Online Daters Burned by Lies

ONLINE DATING CAN BE DANGEROUS

An estimated 40 million Americans use online dating services hoping to meet "the one." There are more than 1,400 Web sites in the $700 million a year business, but some question their safety.

Prosecutors say a Philadelphia nursing student was conning women on match.com. He was convicted in 2007 of assault, but the accusations don't end there. His victims, described as attractive, ambitious professionals say their lives will never be the same.

Prosecutors said Jeffrey Marsalis, 34, told some tall tales, pretending to be a doctor, an astronaut and even a spy to lure women on Internet dating sites.

"He faces up to 20 years in prison and he will have to register as a sexual offender for the rest of his life," said prosecutor Joe Khan.

Marsalis was convicted of sexual assault. However, he was acquitted of more serious charges that he drugged and then raped seven women in his apartment.

"You read about it, you see it on TV but you just don't think it can happen to you," one anonymous victim said.

She said she knows about tricksters like Jeffrey Marsalis and how easy it is to be duped online. According to her, a man she met on a Christian dating Web site was seeing 60 other women from 25 different Web sites. He pretended to be everything from a country music manager to a Pentagon consultant. He even lied about having cancer, she said.

She claims he stole thousands of dollars from his victims.

"Mentally, it just about broke me to think that I had been so naive, when I don't consider myself to be a very naive person," she said. "And of course, I was worried about my safety." She may have good reason to be. Dozens of Internet dating cases have ended in tragedy. And experts said it's only getting worse.

"Men especially are getting are getting bolder as far as using dating Web sites to find their next victim," said Jayne Hitchcock, who is working to halt online abuse.

"Most of these women will tell you that they had a bad feeling about it but they went ahead with it because the person the man had a wonderful profile," Hitchcock said. "He was charming."

One victim said it was loneliness that clouded her judgment.

"Victims are victims because somebody is looking to exploit their weakness," she said. "And it doesn't matter if you're doctor. It doesn't matter if you're an accountant."

She said she wants women to trust their instincts because she didn't trust her own. About 35 percent of daters admit they lie about themselves online, according to a survey research study by Jeana Frost of Boston University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (Though the real number is probably MUCH higher!)

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

CHEATERS FEAR; PARTNERS CHEER

Site’s hackers claim 37m personal records have been stolen from notorious dating site, with Cougar Life and Established Men also compromised

The Ashley Madison website. Photograph: Screengrab

by Alex Hern

Hackers have stolen and leaked personal information from online cheating site Ashley Madison, an international dating site with the tagline: “Life is short. Have an affair.”

The site, which encourages married users to cheat on their spouses and advertises 37 million members, had its data hacked by a group calling itself the Impact Team. At least two other dating sites, Cougar Life and Established Men, also owned by the same parent group, Avid Life Media, have had their data compromised.

The Impact Team claims to have complete access to the company’s database, including not only user records for every single member, but also the financial records of ALM and other proprietary information. For now, the group has released just 40MB of data, including credit card details and several ALM documents.

According to the information security journalist Brian Krebs, who broke the news, ALM has confirmed that the hacked material is genuine, and the company is working to remove from the net the material that has already been posted. But the initial leak is just a taster, according to the Impact Team, which accompanied the data with a manifesto threatening release of further information if Ashley Madison and Established Men are not permanently closed.

“Avid Life Media has been instructed to take Ashley Madison and Established Men offline permanently in all forms, or we will release all customer records, including profiles with all the customers’ secret sexual fantasies and matching credit card transactions, real names and addresses, and employee documents and emails. The other websites may stay online,” the group’s statement reads.

The hackers’ main point of contention is with the fact that Ashley Madison charges users a fee of £15 to carry out a “full delete” of their information if they decide to leave the site. Although users have the option of permanently hiding their profile free of charge, the company’s advertisements claim that the full delete service is the only way to completely remove their information from the servers.
But the hackers say that that claim is “a complete lie”.

“Users almost always pay with credit card; their purchase details are not removed as promised, and include real name and address, which is of course the most important information the users want removed,” they allege.

ALM believes it has identified the perpetrator of the hack, which it says was likely an inside job. “We’re on the doorstep of [confirming] who we believe is the culprit, and unfortunately that may have triggered this mass publication,” the company’s chief executive, Noel Biderman, told Krebs. “I’ve got their profile right in front of me, all their work credentials. It was definitely a person here that was not an employee but certainly had touched our technical services.”

The data dump seems to back-up that theory to a certain extent, specifically apologising to the company’s director of security. “You did everything you could, but nothing you could have done could have stopped this,” the manifesto reads.

In a statement, ALM said: “We apologise for this unprovoked and criminal intrusion into our customers’ information. The current business world has proven to be one in which no company’s online assets are safe from cyber-vandalism, with Avid Life Media being only the latest among many companies to have been attacked, despite investing in the latest privacy and security technologies.

“At this time, we have been able to secure our sites, and close the unauthorised access points. We are working with law enforcement agencies, which are investigating this criminal act. Any and all parties responsible for this act of cyber–terrorism will be held responsible.”

Ashley Madison, along with a number of other dating sites, had already been criticised for the lack of care taken over customer information at least once before. In 2012, the online rights campaign group EFF examined eight popular dating sites, and found that just one, Zoosk, carried out simple security precautions such as enabling encrypted connections by default. In the EFF’s study, however, Ashley Madison was explicitly praised for deleting data after users closed their account.

ALM later said it had used the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) to demand the removal of online posts about the incident “as well as all personally identifiable information about our users published online.”

Posts on Twitter which had apparently earlier linked to pages containing hacked material were now bringing up “page not found” results, the Guardian found.

ALM also said it is now offering its full-delete option free to any customer to help them protect their privacy.

original article here

The Four Psychological Stages Of Those Abused by Cyberpaths

Stage One ~ DENIAL
The victim refuses to admit even to herself, that she has been 'had' or that there is a problem in her online relationship/friendship. She may call each incident an accident. She offers excuses & rationalizations and each time she is played or insulted firmly believes it will never happen again.

Stage Two ~ GUILT
Victim now acknowledges there is a problem, but considers herself responsible for it. She deserves to be used and lied to, she feels because she has defects in her character and is not living up to her predators's expectations.

Stage Three ~ ENLIGHTENMENT
The woman no longer assumes responsibility for her cyberpaths's abusive treatment, recognizing that no one deserves to be treated badly, used, played or lied to. She is still committed to her online relationship though and stays with her cyberpath hoping they can work things out. During this period she often questions the predator and hopes for "straight answers" because things are starting to not jive or make sense.


Stage Four ~ RESPONSIBILITY
Accepting the fact that her cyberpath will not, or can not, stop his predatory & manipulative behavior, the victim decides she will no longer submit to it and starts a new life.

Often involves "telling" and no more secret keeping - by which she can achieve validation that she is not alone or stupid.

original article here

CATFISH: The Television Show

About Catfish: The TV Show 

How do young people who've embraced the digital age find love? Often, it's by connecting online with people they've never met in person. These days, messaging on iPhones has replaced the dinner date, and emailing through social media sites often substitutes for face-to-face conversations. The problem with this approach - the guy or girl you've fallen for could be lying about who they really are.

Now, from the producers of the acclaimed documentary film, Catfish, comes a new MTV series that brings together couples who've interacted solely through their LCD screens. Over the course of months or years - these romantics have become smitten - but what will happen when they meet in real life for the first time? 

In each episode, with the guidance and help of the star of the Catfish movie, Nev Schulman, and his filmmaking pal, Max Joseph, a hopeful romantic partner will go on an emotional journey to discover the truth about their significant other. Has that object of affection been telling the truth? Will true love truly blossom? When that fateful knock on the front door finally comes - only one thing is certain - that these incredible voyages will be filled with mystery, uncertainty, forgiveness, joy, and sometimes, even shocking revelations. 

cat·fish [kat-fish] verb  

To pretend to be someone you're not online by posting false information, such as someone else's pictures, on social media sites usually with the intention of getting someone to fall in love with you.

original site and further information here

Cyberpaths -- Exposed & On The Attack

As we continue to do exposes, readers - you will see a type of pathological who - once revealed for the disordered type he/ she is - will just attack, attack, attack. Yours is not the first, nor will be the last of our cyberpaths who have done EXACTLY THE SAME - EOPC
~~~~~~~~~~

WHEN THEY ATTACK
by Kathy Krajco

(We have replaced the word narcissists with predators for clarity - EOPC)

Professionals often say that predators "overreact" to the merest unintended slights and that they fly into a rage for the slightest reason. But this view seems anthropomorphic to me. I suspect it comes from forgetting that the predator on your couch is a pathological liar.

The truth is that predators attack for no reason. In fact, they are prompted to attack by anti-reasons.

Of course the predator on your couch says he did it in self defense! He whines that the victim said or did something to slight him or anger his tender, tender feelings. Were you born yesterday? predator = pathological liar. So, why do you expect him to confess to you that he is a predator = one who attacks any vulnerable target of opportunity?

I would hate to admit how long it took me to discover this, but in my experience, what triggers a predator Attack is nothing but a vulnerable target of opportunity.

Test predators. Parade bait before them when the coast looks clear so that the narc thinks later it will just be his word against the victim's. Then watch what happens.

You can push his Attack button by having the victim be very vulnerable, like say by showing great affection for the predator and giving a heartfelt plea for some in return. (Rather like a man I knew who asked a predator to marry him and got eviscerated for it.)

How does the predator react to what should evoke his love and affection? With a savage attack, that's how. Rather like any wild predator when you ring the dinner bell for it by giving it a swipe at a defenseless creature's soft underbelly.

Except that natural predators must be hungry at the time.

On second thought, I guess predators have to be hungry, too. But they always are. For, they have the kind of hunger that increases the more you feed it.

So much for the theory that predators are just too touchy. They ain't touchy at all.

Test that too. Indeed, try to provoke a predator. You can't. Go ahead, try.

The only way to get yourself a raging predator is to tempt it with defenseless bait when it thinks no one is watching.

Now that you have your predator raging, do one more thing. Have the victim rise up rage right back it its face.

Guess what happens? Presto chango! Rage off!

Instead of a raging predator, you now have a poor little meek and gentle angel who wouldn't hurt a fly and is heartbroken at the victim being so nasty.

Welcome to The Twilight Zone. I call this miraculous phenomenon "The Transfiguration."

I am not exaggerating. You witness the instantaneous substitution of one persona for its very antithesis in the blink of an eye. You don't know whether to pinch yourself or start throwing holy water at it. Because an Academy Award winner couldn't do that that fast.

It stuns you and gives you the creeps. Indeed, one facial expression doesn't melt into the other: the whole mask changes at once.

I call a predator's faces "masks" because when you see this happen you know that's what they are. You know that what's on the face is a lie. It's the Big Chill.

A stunning revelation. The predator's very face is a lie about what is really going on in the darkness behind that mask.

from: When [Predators] Attack

~~~~~~~~~~~

Dark Soul as a Destroyer

By Sarah Strudwick

Psychopaths are known for their lack of fear, but at the same time they often have other associated personality disorders along side, such as malignant narcissism. They feel the need to have a constant fix of kind loving, empathic individuals that they can then slowly pull down to their own level. It’s a bit like the analogy I put in my book, Dark Souls, where they take a helpless spider and pull the legs off one by one—just to see what happens. Why do they do it? Because they can.

So why does the Dark Soul or psychopath feel the need to destroy their victims when the relationship is well and truly over?

Many targets complain that well after the relationship ends they are stalked by the psychopath, or they continue to bombard them with emails and spam. Sometimes they will try and befriend you on Facebook, or constantly monitor what you are doing by stalking you. Even when you have moved on with your life, recovering from financial hardship, emotional stress and so on, the psychopathic personality is not happy. With their own deep sense of self-hatred, they will often feel jealous, and may be vindictive by sending you viruses on your PC or other inconveniences. It’s their way of saying, “You think you have moved on, but I will be there in the background constantly monitoring you.”

It’s also their way of bringing you down to their disgustingly low level. On a conscious level, they know exactly what they are doing and want a reaction. They hope you will hate them as much as they hate themselves. Even if you have no evidence with them they want to continue contact, and being extremely narcissistic, it’s all about getting attention, any kind of attention. What better way to get your attention than, for example, to hack your computer or send you vile pictures on your computer? What better way for them to project their vile, angry, unowned thoughts and feelings back onto their victim, so that they do not have to own them?

Psychopaths are notorious for using sneaky underhanded tactics when it comes to playing dirty, whether it is getting the authorities or lawyers on their side, or other members of the family. They will always find a way to turn the tables back onto their victims and say they did nothing, creating crazymaking behaviour. If and when the victim finally has had enough and lashes back, the Dark Soul can then say, “See I told you she/he was crazy – look what she did!”

Because the psychopath is so sneaky, and makes sure to do everything in a way that you know they are doing it but they cannot be caught, it’s a fine line between being indifferent to them and enabling them. They end up feeling so omnipotent, they think they can actually get away with anything.

Those who have malignant narcissism and psychopathy, or sociopathic traits or both, do understand the concepts of the law and how they will only go so far. After all, it would an inconvenience for them to end up in prison.

To some degree, let them be the destroyer, but keep evidence along the way, so long as it’s not causing you physical or emotional harm.

However, when things get out of hand, let them know in no uncertain terms what evidence you have on them, because at the end of the day all they are doing is digging themselves an even bigger grave to put themselves in. Having said that, it’s not as if they need one, because they died a long time ago.

_________________________

Because psychopaths can’t relinquish power over anybody, they usually keep tabs on former girlfriends and periodically circle around them, like vultures, long after the relationships are dead. Even in the cases where they don’t maintain physical contact, they may still send you nasty emails thinly disguised as spam or other unwanted communication. (then denying they ever sent it with terms like "I never...")

This is why it’s so hard to get rid of a psychopath, long after you leave him. Because he’s egotistical and controlling, a psychopath can’t get dumped by his girlfriends and move on, the way any normal, self-respecting man would. In fact, to maintain dominance, he usually lies to others about past relationships as easily as he deceives them about current ones. He may falsely claim that he initiated breakups or portray his ex-girlfriends as disturbed. He will even set her up, sending emails or texts as her to make her appear the "crazy one."

The web of lies woven by the psychopath embraces everything and everyone in his life, past, present and future. And so the relationship cycle repeats itself, as the psychopath continually trolls for new partners, tires of current relationships, ends some of them, begins others, only to find his way back, like an unwanted boomerang, into his ex-girlfriends’ lives.

(while this article is written with females as victims; women CAN be psychopaths too)

_________________________

Remember, it is not you - it is them.

Surviving the Cyberpath

It Takes A Strong Individual To Survive An Exploiter
(in this case a Cyberpath would be an 'EXPLOITER')


You really need to admire yourself for surviving an exploitative relationship. I say this very seriously, not flippantly. We all, of course, hope to minimize our involvement with exploitative individuals. But in the course of life, as we know, that’s not always possible.

It is vital, therefore, if you’ve been victimized by and/or are recovering from involvement with an exploiter, to fully, genuinely appreciate (and remind yourself constantly) that you are indeed strong, impressively strong, because only the strong survive exploitation.

Many clients with whom I work (really, most people, I think) tend to see personal strength and insecurity; personal strength and low self-esteem, as incompatible. They balk at the idea that you can be a very strong person and insecure at the same time; that you can be a very strong person even with low self-esteem.

For instance, when someone violates you (especially chronically) and you don’t defend yourself properly, the tendency is to attribute your failure at self-protection to “personal weakeness.” The thought is something like, “If I was a strong person, I wouldn’t have let that abuse occur. I’d have asserted myself, defended myself, drawn the line.”

But it’s not personal weakness that explains the failure to protect your boundaries; it’s more often a lack of clarity in knowing precisely what your boundaries are, and precisely what constitutes an unacceptable violation of them. Victims of sustained exploitation/ abuse aren’t personally weak, quite the contrary. My experience has affirmed again and again how remarkably strong and resourceful most of them are. What they lack, however, often is a clear, secure sense of their boundaries; this insecurity of boundaries leaves them vulnerable to compromising themselves. After all, you can’t assert and/or protect your boundaries unless and until you’ve established them very clearly and securely (in your mind).

This explains what for many can seem so confusing and dichotomous: how a victim of sustained exploitation/abuse can, on the one hand, lobby so effectively for others’ interests while, with respect to her/his own, appear stuck in circumstances s(he’d) counsel anyone else to reject and escape.

But I restate: you can’t protect your interests if they aren’t, in the first place, clearly defined. And you can’t defend your boundaries if, on any level, you’re uncertain, or ambivalent about, what they are. This disadvantaged position helps explain how an otherwise strong, resourceful adult can find her/himself tolerating and enduring the meanness and nonsense of a defective partner.

When my clients who have been in exploitative relationships discover confidently their boundaries, they often feel sad, on one hand, not to have done so sooner; but thrilled on the other to find themselves, as if miraculously, just as skilled at protecting their own interests as they’ve always been at protecting others’.

It’s a kind of bittersweet discovery. The bitter part, if grieved properly, is usually short-lived; the sweet aspect is longlasting.


Steve Becker, MSW, LCSW, CH.T

COERCIVE TACTICS OF CYBERPATHS

We have edited this to pertain to Cyberpaths. But the behavioral aspects are the SAME as for abusers and battered (physical, emotional, verbal or psychological) victims.

The male gender has been used but, your Cyberpath may be female - EOPC
from: "Emotional Vampires: Dealing with People Who Drain you Dry" has some helpful information on how to recognize when a cyberpath is hypnotizing you. You look for the signs in your own reactions:

"Make sure you recognize the warning signs of hypnosis: instant rapport, deviating from standard procedure, thinking in superlatives, discounting objective information, and confusion." Emotional Vampires, pg. 48

These are all signs you look for in yourself.

Excerpts summarized, see the book for more details:

Instant rapport -- That wonderful feeling that you are instantly "clicking" with someone you've just met is a clear warning sign. You have likely stumbled into someone who has either done their research before "accidentally" meeting you or before a job interview, or they are quick to assess what it is you think about yourself and are careful to reflect back to you what you want to hear.

Deviating from standard procedure -- Suddenly you find yourself making exceptions and doing things very differently than you normally do for someone! (outside your normal comfort/ ethics/ moral zone)

Thinking in superlatives -- You've just met the most wonderful, most incredible, most charming and thoughtful person ever. Big red sign that someone is messing around inside your head. The author says, "distorted perceptions usually involve superlatives". He also points out that the superlatives can be negative too.

Discounting objective information -- You've been swept off your feet in no time flat. You're loving how you feel around this person -- so much so that you are now avoiding objective sources of information about this person and your own common sense!

Or, if you do hear things you don't want to hear, you tell yourself it is somehow different for you. He was different back then. When you find yourself avoiding getting objective information about this person you have a clear sign in yourself that you're very happy in this little fantasy that's been created for you and don't want the bubble popped. You're in trouble if you keep this up.

Remember, this doesn't just apply to romantic partners. It can happen with a fellow church or club member, a co-worker, boss, employee, etc.

Confusion -- "Hazy understanding of the reasons for your own reactions, coupled with unusual certainty, is a pretty clear sign that somebody has been messing with your mind." pg. 29

~ Bidermans Chart of Coercion ~
(Edited to Apply to Cyberpathy)

Abusers use tactics similar to what prison guards use on their prisoners, it is a type of brainwashing. They recognize that control is not easily accomplished, they need the cooperation of the victim. This can most effectively be gained through subversive manipulation of the mind and feelings of the victim, who then becomes a psychological, as well as a physical prisoner. These tactics form what we know as emotional abuse and online cyberpathy.

The original Bidermans Chart of Coercion identifies these methods and tactics of power and control used by abusers and their anticipated result. This Chart was originally a publication called "Report of Torture" from Amnesty International, which depicted the brainwashing of prisoners during war. Diana Russel later reprinted it in her book "Rape in Marriage."

The tactics used are:

ISOLATION - this deprives the victim of all social support that is necessary for the ability to resist. It makes the victim develop an intense concern with self. It also makes the victim dependent upon the interrogator, just like our predators, wanting all the control. They demean our family, friends, jobs and schooling, to the point that we generally give them all up. We begin to believe what our cyberpath is telling us and fear what may happen, if we don't go along with them. Once they take away our outside support system, so we have no one telling us anything different, than what the cyberpath is saying. (i.e. "don't talk to so-and-so, she's obsessed with me" or "don't chat with him if he emails or IMs you - he's a liar")

MONOPOLIZATION OF PERCEPTION - this fixes attention upon the immediate predicament and fosters introspect. It eliminates any stimuli competing with those controlled by the cyberpath, and it frustrates all actions not consistent with compliance. This makes us worry about each moment, we have little or no outside contact or focus, just what is happening with our abusive situation and if we don't abide by what they say or want, we know how bad it can and will get. (i.e. "don't tell!! this is our little secret" and "I am a great/ honest/ sincere guy - and here's the proof" [selective information])

INDUCED DEBILITY AND EXHAUSTION - this weakens both our mental and physical ability to resist. How many of our abusers picked 3am to cause an uproar? Odd or emotional times, when we were not strong enough to resist. Or the ones who want you to waiting around online for them, only come on at late hours once they have you hooked, not let you sleep, then go at it with you all night long.

They know when we are tired, we are more vulnerable and more apt to give in to their demands, without a fight. Exhaustion makes it even more difficult to counter the accusations and we agree to things we never would under normal conditions. (With a cyberpath this also includes "word salad" and purposeful confusion)

THREATS - this cultivates anxiety and despair. Threats can be as bad or worst than actions, the fear this can instill can do an incredible amount of emotional damage and alot to keep us in line. This is an emotional blackmail. (i.e. "if you keep questioning my sincerity I will stop chatting with you" or leaving you for hours, days, weeks or even months without a word; just disappearing -- blocking you until THEY are ready to chat. Saying they will "get" you or naming family members is a threat and should be reported to police immediately)

OCCASIONAL INDULGENCES - this provides positive motivation for compliance. Often after the abuse, during the "honeymoon stage" they may send flowers, call you all the time, "love bomb" you (compliments, cyber or phone sex, you are their soulmate, you are the ONE they've always dreamed of...), be kind and promise unconditional love, ect. Some nice little things, which to the victim will usually mean alot, when we are so wide open with pain. It will always happen when we are most vulnerable. But to the cyberpath it only means more control!

DEMONSTRATING "OMNIPOTENCE" - this suggests futility of resistance. Making you believe they are completely capable and have the ability to carry out any threats and warnings they have given you, if you don't comply. They have all the power and you better do as they say, regardless of what you may feel about these things. (i.e. "I will tell your partner, husband, parents what we have been doing" or "I will make your life hell" or "if you... then I will...")

ENFORCING TRIVIAL DEMANDS - this develops a habit of compliance. All those little things they can get you to accept doing, those lists of chores, asking you where you go, how you dress, how you speak or not to speak -- what they 'expect' in a woman. Begging you for cybersex, photos, etc because they "need" them is also part of this. This a part of their way of getting you to do the big things, the bad things and also keeping quiet about them. They have been programming you to obey, whatever they say.

DEGRADATION - this makes the cost of resistance appear to be more damaging to self-esteem than the capitulation. It reduces the victim to "animal level" concerns. In other word, if you don't go along with what they want, you will suffer the consequences and that will be worst than if you just do whatever they want. (i.e. "I won't "love" you if you don't obey me"; also part of their: DEVALUE & DISCARD)

All of these methods have been used on us, day after day. The road to freedom and healing begins with overcoming everything our cyberpaths have worked so hard to put into place in our minds. This sometimes requires and understanding therapist. It is not an easy task. The first step is to acknowledge them for what an are - tactics to have power and control over us. Most everything that has been said to us by our cyberpaths are lies and empty promises. We must totally begin to think for ourselves and wipe out all the negative things that we have been programmed to believe and feel.

Every one of us must know, none of it was our fault, we didn’t ask for it and we definitely did not and do not deserve it. There is nothing any of us could have done differently, or better that would of changed how an cyberpaths has acted, or made the trauma not happen.

That is the sole choice and problem of the predator. They usually will never admit that though. No one deserves to be abused in any way, shape or form - even online. It is our right to be happy and free from abuse. Cyberpaths are criminals, just as a rapist, an armed robber or a murder.

They should be treated as such and not be made excuses for or their abuse and preying on us covered up.

If we want Online Predators & Cyberpaths to stop, we must all use our own voices, to say abuse is wrong and I have had enough! The road to Freedom is Knowledge and Knowledge IS Power.

Which of our Exposed Predators used these methods? ALL OF THEM!

Temporary Phone Numbers Stop Cyberstalkers

A mother appalled by online dating stories from divorced friends is set to become a millionaire after launching a unique website to protect women from cyber-stalkers.

Last week model Kelly Brook revealed how she is forced to constantly change her phone number because she is targeted by nuisance calls.

But 52-year-old Gill Kamel's patented site can instantly create a temporary number for your mobile - which diverts to your current phone - to hand out to strangers, safe in the knowledge they don't know what your actual number is.

And if they turn out to be odd-balls you merely shut down that number, create a fresh one and hand that out to your next new dates or friends.

Her site www.losemynumber.co.uk is deemed such an important new tool to protect men and women on the internet that it has been singled out for praise by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. The organisation promotes personal safety.

Married mother-of-two Gill, of Ormskirk, Lancs, said she hopes that no more women should endure stress or fear by simply searching for love or companionship.

She said: 'Internet dating and social networking is a fantastic new way for people to reach out and make new friends - but there are always people out there who are not all they seem and we take so much on trust.

'Hopefully Lose My Number will give people more confidence, feeling safe in the knowledge they are not letting their guard down too much.'

She revealed how many of her friends have joined the growing statistic of divorced couples, estimated at over 120,000 a year in the UK alone.

She said: 'Like myself, a lot of my friends met their husbands at school.

'So none of us had much experience of going out and meeting men. Now, quite a few of them are divorced and are always telling me how difficult they're finding dating.

'But all the rules are different. At what point do you give out your phone number or address?

'Your personal number can give away a lot of personal information about you, not least your home address. There needed to be a safer way to give out your details.

'When one of my employees told me she had been harassed over the phone by a man after trying to sell some old designer clothes on eBay, that was when I decided I had to set up Lose My Number.

'She called the police to let them know what had happened and their only advice was to cancel her phone contract and get a new number. Some people go through the hassle of buying pay-as-you-go phones.

'I realised that there must be a better alternative - I looked around and no-one was providing a quick and easy way to get alternative numbers.'

Mrs Gill has worked in the property and mortgage industry with husband Melvyn for 30 years, up until April of this year when the brainwave saw her create Lose My Number.

After hearing her friend's awful experience with an eBay stalker, she and a few friends decided to test out how easy it was for women to be pressurised into giving out their mobile.

Posing as single women they joined several dating sites and within ten minutes Gill alone had 65 men asking her for her contact details.

Realising what people needed she got advice from IT specialists and launched her site in April this year thinking it would be a minor web aid.

Now it has customers in 194 towns and cities in the UK and abroad and advisors from her regional Government-backed development agency project that her 'High Growth Business' will sweep Europe and America, with the 'potential' to be worth more than £10million.

Her site works by simply typing in your mobile number - and it sends you back a new number starting with '070'.

Your original number will still continue to work, but now you can have up to ten 'follow-me' numbers that will also be diverted through to your mobile.

There is no charge for the customer as people ringing the '070' number do so for 50p a minute, so the service is perfect for making short, initial chats to check the person you meet online really is who they say they are.

You can shut down any '070' number you create at any time if the caller turns out to be a nuisance.

She said: 'No other website can do what we do.

'We have already had a lot of interest from other companies wanting to take the idea abroad - we are still very new but growing every week.'

Her creation has already won praise from one respected organisation - the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, set up following the tragic disappearance of 25 year-old estate agent Suzy in 1986.

Jo Walker at the Trust, said: 'It's so important to take some basic safety precautions when meeting new people, whether that's online, at a party or in a club.

'It's always wiser to avoid giving new acquaintances any of your contact details, such as phone number, until you know them better.

'In the meantime use a service like Lose My Number, which is designed specifically to help people feel more secure and have extra peace of mind when meeting new people.'

Kelly Brook recently revealed that she gets so much male attention she has to change her mobile phone number regularly in a bid to avoid being bombarded with calls.

She said: 'Men ask so I give it out. I’m quite approachable. I have to change my number every couple of months because I give it to anybody who asks for it.

'Then they all keep calling me and I change it.'

Ensnared: Internet Creates New Group of Sexual Addicts

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Ohio Judge Cyberstalked and Threatened

Any of this behavior familiar to our readers? - EOPC

An Ohio man allegedly set fire to a car belonging to City Court Judge Christopher Anderson and for two months harassed Anderson and a woman described as the Ohio man's estranged wife, federal court records state.

A federal indictment filed last week against Thomas Slapnicker, 26, of Mentor, Ohio, states Slapnicker posted bogus Internet pages posing as Anderson and the woman.

In the indictment, the victims are identified as "CA" and "CS." Court records filed in Ohio reference a string of police reports filed by Anderson and the woman with Lake Station police.

Police acknowledged on Thursday that the alleged victim "CA" was Anderson.

The complaints include reports of threatening phone calls and e-mail messages from Slapnicker to the couple in January and February. They also allege that Slapnicker made bogus Web pages on the site Myspace.com posing as Anderson and claiming the judge was a pedophile.

Lake Station Police turned the investigation over to federal authorities, Chief Mike Stills said.

"My first inclination was to have an outside agency look into it, with the victim being an elected official here," Stills said.

The Ohio records state Lake Station investigators have surveillance camera footage that shows a vehicle identical to one Slapnicker owns driving away from Anderson's home on Jan. 22, the night Anderson's car was set on fire.

Slapnicker allegedly called his estranged wife after the fire and threatened to burn down Anderson's house.

Slapnicker was arrested last week in Ohio. He is due for a hearing in federal court in Hammond today, his attorney, Roseann Ivanovich, said.

Slapnicker served nearly five years in the military, earning commendations for his conduct in combat, Ivanovich said. He was honorably discharged in 2007, she said. The couple has a 3-year-old child, she said.

"I was surprised this case was charged federally," she said Thursday. "He's a nice young guy who's got a lot to deal with from his service and his divorce."

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

(Of course it was charged Federally! In the U.S. cyberharassment is a FEDERAL CRIME. The fact it took ONLY 2 months to get charges? Is because the victim is a judge. Other victims wait YEARS for charges! But it does catch up with these pathological internet harassers.)
ABOUT CYBERSTALKERS
Cyber stalkers can be broadly categorized into three types. (Sometimes these categories overlap).

The obsessional cyberstalker
This is the most common type of cyberstalker and he or she usually has had a prior relationship with the victim. The stalker cannot come to terms with the fact that their relationship is over. He or she then takes a lot of trouble to coerce the victim into re-entering the relationship or has his or her revenge on the victim by inducing fear and making his or her life miserable.

One should not be misled by believing that this stalker is harmlessly in love and incapable of causing real harm.

The delusional cyberstalker
This type of stalker is usually unrelated to the intended victim. Most of the time, contact is achieved through the Internet. These stalkers suffer from mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, psychopathy, bipolar disorder, narcissism, etc. This is why, sometimes, they are severely deluded into believing that their victim is in love with them even though they may have never met. These false beliefs keep them tied to their victims. This particular condition is also known as erotomania.

A delusional stalker is often a social outcast because of his or her mental illness and this makes him or her all the more desperate for companionship. Victims often tend to be married and from high profile professions such as celebrities, doctors, teachers, etc.

The most common type of stalker from this group is the type which pursues a celebrity and this syndrome is better known as the "obsessed fan syndrome". Delusional stalkers are very difficult to shake off.

The vengeful cyber stalker
These cyber stalkers are typically disgruntled employees and ex-spouses, ex-lovers or ex-friends who are resentful towards their victim due to some reason or the other. The motive for them is the feeling that THEY were the ones who have been victimized first and that they are merely teaching their victims a lesson.
EOPC EXAMPLE

His or her actions are similar to that of the obsessional stalker but they differ in motive. He or she is usually hell-bent on inducing fear in his or her victims by blackmailing or threatening them after taking over their computers.
EOPC EXAMPLE

WHAT MOTIVATES A CYBERSTALKER/ HARASSER?
The following are general motivations for any cyberstalker. The more fearful cyberstalkers tend to have more than one motive.

Anonymity of the Net
As mentioned before, the very nature of anonymous communications through the Internet makes it much easier to be a cyberstalker than a stalker in the real world.

Obsession for love
It is often the case that when relationships that begin online or in real life are halted abruptly by one person, the rejected lover cannot accept the end of the relationship. This leads to the rejected one pursuing his or her ex-lover online as well as offline.

One major problem related to obsessional stalking is that since it often starts off as real romance and intimacy, much personal information is shared between both persons involved. This makes it all the easier for the cyberstalker to harass his or her victim by using personal information against him or her or publicizing them.

Obsessions may also start as pastimes or for psychological reasons. These stalkers live in their own fantasy realms, so it is usually unnecessary for the victim to have done anything to attract his or her attention in the first place. Obsessional stalkers are usually jealous, possessive and manipulative people.

Revenge & Hate
It may start of as a mere argument blown out of proportion, leading eventually to a relationship based on intense hatred and a need for revenge. The criminal behavior may also be triggered off as a result of a rude comment posted online. The offending party may regret his or her action immediately but the offended party is not that easy to shake off.

Sometimes, hate-centred cyberstalking is triggered off for no reason at all. This is another indication of the psychological instability of cyberstalkers. Death threats and vulgar messages via email or through live chat messages are a common manifestation of this type of stalking.

Ego-centrism
Some stalkers are least interested in the damage they do to or how close they get to their victims. They are only interested in the process of gaining control over their victims just to prove to themselves or their friends that they can. They do not have any grudge against their victims but are simply using them as a means to exhibit their power and control to their friends or doing it just for the challenge. The unlucky victim is usually chosen at random.

Apart from the fact that they are highly manipulative and risk-taking, these stalkers do not suffer from any mental illness. Most people who receive threats online are fooled into believing that their harasser is more than capable of carrying out their threats. In fact, more often than not, this type of stalker is a child or teenager who cannot possibly have the means of carrying out the threats made.

IMPACT ON VICTIMS
Cyberstalking undermines the reputation and credibility of the Internet as a platform of information and for communication.

Being stalked can be an extremely fearful experience... Receiving messages filled with hatred or obsessive desire from someone whose face they have never seen before can be extremely terrifying. This is even more so if they start thinking that they themselves had done something wrong to deserve such treatment.

The knowledge that one is being continually pursued for whatever reason in the real or in the cyberworld is not something one handle if he or she keeps his or her fear inside. A new user of the Net may be so traumatized by such an experience that he or she may be too frightened to use the Net ever again. The worst thing that could happen is that the victim is convinced by the stalker to meet him or her in the real world and is then raped or assaulted or even murdered in a secluded area.

Such incidents severely undermine the reputation and credibility of the Internet as a worldwide platform of information and for communication.
~~~~~~~~~~~

The Ohio man charged with cyberstalking two Lake Station residents, one of whom is the city judge, will undergo a psychiatric evaluation before continuing with court hearings.

In a hearing Friday in Hammond federal court, Magistrate Judge Paul Cherry ordered the evaluation of Thomas Slapnicker, 26, of suburban Cleveland. Slapnicker's lawyer, Roseann Ivanovich, requested the evaluation.

Ivanovich told Cherry that Slapnicker is an Iraq war veteran suffering post-traumatic stress disorder. Slapnicker is also going through a divorce, Ivanovich said. She said that she was not convinced Slapnicker understands his situation, and she isn't sure he is capable of helping with his defense.

(PTSD is suffered by our victims... and our victims don't react this way. So clinical differences MUST be drawn between combat-related PTSD and trauma-related PTSD. The former's victims tend to act out, the latter's victims tend 'act IN.' - EOPC)

Cherry suspended hearings pending the evaluation.

Slapnicker remains jailed.

The federal investigation into Slapnicker started when someone set fire to Lake Station City Judge Christopher Anderson's car in his driveway about 2 a.m. one morning in late January or early February, said Lake Station Police Chief Mike Stills.

Anderson told police Slapnicker had been harassing and threatening him, Stills said. A detention order filed against Slapnicker in Ohio federal court describes Anderson as a "friend" of Slapnicker's wife. Anderson suggested Slapnicker as a suspect in the fire, Stills said.

Slapnicker has not been charged in the car fire, but he faces charges filed last week in Hammond federal court that he used MySpace and other Web sites to harass two Lake Station residents. Anderson is not mentioned in the indictment, but police have named him as one of the alleged victims.

Slapnicker is accused of using Web sites to invite people to one victim's home for sexual favors. The indictment states Slapnicker posed online as a second victim, using MySpace and other sites, to make that person appear to be a racist pedophile.

Slapnicker is charged with four counts of making threatening phone calls Feb. 12 and two counts of violating a protective order by interstate cyberstalking.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

SUPPORT BOARD FOR STALKING VICTIMS

If you are being CYBERSTALKED or HARASSED EOPC CANNOT intervene for you - CLICK HERE for what to do Do not allow even law enforcement to tell you this is 'not a big deal.' Insist that they file charges and get a copy of the charges! Be a 'polite pest' and follow up frequently. Move up the ladder of command if you have to. Involve local politicians - many Representatives have people in their local offices to help citizens get the services THEIR TAX DOLLARS PAY FOR.


YOU CAN SHARE COPIES OF THE RELEVANT LAW WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT IF THEY DO NOT "GET IT'" (more links to the right regarding the law & cyberpaths, cyberstalking & cyberharassment)


Interstate Threatening Communications and Cyberstalking

• The statute governing threatening communications is 18 U.S.C. § 875.
• Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both (b).
• Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both (c).
• Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or or threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both (d).
  

18 U.S.C. § 875 Interstate Communications

• Threatening Communications
• Threatening to injure property or defame
• Intent to communicate
• Communication in interstate commerce
• The communication is reasonably perceived by the recipient as threatening
• Threat of harm to a person. U.S. v. DeAndino, 958 F.2d 146 (6th Cir. 1992) (although not necessarily a specific person).

§ 875(c) Threatening Communications

• Intent requirement for 875(c)
• Intent to communicate
• Reasonably perceived by recipient as threat of bodily harm
• Subjective intent to threaten is not required. U.S. v. Morales, 272 F.3d 284 (5th Cir. 2001).
• Intent to make an interstate communication is also not required. U.S. v. Darby, 37 F.3d 1059 (4th Cir. 1994).
• Interstate commerce requirement -- An internet communication need only travel out of state to fulfill interstate commerce prong. U.S. v. Kammersell 196 F.3d 1137 (10th Cir. 1999).
  

CASES
U.S. v. Kammersell, 196 F.3d 1137 (10th Cir. 1999)

U.S. v. Morales, 272 F.3d 284 (5th Cir. 2001)

A communication is a threat if in its context it would have a reasonable tendency to create apprehension that its originator will act according to its tenor. The threat must be made knowingly which means voluntarily and intelligently and not by mistake or accident. To distinguish political hyperbole from a true threat, “in order to convict, a fact finder must determine that the recipient of the in-context threat reasonably feared it would be carried out.”

The Court found that the language of 18 U.S.C. § 875 doesn’t require intent to communicate the threat to the specific victim.


U.S. v. Alkhabaz, 103 F.3d 1492 (6th Cir. 2001)

• Facts: D posted stories depicting sexual violence to a usenet group. One of these stories involved the torture, rape, and murder of a young woman who shared the same name as one of D’s classmates at the University of Michigan. Some time after, D and his friend (computing from Ontario Canada) exchanged email messages expressing an interest in sexual violence.
• D was arrested under 18 U.S.C. § 875 for sending threatening interstate communications. The District Court dismissed the indictment against D, finding that his stories and messages did not constitute true threats and were protected speech. The government appealed the dismissal of the indictment.

Court ruled these constituted “a communication containing a threat” under § 875(c), a communication must be such that a reasonable person (1) would take the statement as a serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily harm (the mens rea), and (2) would perceive such expression as being communicated to effect some change or achieve some goal through intimidation (the actus reus).”

Cyberstalking Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2261A
* Whoever . . . [uses] any interactive computer service, or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that causes substantial emotional distress to that person or places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph
(B) . . .

• (i) . . . person;
• (ii) a member of the immediate family . . . of that person; or
• (iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person;

Cyberstalking Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2261A
History Behind 18 U.S.C. § 2261A

* Enacted as part of Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA).
* Created the federal crime of stalking, largely in response to highly publicized murder of actress Rebecca Shaeffer.

CASES
U.S. v. Bowker, 372 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2004).

* D argued that 18 U.S.C. § 2261 overbroadly included certain protected speech. The Court rejected this challenge as it found that D hadn’t pointed to anything in particular. The court also rejected D’s vagueness challenge, finding that the reasonable person standard in objectively discerning threatening behavior would apprise the reasonable person reading the statute of what conduct was prohibited. Further, it found harassment and intimidation to be words of common understanding.

U.S. v. Bell, 303 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2002).
* “course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct comprised of two or more acts.”