some girl being called a slut, we're not handing over access to our server data. If the LAPD calls telling us there is a shooting threat, you better believe we're gonna help them ..."

Fraternity and sorority leaders and student governments are mainly urging students to sap the site of advertisers by turning a blind eye.

"If we don't get on there it will die," said C.J. Slicklen, student government president at Cornell, where students vented at a meeting last week.

The concerns extend beyond hurt feelings. At Loyola Marymount, a now-former student was arrested after allegedly posting a threat of a campus shooting spree on JuicyCampus. And the dangers of social network bullying were highlighted by the recent death of a 13-year-old suburban St. Louis girl who committed suicide after receiving cruel messages on her MySpace page -- messages that turned out to be a hoax.

Pepperdine spokesman Jerry Derloshon said the school applauds the student government's reaction, though Pepperdine has not banned the site.

"In the end," he said, "the site's shock value will diminish and it will be revealed for what it is: empty."

POLICE INVESTIGATE ANGRY EBAY-ER'S REVENGE SITE

By Chris Williams

Police are investigating a disgruntled eBayer who took online revenge after paying £375 for a laptop which, he said, did not work.

The buyer recovered the hard drive from the malfunctioning notebook, finding it full of personal details, allegedly including access to email accounts, 90 voyeuristic leg shots taken on the London Underground and gay porn. He posted the material on a website, naming and shaming Barnet 19-year-old Amir Tofangsazan as the seller.

Clearly, someone doesn't see the funny side. A Scotland Yard spokeswoman said Barnet police are investigating a complaint made on 29 May at Fulham police station regarding improper use of a public electronic communications network. She added: "The allegation follows from a civil dispute. No arrests have been made and inquiries continue."

At time of writing the site had clocked up almost 950,000 hits. A dismayed Amir told the Daily Mail the website had made his life a "living hell", and that his family had received threats. He said: "The laptop wasn't even broken. It was in working order. The last few days have been a nightmare, some of my friends have seen it and my father is very angry."

Amir said he had not received any "polite requests" for a refund. On his revenge site the buyer counters: "This site is 100 per cent genuine, I swear I'm not making anything up."

Amir told the Daily Mail: "I will obviously be trying to get the website taken down as soon as possible." In the meantime, the site is available here

The buyer has been named as Thomas Sawyer, a 23-year-old student from Exeter. He offers to pull the site sown voluntarily in exchange for a refund.

Meanwhile, The Daily Mail reports that Amir allegedly pulled a similar scam on Newport Pagnell woman Debbie McInerney, who says she paid him £147 for an iPod which never arrived. Amir said: "The police are investigating the iPod case and I can't comment on it."

LAWSUIT AGAINST EXPOSURE SITE TOSSED

By JOE MANDAK
A Florida-based Web site that invites women to warn others about men they've dated cannot be sued in a Pennsylvania court by an attorney who said its postings falsely claimed he was unfaithful and had sexually transmitted diseases.

Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge R. Stanton Wettick Jr. said he had no jurisdiction over the lawsuit Todd Hollis filed last June against DontDateHimGirl.com and its creator, Tasha C. Cunningham, 34, of Miami.

Hollis, of Pittsburgh, claimed Cunningham's site is liable because it solicits negative comments but does not screen them for truthfulness. Hollis also is suing those who posted comments that questioned his sexuality and claimed he tried to dodge paying child support.

Cunningham and her attorneys say a 1996 federal law shields Web sites from such lawsuits when they merely transmit user postings.

The ruling, issued last week, does not address Hollis' still-pending claims against women who posted the messages. One of the women has denied making any posts. Another acknowledged posting comments but denied damaging his reputation.

Hollis said he has not decided whether to sue the Web site again in another venue.

Cunningham's date-dissing site has tripled in size since the lawsuit was filed, with 27,000 profiles that she markets as "a new cost-effective weapon in the war on cheating men." Cunningham works full-time on the site and is developing others, including a Spanish-language version that will launch in June.

CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL