Cyber-Stalking

Corporate Cyberstalking Links

2009-01-08T13:31:00.000-08:00

Eric Goldman Blog - Cyberstalking Attorney.

Two New Ripoff Report Cases Filed - CitMedialaw.org

Can We Trust Google with Our Medical Records?

2008-04-19T20:28:00.000-07:00

But now that big companies like Microsoft and Google are getting into the medical record storage business, a fascinating piece in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine raises important questions about whether medical privacy rules should be extended to these private firms. All you have to do is order a book on Amazon and you can quickly see how every move you make online is tracked by marketers. Full Story

Suit Accuses Blockbuster Facebook of Privacy Law Violations

2008-04-19T20:26:00.000-07:00

A class-action lawsuit is brewing over Facebook's controversial Beacon tool and Blockbuster's involvement with it. Texas native Cathryn Elaine Harris has filed a lawsuit against Blockbuster, alleging that the company is actively and knowingly violating the Video Privacy Protection Act by reporting users' activities back to Facebook. The suit seeks to be certified as a class action, and asks that Blockbuster pay out $2,500 per incident in which it disclosed personally identifiable information. (Full Story)

US Copyrights

2008-04-15T22:43:00.001-07:00

Cyber-Ethics

2008-04-15T22:42:00.000-07:00

Cyber-Ethics - Cybercrime.gov

EVANSVILLE MAN SENTENCED TO PRISON

2008-04-15T22:37:00.001-07:00

Timothy M. Morrison, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana, announced that CHRISTOPHER CARL HIGHMAN, 23, of Evansville, Indiana, was sentenced to 36 months imprisonment by U.S. District Judge Richard L. Young following his guilty plea to reckless computer intrusion causing damage. This case was the result of a investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

On about May 30, 2006, HIGHMAN accessed, without authority, the computer servers of broadcasting Concepts Inc.(BCI), a business located in Las Vegas, Nevada. At the time of his guilty plea, HIGHMAN admitted that he impaired the integrity and availability of BCI’s computer systems and information through his unauthorized access and file transfers.
HIGHMAN’s damage to BCI’s computer system resulted in losses to BCI totaling at least $96,404.50 between May 30, 2006, and May 30, 2007.

BERLIN MAN PLEADS GUILTY TO COMPUTER INTRUSION

2008-04-15T22:36:00.001-07:00

Connecticut Computer Crimes Task Force
Kevin J. O’Connor, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, today announced that PRIYAVRAT H. PATEL, 41, of Berlin, Connecticut, has pleaded guilty to one count of computer intrusion. PATEL’s plea was entered on January 10 before United States Magistrate Judge Donna F. Martinez in Hartford, Connecticut.

According to documents filed with the court and statements made in court, PATEL provided information technology services consulting services to Pratt-Read Corp., a manufacturer based in Bridgeport, Connecticut. On November 25, 2007, PATEL remotely accessed Pratt-Read’s computer servers, which were used by Pratt-Read to conduct its business and to communicate with its customers. PATEL deleted files from three of the servers, rendering them inoperable.

BAKERSFIELD LAW STUDENT SENTENCED IN EMAIL HARASSMENT SCHEME

2008-04-15T22:34:00.000-07:00

FRESNO—United States Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced today that VICTOR VEVEA, 43, of Bakersfield, was sentenced today by United States District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill to three years of probation with a condition that he serve 90 days of monitored home confinement.

VEVEA had been found guilty on January 24, 2008 of unlawfully accessing the e-mail account of Bakersfield attorney Michael Kilpatrick for the purpose of sending out harassing e-mails in Kilpatrick’s name. Full story

This case is the product of an extensive investigation by the Bakersfield Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. According to Assistant United States Attorney Mark J. McKeon, who prosecuted

Seattle Spammer Pleads Guilty to Mail Fraud

2008-04-15T22:31:00.001-07:00

Seattle Spammer Pleads Guilty to Mail Fraud

FORMER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EMPLOYEE SENTENCED FOR COMPUTER CRIME

2008-04-15T22:29:00.000-07:00

For Immediate Release! March 2008 - Man convicted of computer crime.

A former information technology employee of Pentastar Aviation, LLC, was sentenced to four years probation with the first six months to be served at a halfway house and six months to be served as house arrest after his conviction for unlawful computer intrusion into the company’s computer system in 2007 and causing damage to the system by destroying payroll and personnel records, United States Attorney Stephen J. Murphy announced today.

The Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3)

2008-04-15T22:28:00.000-07:00

The Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) is a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C). IC3's mission is to serve as a vehicle to receive, develop, and refer criminal complaints regarding the rapidly expanding arena of cyber crime. The IC3 gives the victims of cyber crime a convenient and easy-to-use reporting mechanism that alerts authorities of suspected criminal or civil violations. For law enforcement and regulatory agencies at the federal, state, and local level, IC3 provides a central referral mechanism for complaints involving Internet related crimes.
The Internet Crime Complaint Center

Man Sentenced for Internet Harassment

2008-04-15T22:22:00.002-07:00

Man Sentenced for Internet Harassment 5 years probation, 500 hours of community service and must pay back $12,000 in restitution

JA Hitcock's Cyberstalked on Usenet

2008-04-15T22:22:00.001-07:00

Read JA Hitchcock's story about being cyber-stalked. Excellent resources on this horrible crime.

Spammers

2008-04-15T22:21:00.000-07:00

Spammer Gets Slammer - A Virginia jury has recommended a nine-year sentence for a North Carolina man, who along with his sister, became the first people convicted under the state's new anti-spam laws based on falsifying information to mask the sender's identity.

Texas Anti-Spam Laws

Cyber Crimes & Cyber-Harassment

2008-04-15T22:17:00.000-07:00

Federal Cyber Crimes Task Force - US Dept. of Justice
Man Sentenced for Internet Harassment 5 years probation, 500 hours of community service and must pay back $12,000 in restitution
Prosecuting Cybercrimes Manual
National Cybercrime Project Counsel NAAG

Cybercrime Resources

2008-04-15T15:38:00.000-07:00

A Study on Cyberstalking, Investigative Hurdles (D'Ovidio)

Mr. D'Ovidio is a Ph.D. student and instructor at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Mr. Doyle serves as president of a private company that trains law enforcement and consultants in the area of high-tech crime.

Mr. D'Ovidio can be reached via e-mail at dovidio@temple.edu.

Mr. Doyle can be reached via e-mail at jrdoyle@internetcrimes.com.

Internet Privacy

2008-04-13T07:24:00.000-07:00

Internet Privacy consists of privacy over the media of the Internet: the ability to control what information one reveals about oneself over the Internet, and to control who can access that information. Many people use the term to mean universal Internet privacy: every user of the Internet possessing Internet privacy.

Jason Fortuny / Craigslist
Jason Fortuny posed as a woman on Craigslist asking if anyone was interested in a sexual encounter. He received over 100 responses and posted the names and private information of everyone that responded on the internet.

Ryan Singel called Jason Fortuny a "sociopath" who did nothing but prove that you can ruin lives online.

Privacy Commission

Cyber Bullies

2008-04-10T19:00:00.001-07:00

Cyber Bullies

STALKING - LLRX

2008-03-26T22:08:00.001-07:00

Power. Control. Fear. Obsession.

These are words that define the characteristics and behaviors of a traditional stalker who “violates individual privacy and pursuits unwanted attention of another.” In Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Pocket Edition, stalking is defined as “the act or an instance of following another by stealth or the offense of following or loitering near another, often surreptitiously, with the purpose of annoying or harassing that person or committing a further crime such as assault or battery” (2nd Pocket Edition, p. 660.). In similar feelings, a stalker’s behavior can cause a reasonable person to fear and lose control of their everyday routines. This fear is that key emotion stalkers like to impart to their victims.

In cyberstalking, there is no direct physical contact, but the victim feels the violence of the act and can bear long-term scars, both emotional and psychological. These scars can include paranoia, high-anxiety, panic attacks, chronic sleep disturbances, weight fluctuations and persistent nausea, increased usage of alcohol or cigarette, headaches, and depression (Pathe & Mullen, 1997).

Internet Service Providers (ISPs), email, web pages, websites, search engines, images, listservs, Instant Chat Relay (IRCs) are all cyberstalking tools. As Internet usage increased, it is not known if people realize what online stalking was or if it was recognized as a crime. One of the most famous cases that brought cyberstalking into the public’s eye was the Jayne Hitchcock incident. Her story brought cyberstalking to the attention of lawmakers and she and others helped rewrite state stalking laws. Her harassment begin online via discussion groups and emails and then lead to physical stalking of her and her family in the real world.

Full Article

Teen Charged with Cyberstalking

2008-03-26T22:06:00.000-07:00

Teen Charged with Cyberstalking MARCH 2008

A Case of Cyberstalking - CNN.com

2008-03-26T22:03:00.000-07:00

A Case of Cyberstalking - CNN.com

Women gets stalked after firing someone for downloading porn from internet onto work computer. (2000)

Do Cyberstalking Laws Criminalize Free Expression?

2008-03-26T21:59:00.000-07:00

Should Cyberstalking be legal?

Vengeful Corporate Cyberstalking

2008-03-26T21:57:00.001-07:00

Case 1: (Vengeful) Clancy Systems International
In September 2000, Clancy Systems International took the unusual step of commencing legal action against to discover the identities of some unknown individuals who were posting defamatory statements on various chat rooms, including the Raging Bull Message Board [11].

In November 2001, judgement was awarded against an individual who had been stalking the company via the Internet for two years. This individual was accused of a number of acts including: posting false statements, posting defamatory statements, making threats to company employees, making threats to other users of a chat room and hacking into the company's chat site in order to copy information which could be distorted and then posted to public chat sites [12].

In addition to awarding Clancy Systems International damages, the individual was permanently banned from posting messages to the Raging Bull Message Board or any other board that discusses the company.

Corporate Cyberstalking

2008-03-26T21:49:00.001-07:00

Excellent article on Corporate Cyberstalking.
Cyber-smearing is a serious matter since the damage caused is often more serious than if the information were contained in a letter or even a newspaper article. In the former case, the potential audience to the information is very limited. In the latter, a retraction can be printed quickly and easily. It is argued that it is almost impossible to retract a message posted to a chat room or discussion board. Usually, the information contained within the message becomes persistent, meaning that it remains easily accessible for the foreseeable future, increasing the harm done to the company over time. It is also worth noting that the potential audience for a message posted on the Internet is far larger than the circulation of any newspaper in the world.

False or defamatory information is often posted to financial chat rooms and message boards in order to perpetrate online stock fraud. The most common method, known as "pump and dump", usually involves the perpetrator buying large quantities of a given company's stock. The fraudster then artificially increases the value of a company's stock by posting rumours such as "news" of a potential take-over. As soon as the value of the stock rises, the fraudster sells his shares at a large profit. Occasionally, a fraudster may artificially decrease the value of a stock so that shares can be bought at a bargain price, to be resold once the stock recovers.

The harm caused by this form of cyberstalking must not be underestimated. As explained earlier, the damage caused to an organisation's public image is often severe and long-lasting. However, the financial losses that accompany online stock fraud can sometimes harm an entire industry, let alone an individual company. For instance, in August 2000, Mark Jakob, a 23-year-old former student, released a body of false information concerning Emulex. Within an hour the company's stock had fallen in value by $2.5 billion but Jakob had realised a personal profit of $240,000 (Berenson, 2000). Fearful that Emulex indicated a problem within the sector, panicked investors began selling shares in other companies, causing shares in Brocade and Qlogic to fall in value too (Grice and Ard, 2000).

Stalker/Victim	Category Name	Description
Individual/Organisation	Vengeful	The individual wishes to exact some form of revenge against the organisation e.g. cyber-smearing.
Individual /Organisation	Individual Gain	The individual is seeking some form of benefit e.g. financial gain obtained via stock fraud.
Individual/Organisation	Ideological	The individual acts in support of beliefs e.g. cyberterrorism and hacktivism.
Organisation/Individual	Unwitting	The organisation is unaware of the actions of an employee and is an unknowing accomplice.
Organisation/Individual	For Profit	The organisation seeks to realise some form of (business) benefit by its actions, e.g. silencing critics using SLAPP. The victim is normally an individual.
Organisation/Individual	Competitive	The organisation seeks to improve its competitive position. The victim is another organisation.

STALKING STATISTICS

2008-03-26T21:44:00.000-07:00

While many well-known incidents of stalking involve celebrities, the majority of stalking victims are ordinary citizens.

75 to 80 percent of all stalking cases involve a male stalking a female, and the conduct frequently occurs in connection with domestic violence.
The average duration of stalking is 1.8 years.
A woman is three times more likely to be stalked than raped.

Stalking Self Help

2008-03-26T21:37:00.000-07:00

Stalking Self-Help

Why do people cyberstalk or cyberharass others?

2008-03-26T21:34:00.000-07:00

Cyberstalkers are often driven by revenge, hate, anger, jealousy, obsession and mental illness. While a cyberharasser may be motivated by some of these same feelings, often the harassment is driven by the desire to frighten or embarrass the harassment victim.

Sometimes the harasser intends to teach the victim a lesson in netiquette or political correctness (from the harasser’s point of view). Often the cyberharassment victim is merely in the wrong place at the wrong time, or has made a comment or expressed an opinion that the cyberharasser dislikes. We have even seen cases where the victim is merely being targeted because they are the first ones the cyberharasser encounters when they are in a “bad mood. (Internet Safety: Cyber911)

Potential Effects of Cyberstalking

2008-03-26T21:26:00.000-07:00

(From The National Center for Victims of Domestic Violence)

"Just because cyberstalking does not include physical contact with the perpetrator does not mean it is not as threatening or frightening as any other type of crime. Victims of cyberstalking often experience psychological trauma, as well as physical and emotional reactions as a result of their victimization. Some of these effects may include: "

changes in sleeping and eating patterns
nightmares
hypervigilance
anxiety
helplessness
fear for safety
shock and disbelief

The Future of Reputation

2008-03-21T21:55:00.000-07:00

The Future of Reputation - Gossip, Rumor & Privacy on the Internet

Megan Meier Suicide Controversy

2008-03-21T21:45:00.000-07:00

Megan Meier commits suicide after being harrassed by a cyberstalker on MySpace by the mother of her friend and neighbor. Sick. Megan Meier

But after waiting for criminal charges to be filed against Drew, neighbors learned that local and federal prosecutors could not find a statute applicable to the case. Story

ABC News - Channel 8 Coverage of Megan Meier Cyber-Bullying Case

Megan Meier Suicide stokes internet fury machine

Jerks of the Web

2008-03-21T21:44:00.001-07:00

Nice article on MSN. Jerks of the Web

Federal Cyberstalking Laws

2008-03-20T11:22:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON — It didn't get much publicity, but an anti-stalking bill passed by Congress recently makes it a federal crime to "annoy" someone over the Internet.

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=1925

Violence Against Women Act - Wiki

US Dept. of Justice - Stalking

Cyberguards

18 U.S.C. 875(c), it is a federal crime, punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000, to transmit any communication in interstate or foreign commerce containing a threat to injure the person of another.

Section 875(c) applies to any communication actually transmitted in interstate or foreign commerce - thus it includes threats transmitted in interstate or foreign commerce via the telephone, e-mail, beepers, or the Internet.

Although 18 U.S.C. 875 is an important tool, it is not an all-purpose anti-cyberstalking statute. First, it applies only to communications of actual threats. Thus, it would not apply in a situation where a cyberstalker engaged in a pattern of conduct intended to harass or annoy another (absent some threat). Also, it is not clear that it would apply to situations where a person harasses or terrorizes another by posting messages on a bulletin board or in a chat room encouraging others to harass or annoy another person (as in the California case, discussed infra.).
Certain forms of cyberstalking also may be prosecuted under 47 U.S.C. 223. One provision of this statute makes it a federal crime, punishable by up to two years in prison, to use a telephone or telecommunications device to annoy, abuse, harass, or threaten any person at the called number. The statute also requires that the perpetrator not reveal his or her name. [3]

The amendment adds (h)(1)(C): "in the case of subparagraph (C) of
subsection(a)(1), includes any device or software that canbe used to originate
telecommunications or othertypes of communications that are transmitted, inwhole
or in part, by the Internet (as such termis defined in section 1104 of the
Internet TaxFreedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note))."
Tech Law Journal

See 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(C). Although this statute is broader than 18 U.S.C. 875 -- in that it covers both threats and harassment -- Section 223 applies only to direct communications between the perpetrator and the victim. Thus, it would not reach a cyberstalking situation where a person harasses or terrorizes another person by posting messages on a bulletin board or in a chat room encouraging others to harass or annoy another person. Moreover, Section 223 is only a misdemeanor, punishable by not more than two years in prison.

The Interstate Stalking Act, signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, makes it a crime for any person to travel across state lines with the intent to injure or harass another person and, in the course thereof, places that person or a member of that person's family in a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. See 18 U.S.C. 2261A. Although a number of serious stalking cases have been prosecuted under Section 2261A, the requirement that the stalker physically travel across state lines makes it largely inapplicable to cyberstalking cases.

Finally, President Clinton signed a bill into law in October 1998 that protects children against online stalking. The statute, 18 U.S.C. 2425, makes it a federal crime to use any means of interstate or foreign commerce (such as a telephone line or the Internet) to knowingly communicate with any person with intent to solicit or entice a child into unlawful sexual activity. While this new statute provides important protections for children, it does not reach harassing phone calls to minors absent a showing of intent to entice or solicit the child for illicit sexual purposes.

Thus, although current statutes address some forms of cyberstalking, there are gaps in current federal and state law. As outlined in the Recommendations below, States should review their existing stalking and other statutes to determine whether they address cyberstalking and, if not, expeditiously enact laws that prohibit cyberstalking.

Federal legislation also is needed to fill the gaps in current law. While most cyberstalking cases will fall within the jurisdiction of state and local authorities, there are instances - such as serious cyberharassment directed at a victim in another state or involving communications intended to encourage third parties to engage in harassment or threats - where state law is inadequate or where state or local agencies do not have the expertise or the resources to investigate and/or prosecute a sophisticated cyberstalking case. Therefore, federal law should be amended to prohibit the transmission of any communication in interstate or foreign commerce with intent to threaten or harass another person, where such communication places another person in fear of death or bodily injury to themselves or another person. Because of the increased vulnerability of children, the statute should provide for enhanced penalties where the victim is a minor. Such targeted, technology-neutral legislation would fill existing gaps in current federal law, without displacing the primary law enforcement role of state and local authorities and without infringing on First Amendment-protected speech.

Cyberstalking Statistics

2008-03-20T10:51:00.000-07:00

One of 20 adults will be stalked in their lifetime.

The average age of the victims is 18 to 32 years, probably because these are the people who are most active on the Internet, he added.

US Dept. of Justice - Cyberstalking

2008-03-20T10:50:00.000-07:00

The U.S. Department of Justice defines cyberstalking as the use of electronic communication devices such as e-mail to stalk another person. In the department?s 1999 ?Report on Cyberstalking: A New Challenge for Law Enforcement and Industry,? one incident was documented involving an honor student from the University of San Diego who had terrorized five female students with hundreds of threatening e-mails over the course of a year. The student pleaded guilty to the charges and faced up to six years in prison.

London Harrassment Laws

2008-03-20T10:47:00.000-07:00

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Cyberstalkers

2008-03-20T10:46:00.001-07:00

Bloggers help track down cyberstalker

Campus Police Track Cyberstalker

A Sinister Web Traps Victims of Cyberstalking

CyberAge Stalking

Cyberstalking

Cyberstalking Laws Target Emails & Bloggers - Information Week

Texas Penal Code

Profiling a Cyberstalker (Video)

Stalking by Text Message

Cyberstalker Sentenced 2001

Forms of Cyberstalking Harassment

2008-03-19T22:25:00.001-07:00

The harassment may take several forms, including:

Posting comments intended to cause distress to the victim and/or make them subject of harassment by others.
Sending a stream of unsolicited messages (possibly hateful or provocative) to the victim or to associates of the victim.
Sending or posting offensive or hateful comments or lies in their own identity or impersonating the victim.
Hacking or taking over the victim’s computer or email accounts.
Changing the victim’s password and blocking their account.
Signing the victim up for spam, porn sites or questionable offers.
Following the victim into cyber chat rooms or discussion boards.
Creating sexually explicit images of the victim and/or posting them on Web sites, or commercial porn sites.
Luring, or enticing, the victim into an offline meeting.

Anonymous Content Delivery

2008-03-19T22:21:00.000-07:00

The wide variety of stalking and harassing enabled by the increasing power and reach of networked computers and evolving technologies has made it possible to deliver content anonymously. [2]

The Cyberstalker’s profile

2008-03-19T22:19:00.000-07:00

Cyberstalking by the stalker’s relentless pursuit of the victim online and are likely to include or evolve into some form of offline attack.

Many stalkers are motivated by a desire to exert control over their victims

Cyberstalkers can be known or unknown to their victim and are often driven by revenge, hate, anger, jealousy, obsession and mental illness, while cyberharassers are often driven by the desire to frighten or embarrass the victim.

2008-03-19T22:17:00.000-07:00

Agents follow the electronic trails left behind by cyberstalkers to discover the patterns of stalking behavior, while preserving the privacy of legitimate users of the network.

Issues in Protecting People from Cyberstalkers

2008-03-19T22:16:00.001-07:00

Stalking on the Internet leaves an entirely different trail of evidence for investigators that threatens to confound efforts to protect victims (2)

Cyberstalking vs. Privacy Issues

2008-03-19T22:15:00.001-07:00

Cyberstalking is difficult to prosecute because of the privacy issues inherent to internet usage.

Cyberstalking & Law Enforcement

2008-03-19T22:12:00.000-07:00

Law enforcement agents need new tools to address the technical challenges of new technologies, andthese emerging types of crime, often perpetrated by resourceful and determined assailants.

Ruthless,technologically advanced stalkers can easily intimidate their victims. The social, educational, and eco-nomic status of cyberstalkers complicates prosecution in cyberstalking cases.

Cyberstalking

The online environment makes it relativelyeasy to maintain anonymity through chat room “avatars”, anonymous email accounts, multiple ISPs, andemail relay techniques. This anonymity, coupled with the wealth of data available and the ubiquity ofthe Internet, has frustrated law enforcement, and jurisdictional and statutory limitations often have tiedthe hands of investigators.Rapid advances in technology have exacerbated the technical and legal problems facing investigators.The President’s Working Group on Unlawful Conduct on the Internet has documented the difficulties offighting this new form of stalking [30], as law enforcement often lacks the resources to place agents onthe scene with the victims, despite efforts to educate victims in best practices for stalking situations [22].James Moor [17] has pointed to the “policy vacuums” that have arisen because of the new possibilitiesand “conceptual muddles” caused by the use of networked computers to perpetrate crimes that did notexist in pre-Internet times. Stalking on the Internet leaves an entirely different trail of evidence forinvestigators that threatens to confound efforts to protect victims. The highly volatile and easily corrupteddigital evidence that is often essential for the prosecution, presents new challenges to law makers andforensics experts.In the past, agents often advised victims simply to stop using the internet, but law enforcementhas increasingly adapted traditional techniques for surveillance, investigation, and evidence gathering tonetworked computer environment [31]. Agents follow the electronic trails left behind by cyberstalkers todiscover the patterns of stalking behavior, while preserving the privacy of legitimate users of the network.In this paper we discuss cyberstalking issues in the general context of a threat model based on aCryptographic/Steganographic approach and consider possible solutions. We first define (Section 2) ourthreat model and consider two problems that are closely related to cyberstalking: the Prisoner’s problemand the Man-in-the-Middle problem. Then (Section 3) we propose a “blackbox” monitoring system thatwill track the actions of cyberstalkers as a general forensics tool that will address the security issues ofour cyberstalker threat model. We conclude (Section 4) with a discussion of implementation issues.2 A cyberstalking threat model: the Cyberstalker’s profile, Law Enforce-ment constraints and the Cyberstalker’s problemOur threat model has three basic components: the Cyberstalker’s profile, the Law Enforcement con-straints and the Cyberstalker’s problem.2Page 32.1 The Cyberstalker’s profileCyberstalking, and more generally cyberharassment, are characterized by the stalker’s relentless pursuitof the victim online and are likely to include or evolve into some form of offline attack. Cyberstalkerscan be known or unknown to their victim and are often driven by revenge, hate, anger, jealousy, obses-sion and mental illness, while cyberharassers are often driven by the desire to frighten or embarrass thevictim [33]. The harassment may take several forms, including:1. Posting comments intended to cause distress to the victim and/or make them subject of harassmentby others.2. Sending a stream of unsolicited messages (possibly hateful or provocative) to the victim or toassociates of the victim.3. Sending or posting offensive or hateful comments or lies in their own identity or impersonatingthe victim.4. Hacking or taking over the victim’s computer or email accounts.5. Changing the victim’s password and blocking their account.6. Signing the victim up for spam, porn sites or questionable offers.7. Following the victim into cyber chat rooms or discussion boards.8. Creating sexually explicit images of the victim and/or posting them on Web sites, or commercialporn sites.9. Luring, or enticing, the victim into an offline meeting.The last form of harassment is perhaps the most dangerous because of the potential to lead to directphysical harm. The wide variety of stalking and harassing enabled by the increasing power and reachof networked computers and evolving technologies has made it possible to deliver content anonymously.This is exacerbated by the technical proficiency of stalkers, which often exceeds the capability of thevictims and the law enforcement agents. We propose a monitor system that is able to captures data onlyfrom the PC of the victim, without resorting to internet techniques. Although it cannot directly combatall the categories above, it can effectively document and verify: (i) messages sent directly to the victim,(ii) attempts to hijack the victim’s computer, (iii) cyberstalking in chat rooms and discussion boardsand, (iv) sexually explicit messages sent to the victim directly.2.2 Law enforcement constraints – consent, digital evidence integrity, chain-of-custodyThe Monitor system that we propose is intrusive to the victim because it requires the insertion of bothhardware and software into the victim’s computer environment that are capable of capturing private andsensitive communication between the victim (and other users, if the computer is a multi-user platform)and legitimate parties. Additionally, there may be confidential files on the computer that the victims doesnot want the investigator to see. These concerns must be addressed on a case by case basis. Strategiesinclude giving the victim a dedicated computer to use during the investigation, quarantining existingfiles, making Monitor sessions specific only to the victim, and demanding consent from the victim at thebeginning of each session through an authorization dialog.As we have seen, victims of cyberstalking are often isolated, intimidated, and technologically unableto effectively respond to the threat. In addition, the collection of quality evidence in cybercrime is prob-lematic. Even when law enforcement agents are directly involved in investigating cybercrime, great care3Page 4must be taken in the collection, recording, and verification of digital evidence. Evidence in a criminalcourt is authenticated through standardized evidence handling procedures and chain-of-custody recordsthat have traditionally relied on physical security measures. Digital evidence offers new challenges forauthentication because it is so easily copied, deleted, and modified. Erik Berg [2] has argued that dig-ital images may require that special care be given to document the collection and analysis proceduresand the chain-of-custody to ensure admissibility. Thomas Duerr et al [7] agree that digital evidence ispotentially more susceptible to post-collection alteration than analog evidence, but argue that there areinformation assurance methods developed for Internet applications and electronic commerce that canenhance current evidence handling and chain-of-custody documentation procedures for their integrity.The Information Assurance Technical Framework [20] delineates five primary security services relevantto information and information processing systems: access control, confidentiality, integrity, availability,and non-repudiation. Confidentiality and availability are not directly concerned with the authenticationof digital evidence, but integrity is essential. Duerr et al [7] argue that “it is desirable to ensure theintegrity of the data as close to the source format and as near to the time and place of collection asfeasible”, and that “identification of the user who collects the evidence and generates the integrity datashould be integral to the solution.” They stress that the integrity process must not be allowed to modifythe original data in any way. Non-repudiation and access control services are also necessary to bolsterchain-of-custody record keeping and to maintain an audit trail of successful and unsuccessful access at-tempts (it is essential to prove who handled a piece of evidence and when). Because methods of digitalevidence integrity verification are often new and have not yet been used in criminal courts, they may besubject to a Daubert challenge [5] that requires the judge to assess the validity and applicability to thecase of the technique or methodology invoked by expert testimony. The Daubert ruling provides aids forthe judge in making that assessment. These are based on the reliability and general acceptance in thescientific community of the techniques or methodologies used. In particular, authentication systems muststrictly adhere to existing government and industry standards and accepted practices set forward by theNational Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) for government and commercial cryptographicalgorithms and equipment.2.3 The Cyberstalker’s problem, the man-in-the-middle problem and the Prisoner’sproblemThe Cyberstalker’s problem is a three party communication game involving a Victim (Alice), the Stalker(Bob) and a Monitor – see Figure 1. Bob and Alice are linked by a communication channel which can beaccessed by the Monitor. The goal of Bob is to harass Alice while the goal of the Monitor is to record anysuch activity. In the traditional cryptographic terminology, Bob wants to establish a (virtual) harassmentchannel, while the Monitor wants to track it and record its content.MonitorAliceBobHarassment ChannelFigure 1: The Cyberstalker’s problem: the Monitor has to capture harassment data exchanged by Aliceand Bob.This problem is related to the classical Prisoner’s problem [24] in Steganography (Information Hid-ing) which also involves three parties. In this case, Bob is incarcerated, Alice is free and the Monitor(Wendy) is a Warden – see Figure 2. Alice has hatched out an escape plan and visits Bob with the in-tention of passing on details of her plan. Any exchange of information must take place in the presenceof Wendy. To succeed, Alice must hide her escape plan in what appears to be innocuous information.4Page 5If Wendy detects that secret information is hidden in their communication then the Bob’s escape will bethwarted. The channel that Alice and Bob want to establish is called a subliminal (or covert) channel.WendyAliceBobSubliminal ChannelFigure 2: The Prisoners’s problem: Wendy has to prevent Alice from sending Bob a covert message.The man-in-the-middle problem [1, 25, 8] is a similar problem that has been extensively studied inCryptography. In this case the Monitor is the adversary (Eve) – see Figure 3. Eve may be passive andsimply eavesdrop on the communication between Alice and Bob, and/or active. An active adversary cancorrupt messages sent to Bob (or Alice) by Alice (Bob) or impersonate one party to the other.EveAliceBobPrivate Authenticated ChannelFigure 3: The man-in-the-middle problem: Alice and Bob have to establish a private and/or authenticatedcommunication channel in the presence of Eve.The last two problems are fundamental to Steganography and Cryptography, and define their re-spective threat models. Dealing with them has been the focus of research in these disciplines (see e.g.,[24, 3, 34, 1, 25, 8]). What characterizes all three problems is their adversarial nature. In the Cyber-stalker’s problem the Stalker is the adversary and the other two collaborate to detect and record anyharassment. In the Prisoner’s problem, Alice and Bob conspire to establish a subliminal channel. Forthis problem, they are the adversary. The Warden’s goal is to make sure that their communication channelis subliminal-free. In the man-in-the-middle problem, Eve is the adversary. Eve’s task is to underminethe privacy and/or authenticity of the communication between Alice and Bob. Alice and Bob want toestablish a private and/or authentication channel to secure their communication.The Cyberstalker’s problem focuses on capturing harassment data rather than direct prevention ofharassment, while the other two problems focus on prevention. This makes it easier in some respectsto deal with cyberstalking – at least from a cryptographic point of view. The main difficulties are theforensics aspects of (i) the data capturing process and (ii) the verification of the captured data. Securityis based on the data’s evidentiary value. The Cyberstalker’s problem describes in general terms thecyberstalking threat model, and we will use it as our basic security model.2.4 The cyberstalking security modelWe consider two oracles: an oracle for the cyberstalker’s profile Oharass, and an oracle for the lawenforcement constraints Olaw. Given any data, Oharassrules whether the data is (bit 1), or is not (bit0) listed in the cyberstalker’s harassment profile. Given the capturing process and the captured data of amonitor M, Olawrules whether this satisfies (bit 1), or does not (bit 0), the law enforcements constraintsregarding the victim’s consent, the digital evidence integrity and chain-of-custody.We say that the monitor M is a secure solution of the Cyberstalker’s problem if, for all dataAlice,Bobthat Bob and Alice exchange,Oharass(dataAlice,Bob) = 1 implies Olaw(MAlice,Bob(dataAlice,Bob)) = 1.That is, a secure solution to the Cyberstalker’s problem is a monitor M that captures all data in theharassment list in a lawful way.5Page 63 A Cyberstalker Monitor systemIn the previous section we defined our threat model. We now consider secure solutions. These will bebased on a monitoring system that captures harassment data in such a way that both the capturing processand the data will be admissible evidence in a criminal court.Our proposed Monitor is a tool meant to complement traditional forensics tools. It may not directlyidentify the stalker, but will allow investigators to uncover patterns of behavior, trails to computers thatthe stalker may have used, and other potentially relevant forensic data that would have been discardedotherwise.3.1 A first approach: a low-tech analog solutionAn obvious solution is to have a law enforcement agent alongside the victim to monitor cyberstalkingsessions. A more practical solution is to replace the agent by a closed-circuit television camera and arecorder to monitor the sessions – see Figure 4. Both of these solutions will provide evidence of stalking,Local hostNetworkCameraBobAliceFigure 4: A low-tech solution: harassment data is captured on a closed-circuit television camera.but offer only a weak binding of the stalker to the session. Evidence from the actual TCP/IP packetsreceived could help strengthen the link.3.2 A basic Cyberstalker Monitor systemIn this system a blackbox Monitor is used to capture the local host data and the relevant network data –see Figure 5. The local host data includes data on the PC of the victim: the contents of the screen buffer,MonitorLocal hostNetworkAliceBobFigure 5: The Cyberstalker Monitor System captures and stores local host data and network data.6Page 7audio buffer, keystrokes and mouse data. The relevant network data includes all the incoming/outgoingnetwork packets, excluding machine generated overhead. Data is captured and stored locally in theMonitor (on a hard drive).The Monitor contains a transparent network bridge with connections to the network (Internet) andthe local host (the Victim’s PC) and a storage device – see Figure 6. The storage device has two modules.ValidatorRecorderBridgeNetwork TrafficNetwork TrafficLocal Host DataKFigure 6: The Monitor has a transparent network bridge, a Recorder and a Validator.A Recorder that captures local host data and network data and a physically secure Validator that storesevidence integrity data and a cryptographic key (K).The Monitor operates on the concept of a session. A session is initiated upon the victim’s connectionto the network and lasts until disconnection. During the session, the local host data is stored on theRecorder and authenticated using a keyed hash function HMAK [13] with hash function SHA-1 [19].This produces a digest which is the evidence integrity data. A symmetric key is used that is stored in asecured (tamper-resistant) region of the Validator (and cannot be extracted). A duplicate key is kept inthe forensics lab of the law enforcement agency. To validate captured data for use as evidence in court,the data and its integrity validator are extracted and the duplicate key is used to validate the data. Thecryptographic details of the process of validation of the integrity of the evidence data are as follows. Letdatasession(sn)= (cn,sn,Tlh,Tmon,{datalh,datamon},T∗lh,T∗mon)be the data with case number cn, session number sn, start timestamps Tlh,Tmon, end timestampsT∗lh,T∗mon, for the local host and Monitor respectively, and session stream data {datalh,datamon}, for-matted in such a way that it can be hashed as a stream,1and letHMACSHAKcn(datasession(sn))be its HMAC digest with hash function SHA-1 and key Kcn.2The data integrity validator is,integrity validatorsession(sn)= (cn,sn,HMACSHAKcn(datasession(sn))).To validate extracted data, the duplicate key is used to compute its keyed digest and the result comparedwith the integrity validator for that session. If the values agree, then the data has not been corrupted.Observe that it might be tempting to send the integrity validation data (the digest) through the existingnetwork directly to the forensics lab for secure storage, but this should be avoided because it violates thetransparency of the bridge, making it possible for the stalker to detect the presence of the Monitor. Theseparation of the functions of the Monitor and of the local host is a crucial security requirement [6].3.3 Securing the Cyberstalking MonitorWe can replace the symmetric key used in the Cyberstalker Monitor with an asymmetric key, e.g., a DSSkey [19]. In this case a private key SKcnis stored in the Validator module and the corresponding publickey PKcnis stored in the forensics lab – see Figure 7. This strengthens the evidentiary value of thecaptured data and extends the chain-of-custody (secrecy is not needed for the public key PKcn), butdoes not offer any other significant advantage.1Bits from datalhare interleaved with bits from datamon.2HMACSHAKcn(data) = SHA(KcnXOR opad, SHA(KcnXOR ipad, data)), where opad and ipad are appropriateouter and inner paddings. A different key Kcnis used for each case cn.7Page 8ValidatorRecorderBridgeNetwork TrafficNetwork TrafficLocal Host DataSKcnFigure 7: The Monitor with an asymmetric key.A significant security advantage is achieved by separating the duties of the Recorder and Validator.3For this purpose, we may use an independent communication channel (one that is not associated withthe Victim in any way) to send the evidence integrity validation (the digest) to the forensics lab, where itis securely logged. For practical purposes we may use wireless communication technology to broadcastsecurely to a network controlled by the law enforcement agency. Figure 8 illustrates an application whichuses wireless technologies.ValidatorRecorderBridgeNetwork TrafficNetwork TrafficLocal Host DataKcnFigure 8: The Monitor with a wireless device.The independent communication channel could also enable additional functionality to make the sys-tem more flexible. First, with a high bandwidth channel, Virtual Network Computing (VNC) could beused to allow the investigator to remotely monitor and control the Victim’s desktop. Second, session“reports” containing important system information (remaining disk space, amount of data recorded, etc.)could be sent to the investigator. Third, reports could include snapshots (screen images) of significantevents tagged by the victim. Finally this channel can be used to synchronize the clock of the Monitorto the clock of the forensics lab. All of these enhancements would help the investigator monitor moreclosely the case and respond in person if required.The physical tamper-resistance of the Monitor can be supported by case-intrusion detection mecha-nisms and real-time notification of tampering or system failure through a “heartbeat” mechanism.4Forfine granularity, a heartbeat signal from the internal clock of the Monitor is recorded on the Validator disk(on a cyclic log). For course granularity, at regular intervals (e.g., once a day), the heartbeat is broadcastto the forensics lab.3.4 Policies concerning the Cyberstalking MonitorBecause of the intrusiveness of the Monitor, policies must be written for the deployment/retraction,key management, extraction and storage of data, to follow all applicable laws, preserve the integrityof the evidence and chain-of-custody. Detailed discussion of policy considerations is dependent onjurisdictional considerations as well as privacy considerations for the innocent, and go beyond the scopeof this paper.3Separation of duties is a fundamental requirement for Trusted System security [6].4A heartbeat is a signal that is emitted at regular intervals by software to demonstrate that it is still alive. Sometimeshardware is designed to react if it stops hearing a heartbeat.8Page 93.5 A security proofIn Section 2.4 we proposed a security model for cyberstalking. We shall use this model to prove that ourMonitor is a secure solution for the cyberstalker’s problem. Suppose that Oharass(data) = 1 for somecaptured data, that is, data is in the harassment list. We have to show that OlawM(data) = 1, that isthat, M has captured this data in a lawful way. This follows from the fact that:• the Monitor is tamper-resistant,• the Monitor is transparant,• we have separation of duties,• the data is validated using acceptable practices and standards, and• applicable laws and policies regarding chain-of-custody are followed.4 Implementation4.1 HardwareImplementation of the Monitor can be achieved though the use of commodity hardware. The followingconsiderations should be made in selecting such hardware.1. As far as possible, industry standard security components for environments that involve trust,security, and reliability should be used.2. The power consumption should be low.3. The footprint of the device should be minimal (to lessen consumption of the victim’s space).4. Annoyances such as heat and noise should be avoided (noise may affect the victim’s willingnessto use the device in his or her environment.5. The hardware should be able to perform the required tasks reliably.4.2 SoftwareThe Monitor must have an operating system, and we recommend the use of any one of the many hardenedLinux Distributions of the NSA’s SE Linux project for security, hardware compatibility, and developercommunity oversight. These operating systems have robust journaling file systems as well as secureaccess control mechanisms.Several pieces of software must be developed for our system. Depending on the OS of the Victim’slocal host, either a system service (Microsoft Windows) or a daemon process (Linux) must be writtento gather the local host data in real time and send it to the Monitor. On the Monitor, we must write adaemon for each one of its modules as well as an application for configuring the Monitor. Also, a suiteof applications must be developed for the extraction, verification and analysis of the data collected bythe Monitor. NIST standards should be used in the implementation of our system and the best softwareengineering practices adopted, so that the implementation can benefit from the scrutiny of public review.9Page 104.3 User interactionFrom a software engineer’s point of view, the Monitor system has three users: the Victim, a Law En-forcement Officer, and a Forensics Lab Technician.• For the Victim, the Monitor is transparent and has no effect on the normal use of the local hostwith the exception of a splash screen and system tray icon that notifies the user that the Monitor isactive.• For the Law Enforcement, Officer the Monitor is an appliance: simple connections (USB andNetwork Bridge) are made when the Monitor is first installed.• For the Forensics Lab Technician, the Monitor is a Linux system. To set up the Monitor fordeployment, the Technician attaches a display, keyboard and mouse and logs into the local consoleof the Monitor to configure the system and load the case number and encryption key. On returnfrom deployment, the Technician unlocks the Monitor, ejects the disk and loads it on anothersystem for the extraction, verification and analysis of the data. The disc is stored securely asdigital evidence and investigators work off of verified copies.AcknowledgementsThe authors would like thank all those who have helped this project: Judie Mulholland, Sudhir Aggarwal,Breno de Madeiros, Alec Yasinsac, and Tri Le-Van.References[1] S. Bengio, G. Brassard, Y.G. Desmedt, C. Goutier, J.-J.Quisquater. Secure implementations of iden-tification systems. J. Cryptol. 4(3) (1991) 171–183.[2] E.C. Berg. Legal ramifications of digital imaging in law enforcement. Forensic Science Communica-tions [Online], October 2000. Available from: www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/oct2000/berg.htm.[3] M. Burmester, Y. Desmedt, T. Itoh, H. Shizuya, M. Yung. A progress report on subliminal-freechannels. Information Hiding, First International Workshop, Cambridge, Lecture Notes in ComputerScience No. 1174, Springer, Berlin, 1996, pp. 151–168.[4] M. DAmico. The Law vs. Online Stalking, February Online FAQ, 1997. Available from:http://www.madcapps.com/writings/faqabout.htm.[5] Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US, 579 (1993).[6] Department of Defense. Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria (TCSEC), also known asOrange Book. December 1985. Available from:http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/library/rainbow/5200.28-STD.html[7] T.D. Duerr, N.D. Beser and G.P. Staisiunas. (2004). Information Assurance Applied to Authenticationof Digital Evidence. Forensic Science Communications. 6(4), October, 2004. Available from:http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/oct2004/research/2004 10 research01.htm.[8] Ferguson, N., & B. Schneier. Practical Cryptography. Wiley Publishing Inc., Indianapolis, 2003.[9] T. Gregorie. Cyberstalking: Dangers on the Information Superhighway, 2002. Available from:http://www.ncvc.org/src/help/cyberstalking.html.10Page 11[10] F. Grodzinsky and H. Tavani. Cyberstalking, Moral Responsibility, and Legal Liability Issues forInternet Service Providers. In Josep Herkert, ed. Proceedings of ISTAS 2002: The InternationalSymposium on Technology and Society, Los Almito, CA, IEEE Computer Society Press. 331-339,2002.[11] S. Hardman. Stalking: Impact, Law, Sentencing and Stalking On-Line. Forensic Criminology Ser-vices, 2003. Available from: http://www.forensic-crim.com/readings/stalking.htm.[12] R.B. Harmon, R. Rosner and H. Owens. Obsessional harassment and erotomania in a criminalcourt population. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 40, 2, 188 - 196, 1995.[13] H. Krawczyk, M. Bellare and R.Canetti. HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentica-tion. RCF 2104 (RFC 2104), Internet RCF/STD/FYI/BCP Archives, 1997. Available from:http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2104.html[14] R. Lloyd-Goldstein. DeClerembault On-Line: A Survey of Eratomania and Stalking from the OldWorld to the Worl Wide Web. In J.R. Meloy, The Psychology of Stalking: Clinical and ForensicPerspectives, San Diego, Academic Press, 1998.[15] J.R. Meloy. Stalking (obsessional following): A review of Some Preliminary Studies. Aggressionand Violent Behaviour, 1 (2), 147 - 162, 1996.[16] J.R. Meloy. Unrequited Love and the Wish to kill: Diagnosis and Treatment of Borderline Erato-mania. The Bulletin of the Meninger Clinic, 53, pp. 477–492, 1989.[17] J. Moor. Reason, Relativity, and Responsibility in Computer Ethics. Computers and Society, Vol.28, No. 1, pp. 14-21, 1998.[18] National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). FIPS 180-2, Secure Hash Standard (SHS),August 2002. Available from:http://csrc.nist.gov/CryptoToolkit/tkhash.html[19] National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). FIPS FIPS 186-2, Digital Signature Stan-dard (DSS), February 2000. Available from: http://csrc.nist.gov/CryptoToolkit/tkdigsigs.html[20] National Security Agency Information Assurance Solutions Technical Directors. Infor-mation Assurance Technical Framework. Release 3.1, September 2002. Available from:http://www.iatf.net/framework docs/version-3 1/index.cfm.[21] W. Petherick. Cyber-stalking: Obsessional Pursuit And The Digital Criminal, 2003. Availablefrom: http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminology/cyberstalking/.[22] B. Ramsey. Stop the Stalker: A Guide for Targets, Securus House, 2000.[23] T. Richardson. The RFB Protocol, 2004. Available from:http://www.realvnc.com/docs/rfbproto.pdf.[24] G.J. Simmons. The Prisoner Problem and the Subliminal Channel. Proceedings of CRYPTO’83,Plenum Press, pp. 51–67, 1984.[25] B. Schneier, Applied Cryptography, 2nd Edition John Wiley & Sons, 1996.[26] Stalking Victimization. OVC Pamphlet, posted. Available from:http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/infores/help series/pdftxt/stalkingvictimization.pdf.11Page 12[27] The Electronic Frontier: the Challenge of Unlawful Conduct Involving the Use of the Internet, aReport prepared for the President’s Working Group on Unlawful Conduct on the Internet. Availablefrom: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/unlawful.htm.[28] US Department of Justice. Stalking Victimization, OVC Pamphlet, 2004. Available from:http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/infores/help series/pdftxt/stalkingvictimization.pdf.[29] US Department of Justice. Stalking and Domestic Violence: Report to Congress. Report from theAttorney General to the Vice President, 2001. Available from:http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojp/186157.pdf.[30] US Department of Justice. The Electronic Frontier: the Challenge of Unlawful Conduct Involvingthe Use of the Internet. Report prepared for the President’s Working Group on Unlawful Conduct onthe Internet, 2000. Available from:http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/unlawful.htm.[31] US Department of Justice. Cyberstalking: A New Challenge for Law Enforcement and Indus-try. A Report from the Attorney General to the Vice President, August 1999. Available from:http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/cyberstalking.htm.[32] G. Wattendorf. Stalking Investigation Strategies. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, pp. 10-14, March2000.[33] Wired Patrol, Internet safety, Help and Education, 2004 Available from:http://www.iredpatrol.org/cyberstalking harassment/.[34] A. Young and M. Yung. Malicious Cryptography: Exposing Cryptovirology. John Wiley & Sons,2004.[35] M. Zona, R. Palarea and J. Lane. The Psychology of Stalking: Clinical and Forensic Perspectives,San Diego, Academic Press, 1998.12

Stalking Defined. . .

2008-03-19T22:02:00.000-07:00

Stalking is a pattern of behavior over time in which a stalker seeks to gain access to, or control over, a victim. Such actions range from the benign to the malicious and may cause emotional distress or harm to the victim. Internet technologies offer stalkers unprecedented access to find and exert influence over victims.

Cyberstalking is stalking using the cyberspace medium.

Cyberstalking "has created new challenges for the prevention, detection, and prosecution of this new phenomenon as the traditional methods of detection by witnesses and enforcement by restraining orders often are inadequate." (Tracking Cyberstalkers)

Cyberstalking is stalking using the internet in which a person seeks to control, exploit, or harm the other by harassment.

Types of Web Harrassment

Unsolicited communication (emails, spam, etc)

Repeated, threatening or malicious information.

In extreme cases it may extend to luring or enticing victims contacted on the Internet into dangerous physical liaisons.

Cyberstalking generally involves the repeated and persistent attempt by one individual, the stalker, to harass another individual, the victim, using the Internet or more generally an open network.

Cyberstalking can be more difficult to prove and control because of the ubiquity and anonymity provided by the Internet environment.

Cyberstalking cases present unique challenges for law enforcement [4]. First, the behavior patterns associated with cyberstalking are complex, varied, unpredictable, and difficult to recognize, investigate, assess and prevent.

Stalking Severity Coninuum

2008-03-19T21:57:00.001-07:00

It is important to note that stalking, exactly like any other crime, behaviour, or clinical disorder exists on a continuum of severity.

Broad Stalking Typologies

2008-03-19T21:55:00.000-07:00

Psychopathic Personality Stalker

Generally male
Absence of mental disorder
Targets familiar victims
Harassment may be anonymous
Usually some precipitating stressor

Psychotic Personality Stalker

May be male or female
Delusions or Delusional Fixation
Usually targets strangers
Attempt to contact the victim
Absence of precipitating stressor

Cyber-Stalking

2008-03-19T21:48:00.000-07:00

Cyberstalking is criminal behavior like regular stalking, only it's conducted online. One of the main concerns of cyberstalking is that the local police do not have jurisdiction that extends to the internet. This is a problem because it means there are few criminal laws in place (yet) to protect you if someone stalks you, slanders and harrasses you online.

Normal stalking (off the web) is already hard enough to get anyone to take seriously, but trying to get help when you're being viciously harrassed on the internet is impossible.

"As the personal computer and the Internet bring the world into our homes, they provide access to a vast amount of information, and provide forums for individuals from all over the world to meet one another in a relatively anonymous environment."

Cyber-Stalking - Crime Library

"Cyberstalking, which is simply an extension of the physical form of stalking, is where the electronic mediums such as the Internet are used to pursue, harass or contact another in an unsolicited fashion. Most often, given the vast distances that the Internet spans, this behaviour will never manifest itself in the physical sense but this does not mean that the pursuit is any less distressing.

Cyber-Stalking - Crime Library

Cyberstalking is an Adaptation of Physical Stalking

According to Eoghan Casey (1999), a computer crimes expert, "incidences involving a purely electronic medium are rare." Cyberstalking is most accurately described as an extension of ‘traditional' stalking that uses high-tech tools. General stalking information should be consulted for more insight to the computer-adaptation of the criminal act.

The Law Has Not Yet Reached the Internet World

"There is a definite gap between the legal statutes and the electronic world" (Crime Library) which are also called, "Policy Vacuums."

Motivations of the Offender

It is important to gather information relating to the offender to obtain insight as to the motivation.

Psychopathic Personality Stalker

Generally male
Absence of mental disorder
Targets familiar victims
Harassment may be anonymous
Usually some precipitating stressor

Psychotic Personality Stalker

May be male or female
Delusions or Delusional Fixation
Usually targets strangers
Attempt to contact the victim
Absence of precipitating stressor