cyberstalking and online harassment

for a list of resources on this topic, see the technology policy bibliography 

By Felisha Liu

I.        Issue and its Social Significance

The malicious side of the Internet exists alongside great technological marvels. Since the late 1990s[i], cyberstalking and online harassment have become real dangers as more people communicate through their computers. In a 1999 report, Former Vice President Al Gore remarked, "Make no mistake; this kind of harassment is as frightening and as real as being followed and watched in your neighborhood or in your home[ii]." Researchers have tried to pinpoint specific definitions of this disturbing behavior, but the collection of acts is very diverse and constantly evolving. Bocij and McFarlane have attempted a comprehensive definition: "A group of behaviours in which an individual, group of individuals or organisation uses information technology to harass one or more individuals. Such behaviour may include, but are not limited to, the transmission of threats and false accusations, identity theft, data theft, damage to data or equipment, computer monitoring and the solicitation of minors for sexual purposes. Harassment is defined as a course of action that a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would think causes another reasonable person to suffer emotional distress[iii]." The harassing and threatening acts come in many mediums, including emails, webpages, instant messaging, text messages, and postings on social networking sites[iv].

There are two views on categorizing cyberstalking: the first is an extension of off-line stalking and the second is of cyberstalking as a new type of crime with different motives[v].  The first view sees the Internet merely as an additional tool for off-line stalkers[vi]. Supporters of the second view believe that the circumstances of internet stalking are different in the type of acts committed, the anonymity of cyberspace and the wide reach of malicious posts[vii]. Cyberstalkers are nearly untraceable through unidentifiable email addresses, anonymous remailing services, and have been labeled the "coward's way to stalk[viii]."

Reported cases of cyberstalking and online harassment have been increasing as more people are entering the Information Superhighway. Barriers to Internet access has decreased with cheaper personal computers and widespread availability at work and in public locations such as libraries. With acceptance of computers as an integral part of society, people are exploring new ways to communicate online. But as with any conglomeration of people, crime is soon to follow. Two of the biggest victim support groups, WHOA and Cyberangels, handles between 50-500 cases per day, with 65%-100% of the reports being valid. But experts believe that the number is grossly underreported[ix]. Cybercrime is a new phenomenon and people are hesitant to report wrongdoings. Garlik, online identity experts, found that 75 per cent of victims have never actually reported cyberstalking crimes because of uncertainty over whether it is a crime (30 per cent), fear that the police would not take them seriously (25 per cent) or because they blame themselves for revealing their personal details (25 per cent).[x] As with victims of physical stalking, victims are also afraid of recourse from their cyberstalkers and potential of escalation into violent behavior or death. There are widely publicized cases, including the brutal murder of 21 year old actress Rebecca Schaeffer by Robert Bardo in 1989. After stalking her in movies and television shows, he became upset when she acted in a scene where she was in bed with another male actor. Feeling betrayed by her lack of innocence, Bardo went to her house and shot her point blank[xi]. Afraid of the brutally that Schaeffer suffered, today's victims are scared of the same result if their cyberstalker becomes vindictive. In fact, WHOA found among those asked that 22% said harassment and threats progressed off-line[xii].

There are many reasons why cyberstalkers engage in harmful behavior, ranging from being jilted, thwarted, rejected or just ignored romantic feelings, desire for revenge, bigotry or intolerance, celebrity stalking or just random attacks[xiii]. Many cyberstalkers have a delusional relationship with their victim, fantasizing about a person they have never met in real life. Much of the information that the cyberstalker finds out his victim is from social networking sites, blogs, message posts, emails and other electronic communications. Based on the online image of their victim, the cyberstalker fills in the gaps with his own imaginations and desires. If the victim disappoints the perpetrator by not answering his communications, or finds another significant other, the perpetrator may become vindictive and will continually harass his victim. Whether injustices to them are real or imagined, cyberstalkers believe they have sufficient reason to terrorize their victims.

Another motivation of cyberstalking is when an organization pursues an individual, group or organization for profit or for competitive advantage[xiv]. An example of corporate cyberstalking[xv] could be a member of Company X taking on a false identity to gain insider information from their competitor Company Y.

A recent U.S. study suggests that women, children and older people are the most likely targets of cyberstalking[xvi]. WHOA released statistics revealing the most common characteristics of those being cyberstalked are women, people aged between18-30, and people of white ethnicity[xvii]. Stalking will be problematic on college campuses because most college students are developmentally at a mate-seeking age, and stalking is rooted in a culture in which romance is often associated with pursuit of a reluctant female by a persistent male[xviii]. As young people become more tech savvy and can protect themselves, the reported cases of cyberstalking should decrease in this demographic. Instead, the demographic of people aged 41 and older who may not be as familiar with the Internet are likely to increase in cyberstalking reports[xix].

Much like traditional forms of stalking (physical, mail, telephone), cyberstalking stems from the stalker trying to form a relationship, repair a relationship or traumatize the victim[xx]. Researchers found four major themes surrounding the cyberstalking relationship: vindictive, composed, collective, and intimate cyberstalkers[xxi]. Most cyberstalkers are male (87%) and are acquainted with their victim. The motivations are also similar, usually stemming from extreme attraction or hatred[xxii]. Cyberstalking can be even more frightening than physical stalking because the victim may not know the geographic location and identity of their stalker, and therefore will need to be constantly on guard[xxiii]. Cyberstalkers have greater ease in tracking their victim's online movements and have more resources to find out more information about their victim rather stalkers[xxiv]. The danger in letting cyberstalking run unchecked is the potential that it will transform into real-life stalking. Still living in their delusional cyber world, the cyberstalker may commit dangerous acts in real life[xxv]. Oklahoma County District Attorney Wes Lane said while the new technology opens doors for more crime, it also provides better evidence."I'm encouraged by it," Lane said. "If you look at text messaging, you have an actual written statement. I think the evidentiary value will improve our ability to prosecute." The same written evidence results from stalkers sending emails and threatening online posts[xxvi].

Cyberstalking may be intangible, but the effects on victims are very real. "You've got stalking and online predators, and you ask yourself, what's the difference," Burlington Detective Jordan said. "There are still predators and there's still a victim. They are the same thing[xxvii]." Garlik reported 18 per cent of those who have experienced cyberstalking indicating that they've stopped using their computer and 16 per cent complaining of sleepless nights.[xxviii] One victim described her feelings to being stalked by a neighbor as, "It really does get to you on an emotional and psychological level because you know that this person is thinking about you all the time. You know that they're looking out of their window for you[xxix].

Cyberstalking disrupts more than just the victim's personal life. "Cyberstalking and harassment also frequently occurs in the workplace, either because the perpetrator is unhappy with management or a fellow worker, or because they have been fired or not hired in the first place," according to the Web site wiredsafety.org, which describes itself as a cyber-neighborhood watch[xxx]. Gays and lesbians who keep their homosexuality private at work are vulnerable to those threatening to reveal their sexual orientation. In addition to anguish and stress, this would affect a victim's job security and livelihood in the workplace.

 II.        Conflicting Positions: Economic, Deontological, Relational

Economic

Title 18, Section 875, U.S. Code criminalizes threatening messages transmitted

electronically in interstate or foreign commerce. Since one of the goals of U.S. law is to promote economic success, there is a strong economic rationale to prohibit cyberstalking. However, there are loopholes in this law, as it is hard to prosecute if the perpetrator is in a different jurisdiction than the investigative body. Prosecutions under this law are more likely to be successful only if harassing messages are transmitted outside states lines or out of the country[xxxi]. However, this leaves out all of the cases that occur intrastate, including many cases between significant others. Supporters of the economic argument to prevent a federal cyberstalking law includes the owner of Anonymizer, whose livelihood depends on the ability of corporate and government customers to conduct anonymous competitor analyses and national security operations[xxxii].

There are three views on the economics of privacy rights. The first belief is that a market failure exists because individuals are not given an implicit or explicit property right over their personal information[xxxiii]. Individuals have very little bargaining power in retaining their own information[xxxiv]. The second view believes that rights belong to people or firms that organize information and make it readily available to society[xxxv]. Counter to this idea, economists believe a market failure exists when cyberstalkers impose negative externalities when collecting information because they benefit from the information that they find but do not "pay" for violating privacy rights of their victim[xxxvi]. Lastly, utilitarians believe that privacy cases should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis to fully evaluate the costs and benefits[xxxvii].

            Being a victim of cyberstalking can lead to large financial burdens. In a study, excessive stress caused 26% of victims to miss work days and be at risk of being fired. These personal days were to attend court hears, get psychological help, hide from the assailant and attorney visits[xxxviii]. The average time of missed work was 11 days, and 7% never returned to work at all. Victims are also motivated to switch jobs to hide, which may counteract their seniority status and pay at their previous position[xxxix].

Deontological

            Morally, people should not be harassed and abused. It is wrong for cyberstalkers to inflict suffering on their victims. Victims must change their lifestyles in response to dealing with the stresses of being cyberstalked. Garlik reported two potential changes-

sleeplessness and reduced computer use[xl], but continued pressures could lead to mental issues. Privacy can be a very personal possession, but does a person have exclusive rights to his personal information? Privacy rights can encompass the control rights to be left alone, confidentiality and anonymity[xli]. A person may want to control his online "image", disclosure of information, other people's access to online property such as hard drive storage[xlii].

            Civil rights supporters have issue with proposed federal legislation about cyberstalking. They believe that the proposed legislation violates the First Amendment. The proposed law makes anonymous online postings subject to prosecution[xliii]. This group does not believe that the government has the right to inhibit anonymous speech, especially since the phrasing is especially vague and could restrict legitimate uses of anonymous postings, such as political opposition and support for unpopular causes.

Relational

Relational arguments promote social order, another goal of U.S. law. Howard Baer, the founder of Scottsdale, Ariz.-based TheAnonymousEmail.com, which lets users send anonymous messages, has filed a challenge to the federal law. He said anonymous e-mail is useful for employees of publicly held companies who want to report illegal activity or sexual harassment. Baer also faulted the law for being vague. "Can you identify 'annoy'?" he asked[xliv]. If the law were to be passed, there would be great social disorder for the courts to classify what constitutes an "annoying" act versus a nuisance that does not warrant legal action. There would be great confusion and unrest among the society and could result in many frivolous lawsuits, wasting both time and money. Legislation could also inhibit technological creativity since it could never keep up with innovations and would therefore only be an impediment[xlv].

Cyberstalking doesn't just affect the victim-relatives, friends and colleagues become secondary victims[xlvi]. Sometimes a manipulative perpetrator will use secondary victims as a means to controlling the primary victim[xlvii]. Alternatively, friends and family of the victim can suffer the same psychological stress as they see their loved one suffer. A negative consequence of being a victim is reactive stalking. Victims may use cyberstalking techniques to cope with people, having first-hand experiences about the damages they are able to cause. Therefore, cyberstalking and fear can run rampant in a society and disrupt social order[xlviii].

 III.        Relevant Research

Dr. Emma Ogilvie from the Australian Institute of Criminology conducted Australia's first study of cyberstalking. She has found that email is now the most common form of harassment. In line with technological advances, stalkers are shifting from traditional tools such as phone, mail and surveillance to using the Internet[xlix].

The effects of cyberstalking are well documented and very detrimental to victims. Months or even years of continuous exposure to unwanted attention and/or threats often lead victims to change their daily habits, and even cause psychological trauma. Fremouw et al. (1997), in their study of 600 psychology undergraduates, found that some of the victims were willing to disrupt their normal routines in order to avoid their stalker. Some were even willing to carry pepper spray, a knife, or even a gun. Pathé and Mullen (1997) found in their investigation that over 75 percent of the victims reported feelings of powerlessness and a quarter of their respondents admitted that they had seriously considered or actually attempted suicide. A study by Sheridan et al. (2001), which involved a survey of 95 stalking victims in the U.K., found that 59 percent of respondents reported feeling frightened, and 44 percent altered their behaviour as a result of being stalked[l]. In fact, Tjajen and Thoennes report that 81% of victims who were stalked by a current or former intimate partner were also physically assaulted[li].

Even with the increasing numbers of reported cases, much of online harassment is not reported. In a study of college campuses, only 6.8% of students reported "a bad instance related to email or instant messaging." Over half were not satisfied with the result[lii]. As aficionados of Internet networking, the younger generation is especially at risk of being cyberstalked. A study from the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) says that 43 percent of teens reported being victims of cyberbullying in the past year[liii].

IV.        Implied Legal Issues and Law on Point

There two general views on enacting legislation prohibiting cyberstalking- victims want harsher laws to prosecute cyberstalkers, while civil libertarians attack proposed legislation, saying that it limits the First Amendment constitutionally protected right to free speech.[liv]

Currently, the victims of cyberstalking and cyberharassment are told to contact the police, report the cyberstalker/harasser to their internet service provider (ISP) and try to get their accounts revoked, or get Web sites shutdown. [lv] But retribution is hard to achieve because of the unwillingness of ISPs to readily grant law enforcement officials access to subscriber records. There are also legal definition discrepancies about what constitutes subscriber records, which are obtainable by subpoena, versus transactional records, which require search warrants[lvi]. In retort to violations to the First Amendment, supporters of this legislation believe that non-threatening anonymous communications are still protected, and only cyberstalkers will have anything to fear[lvii]. Supporters of the proposed federal legislation believe that the government should not regulate privacy differently based on whether an issue arises online or offline[lviii]. Since federal anti-stalking laws exist, cyberstalking victims should receive the same benefit-harassment should be prosecuted in the same manner whether it be online, through the phone or in person. In fact, given similar circumstances, cyberstalking could be more sinister because of its wider reach[lix].

Civil libertarians are adamantly opposed to enacting federal legislation concerning cyberstalking. Those who use blogs, Usenet newsgroups, mailing lists and other online-chat capabilities believe the law will violate the First Amendment[lx]. Barry Steinhardt, a lawyer who specializes in privacy issues at the American Civil Liberties Union in New York City, says the new federal law's chief problem is the "subjective nature" of the word annoy. "Words like threaten, harass and abuse can be defined by what a reasonable person understands them to mean," he says. "Anyone who's ever had their spam filter stop something they wanted, or let something through that they didn't, knows that deciding what is annoying is something else again[lxi]." There will be a very fine line between cyberstalking and a wide range of anonymous Internet banter that falls far short of cyberstalking[lxii]. In addition, whistleblowers to corruption will no longer be able to anonymously report[lxiii]. David Hudson, a lawyer with the First Amendment Center, a speech-rights advocacy group in Nashville, says the different ways that courts have interpreted the word "annoy" make the new anti-stalking law "ripe for a challenge[lxiv]." In contrast to prosecuting other forms of stalking, opponents worry that a federal law would inhibit Internet freedom to post unpopular views to a wide audience. In particular, freedom of political speech is in jeopardy. "But banning annoying speech online has broader implications than prohibiting it via telephone," said Kurt Opsahl, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which promotes civil liberties online." The Internet allows one-to-many communication, where people will often post very opinionated material ... as a way of participating in political debate," he said[lxv].

The United States has taken a proactive approach to combating cyberstalking and has enacted 45 laws State statues to prosecute cyberstalkers. All States except for Utah, Idaho, and Nebraska have addressed cyberstalking by having either pending legislation or a law in place. The District of Columbia does not have pending legislation, and the Federal bill is on hold due to a political change in role of the sponsoring Senator.

California was the first state to adopt stalking laws, most often identified as a result of the murder of actress Rebecca Schaeffer by Robert Bardo in 1989[lxvi]. With the boom of the Internet, many states soon followed. By 1999, a third of the states extended their anti-stalking legislation to address cyberstalking[lxvii]. For example, in 1999 Pennsylvania passed specific legislation addressing cyberstalking, which reads: "Amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for possession of firearm or other dangerous weapon in court facility, for terroristic threats, for harassment and stalking, for grading of theft offenses and, for harassment AND STALKING by communication(e) Definition.--As used in this section, the term "communicates" means conveys in person or by written or electronic means including telephone, electronic mail, Internet, facsimile, telex and similar transmissions[lxviii]." Other states have followed suit by adding provisions to their current stalking and harassment laws that criminalize "stalking by electronic means" or "the use of computer equipment for the purposes of stalking[lxix]."

In 1999, the Federal Interstate Stalking Law was amended to reflect threats made through email or the Internet, making it a federal crime to travel across state, tribal, or international lines to stalk someone or to stalk someone across state, tribal, or international lines using "any facility of interstate or foreign commerce" (18 U.S.C § 2261A)[lxx]. In 2006, President George W. Bush signed the "The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005" that prohibits anonymous Internet communications "with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass." The anti-cyberstalking section extends anonymous telephone harassment to the Internet, specifying. "Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted in whole or in part, by the Internet...without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined...or imprisoned...or both[lxxi]." Punishments could extend upwards of two years in prison, and an unspecified fine[lxxii]. The law specifically targets direct malicious threats, not just any anonymous communication." This is about bad people doing bad things. ... It relates to somebody who does something to somebody else. It's not about posting something on a message board. It's got to be direct, one-to-one communication," says Mike DeCesare, a spokesman for sponsor Rep. Jim McDermott [lxxiii]. Alternatively, cyberstalkers may also be prosecuted under Title 42 of the Civil Rights Acts, prohibiting sexual harassment in work environments. Threatening emailing messages that are suggestive may be prosecuted under this Act[lxxiv].

According to Ms. Hitchcock, the director of Working to Halt Online Abuse, federal cyberstalking legislation is crucial because it gives the needed leverage in pursuing complicated cases. Perpetrator and victim might reside in different states, for instance, and the evidence might be in the hands of Internet companies all over the country, or the world. The law also gives the F.B.I. and other federal law enforcement agencies greater power over cyberstalking[lxxv].

      With the influx of cyberstalkers in the last decade, case law has been developing to address the issue. In Watts v. United States, the Supreme Court held that true threats fall outside the scope of First Amendment protection, but the Court did not attempt to define a true threat or offer a test for it. The definition of a "true threat" was addressed in United States v. Kelner. Under Kelner, "so long as the threat on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution, the statute may properly be applied." For successful prosecution, the evidence must prove that the cyberstalker had mens rea, or ill intent. The standard for proving general intent was set out in United States v. Lincoln, as whether "a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those to whom the maker communicates the statement as a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm[lxxvi]."

The 1998 British Crime Survey comparing the number of U.S. cyberstalkers versus abroad found that the U.S. is comparable to the U.K., Australia and Canada[lxxvii]. The U.S. has the most developed body of anti-stalking legislation, most of which extends to cyberstalking[lxxviii]. Since cyberstalking is conducted through a global interface, legislation must be extended to cover extra-terrestrial operations[lxxix]. In the U.K., the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) have expanded their operations in order to investigate cases of cyberstalking[lxxx]. While there is no specific legislation in regards to cyberstalking, existing legislation has been extended to include Internet stalking. The Malicious Communications Act (1988) and the Protection from Harassment Act (1997) are two key legislation pieces to prosecute cyberstalkers. Loopholes in these acts include perpetrator knowledge of "reasonableness," proven intent to cause distress, and nonspecific definition of harassment[lxxxi]. Australia has revised its Criminal Code to reflect unlawful stalking such as contacting a person in any way, including, for example, by telephone, mail, fax, e-mail or through the use of any technology. Laws vary from state to state but Victoria's legislation makes specific mention to email and electronic communications[lxxxii]. The Canadian Criminal Code deals with Internet stalking, but the maximum penalty is not more than 5 years[lxxxiii]. But leniency is not unique to Canada- of the filings in the U.S.; only 28.5% result in conviction because the courts do not see cyberstalking as extremely serious[lxxxiv].

 V.        Relationship to other technology policy issues and future implications

J. Reid Meloy, a forensic psychologist and the author of several books on criminal personalities, said that ''with any new technology that comes along, you have the shadow of criminality that follows,'' Mr. Meloy said, although he added that the Internet, with all its distance and anonymity, provided a unique vehicle for the unleashing of hidden furies[lxxxv]. The rise of new social networking sites are premier portals for cyberstalkers. Young people often naively divulge too much information to a world of potential stalkers, has made the situation worse[lxxxvi].There are motions to require networking sites to require background checks or other means to protect customer privacy and maintain validity of the site. Several states are considering legislation that would require online personals services to disclose whether they conduct background checks on their members.[lxxxvii] But with privacy policies already in place, some websites are hesitant to drive away potential customers with extended registration processes and the added cost of background checks[lxxxviii].

Using a Web site usually involves leaving tracks in the form of an I.P. address, which can be traced back to an Internet service provider (ISP) and perhaps the computer of a stalker. ISP providers are now being asked to provider subscriber information[lxxxix]. Abuses of legitimate inquiry could put ISP providers at risk of violating consumer privacy protection agreements. These are delicate issues for an industry that is in the throes of a debate about client safety and security. Prosecuting cyberstalkers with the aid of ISP information is still risky- the ISP must have retained records or the relevant online transactions and expertly analyzed to extract usable evidence proving the threatening messages were sent to the victim[xc]. If prosecutors are able to force ISP to reveal identities of their subscribers, there will be an erosion of online anonymity. When the Recording Industry of America required Verizon Communications to divulge the identity of an alleged file swapper, in essence, any personal can request personal information about another person by filling out a one page request[xci].

Stalkers and abusers can use Spy ware and Keystroke logging hardware to monitor the activities of their victims. Currently, there is no Internet governing body to ban its use[xcii]. In Michigan, a man was charged with installing spy ware on his estranged wife's computer at her separate residence. Her Internet history was sent to him, including all emails and websites visited[xciii]. Further complicating investigative operations, anonymizing tools hide the identity of the message sender and law enforcement cannot trace the origin. Short of enacting far reaching legislation, Internet service providers and software manufacturers must find solutions to blocking unwanted communications[xciv].

 A study of cyberstalking on college campuses suggests that administrations should also consider developing materials and a protocol that includes information about e-mail etiquette and online harassment. Prevention efforts might also include limiting access to the online student directory to a secure server available only to campus members and publicizing that students have a choice to remove their name from the online directory[xcv].

Cyberstalking is just the tip of the iceberg. Obsessed or vindictive stalkers may soon progress to identification fraud and then identity theft[xcvi]. The mild form of id fraud occurs when stalkers post false personal information on chatrooms or social networking sites, but can escalate into stolen social security numbers and bank information[xcvii]. To explain the motive, Mari J. Frank, an attorney and privacy consultant who specializes in cases of identity theft, coined the term ''identity theft for revenge[xcviii].''

Cyberstalking is a new and constantly evolving field of crime. It is spreading into other cyber situations, such as online gaming sites, cell phones, reactive stalking as a result of having been stalked[xcix]. It is obvious that combating cyberstalking will entail collaborative effort between software and hardware manufacturers, ISPs, the government, and even college administrations to combat cyberstalking. Future legislation must be evolutionary and proactively encompass technological advances in computer and wireless systems[c].

Endnotes

[i] Paul Bocij, The Dark Side of the Internet (2006).

[ii] Paul Bocij, Cyberstalking (2004).

[iii] Leroy McFarlane, Paul Bocij, An Exploration of Predatory Behaviour in Cyberspace: Towards a Topology of Cyberstalkers, 8 First Monday 9 (2003), available at http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_9/mcfarlane/index.html.

[iv] Susan Kosse, MySpace is Also Their Space Ideas for Keeping Children Safe From Sexual Predators on Social Networking Sites (2007), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=989042.

[v] Paul Bocij, The Dark Side of the Internet (2006).

[vi] Id.

[vii] Id.

[viii] Id.

[ix] Paul Bocij, The Dark Side of the Internet (2006).

[x] M2PressWIRE, More than half a million Britons victims of cyberstalking; Digital promiscuity puts online social networkers at risk, December 13, 2006. available at http://vocuspr.com/VocusEU/ViewNewsOnDemand.aspx?ArticleID=513969_522245_7034677.

[xi] Wikipedia, Rebecca Schaeffer, available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Schaeffer.

[xii] Paul Bocij, The Dark Side of the Internet (2006).

[xiii] John Harris, You're Being Watched, The Advertiser, April 26, 2003, available at http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=31&hid=120&sid=309f4fba-41d3-4393-9705-448f967c81c8%40SRCSM2.

[xiv] Leroy McFarlane, Paul Bocij, An Exploration of Predatory Behaviour in Cyberspace: Towards a Topology of Cyberstalkers, First Monday, available at http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_9/mcfarlane/index.html

[xv] Paul Bocij, The Dark Side of the Internet (2006).

[xvi] John Harris, You're Being Watched, The Advertiser, April 26, 2003, available at http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=31&hid=120&sid=309f4fba-41d3-4393-9705-448f967c81c8%40SRCSM2.

[xvii] Leroy McFarlane, Paul Bocij, An Exploration of Predatory Behaviour in Cyberspace: Towards a Topology of Cyberstalkers, First Monday, available at http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_9/mcfarlane/index.html

[xviii] Jerry Finn, A Survey of Online Harassment at a University Campus, 19 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 4 (2004), available at http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/4/468.

[xix] Paul Bocij, The Dark Side of the Internet (2006).

[xx] Fay Burstin, Virtual Stalking Poses Real Threat, The Courier Mail, December 12, 2002, available at http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=6&sid=309f4fba-41d3-4393-9705-448f967c81c8%40SRCSM2.

[xxi] Leroy McFarlane, Paul Bocij, An Exploration of Predatory Behaviour in Cyberspace: Towards a Topology of Cyberstalkers, First Monday, available at http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_9/mcfarlane/index.html

[xxii] Ashley Packard, Does Proposed Federal Cyberstalking Legislation Meet Constitutional Requirements?, 5 Communication Law and Policy 4 (2000).

[xxiii] Id.

[xxiv] Id.

[xxv] Id.

[xxvi] Ty McMahan, Jennifer Mock, Stalkers Using New Methods, The Daily Oklahoman, May 29, 2006, available at http://www.ncdsv.org/images/StalkersUsingNewMethods.pdf.

[xxvii] Hannah Winkler, Mom vs. Cyberstalker: You Don't Have to Worry About People Kidnapping Your Children. It Doesn't Happen Around Here. Children are Smart Enough Not to Give Information About Themselves on the Internet to Strangers. Right?, Times-News, April 14, 2007, available at http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-162047025.html.

[xxviii] M2PressWIRE, More than half a million Britons victims of cyberstalking; Digital promiscuity puts online social networkers at risk, December 13, 2006. available at http://vocuspr.com/VocusEU/ViewNewsOnDemand.aspx?ArticleID=513969_522245_7034677.

[xxix] Richard J. Dalton Jr, A New Law Aims to Stop Abusive Emails- But Poses Concerns for Free Speech, Newsday, April 2, 2006, available at http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=12&hid=6&sid=309f4fba-41d3-4393-9705-448f967c81c8%40SRCSM2.

[xxx] Cyber911 Emergency, http://www.wiredsafety.org/cyberstalking_harassment/index.html.

[xxxi] Robert D'Ovidio, M.S. , James Doyle, A Study on Cyberstalking Understanding Investigative Hurdles, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, March 2003.

[xxxii] Reid Goldsborough, Harassment Online is no Longer Tolerated, New Orleans Citybusiness, February 13, 2006, available at http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=19&hid=6&sid=309f4fba-41d3-4393-9705-448f967c81c8%40SRCSM2.

[xxxiii] Robert W. Hahn, Anne Layne-Farrar, The Benefits and Costs of Online Privacy Legislation (2001), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract_id=292649.

[xxxiv] Id.

[xxxv] Id.

[xxxvi] Id.

[xxxvii] Id.

[xxxviii] Paul Bocij, Cyberstalking (2004).

[xxxix] Id.

[xl] M2PressWIRE, More than half a million Britons victims of cyberstalking; Digital promiscuity puts online social networkers at risk, December 13, 2006. available at http://vocuspr.com/VocusEU/ViewNewsOnDemand.aspx?ArticleID=513969_522245_7034677.

[xli] Robert W. Hahn, Anne Layne-Farrar, The Benefits and Costs of Online Privacy Legislation (2001), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract_id=292649.

[xlii] Id.

[xliii] Reid Goldsborough, Help For Those Being Cyberstalked, The Central New York Business Journal, February 10, 2006, available at http://www.paintstore.com/article.php?item=1967.

[xliv] Richard J. Dalton Jr, A New Law Aims to Stop Abusive Emails- But Poses Concerns for Free Speech, Newsday, April 2, 2006, available at http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=12&hid=6&sid=309f4fba-41d3-4393-9705-448f967c81c8%40SRCSM2.

[xlv] Robert W. Hahn, Anne Layne-Farrar, The Benefits and Costs of Online Privacy Legislation (2001), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract_id=292649.

[xlvi] Paul Bocij, Cyberstalking (2004).

[xlvii] Id.

[xlviii] Paul Bocij, The Dark Side of the Internet (2006).

[xlix] Fay Burstin, Virtual Stalking Poses Real Threat, The Courier Mail, December 12, 2002, available at http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=6&sid=309f4fba-41d3-4393-9705-448f967c81c8%40SRCSM2.

[l] Leroy McFarlane, Paul Bocij, An Exploration of Predatory Behaviour in Cyberspace: Towards a Topology of Cyberstalkers, 8 First Monday 9 (2003), available at http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_9/mcfarlane/index.html.

[li] Cynthia Southworth et al., Intimate Partner Violence, Technology, and Stalking, 13 Violence Against Women 8 (2007), http://vaw.sagepub.com/.

[lii] Jerry Finn, A Survey of Online Harassment at a University Campus, Journal of Interpersonal Violence (2004), available at http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/4/468

[liii] Cyberangels, Cyberstalking, available at http://www.cyberangels.org/parents/bullying.html.

[liv] Richard J. Dalton Jr, A New Law Aims to Stop Abusive Emails- But Poses Concerns for Free Speech, Newsday, April 2, 2006, available at http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=12&hid=6&sid=309f4fba-41d3-4393-9705-448f967c81c8%40SRCSM2.

[lv] Cyber911 Emergency, http://www.wiredsafety.org/cyberstalking_harassment/index.html.

[lvi] Robert D'Ovidio, M.S. , James Doyle, A Study on Cyberstalking Understanding Investigative Hurdles, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, March 2003.

[lvii] Tom Zeller Jr, Despite Laws, Stalkers Roam on the Internet, The New York Times, April 17, 2006, available at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E7DB173FF934A25757C0A9609C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all.

[lviii] Robert W. Hahn, Anne Layne-Farrar, The Benefits and Costs of Online Privacy Legislation, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract_id=292649

[lix] Tom Zeller Jr, Despite Laws, Stalkers Roam on the Internet, The New York Times, April 17, 2006, available at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E7DB173FF934A25757C0A9609C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all.

[lx] Reid Goldsborough, Help For Those Being Cyberstalked, The Central New York Business Journal, February 10, 2006, available at http://www.paintstore.com/article.php?item=1967.

[lxi] Richard Willing, Cyberstalking Law Opens Debate on What's Annoying, USA Today, February 15, 2006, available at http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2006-02-14-cyberstalking-law_x.htm.

[lxii] Tom Zeller Jr, Despite Laws, Stalkers Roam on the Internet, The New York Times, April 17, 2006, available at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E7DB173FF934A25757C0A9609C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all.

[lxiii] Reid Goldsborough, Help For Those Being Cyberstalked, The Central New York Business Journal, February 10, 2006, available at http://www.paintstore.com/article.php?item=1967.

[lxiv] Richard Willing, Cyberstalking Law Opens Debate on What's Annoying, USA Today, February 15, 2006, available at http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2006-02-14-cyberstalking-law_x.htm.

[lxv] Richard J. Dalton Jr, A New Law Aims to Stop Abusive Emails- But Poses Concerns for Free Speech, Newsday, April 2, 2006, available at http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=12&hid=6&sid=309f4fba-41d3-4393-9705-448f967c81c8%40SRCSM2.

[lxvi] Wayne Petherick, Cyberstalking:Obsessional Pursuit and the Digital Criminal, available at http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/cyberstalking/2.html.

[lxvii] Richard J. Dalton Jr, A New Law Aims to Stop Abusive Emails- But Poses Concerns for Free Speech, Newsday, April 2, 2006, available at http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=12&hid=6&sid=309f4fba-41d3-4393-9705-448f967c81c8%40SRCSM2.

[lxviii] Pa. Cons. Stat.§167.

[lxix] Feel Safe Again, Inc., Cyberstalking: Dangers on the Information Superhighway, available at http://www.feelsafeagain.org/cyberstalking.html.

[lxx] Cynthia Southworth et al., Intimate Partner Violence, Technology, and Stalking, 13 Violence Against Women 8 (2007), http://vaw.sagepub.com/.

[lxxi] Reid Goldsborough, Help For Those Being Cyberstalked, The Central New York Business Journal, February 10, 2006, available at http://www.paintstore.com/article.php?item=1967.

[lxxii] Richard J. Dalton Jr, A New Law Aims to Stop Abusive Emails- But Poses Concerns for Free Speech, Newsday, April 2, 2006, available at http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=12&hid=6&sid=309f4fba-41d3-4393-9705-448f967c81c8%40SRCSM2.

[lxxiii] Richard Willing, Cyberstalking Law Opens Debate on What's Annoying, USA Today, February 15, 2006, available at http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2006-02-14-cyberstalking-law_x.htm.

[lxxiv] Cynthia Southworth et al., Intimate Partner Violence, Technology, and Stalking, 13 Violence Against Women 8 (2007), http://vaw.sagepub.com/.

[lxxv] Tom Zeller Jr, Despite Laws, Stalkers Roam on the Internet, The New York Times, April 17, 2006, available at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E7DB173FF934A25757C0A9609C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all.

[lxxvi] Ashley Packard, Does Proposed Federal Cyberstalking Legislation Meet Constitutional Requirements?, 5 Communication Law and Policy 4 (2000).

[lxxvii] Paul Bocij, The Dark Side of the Internet (2006).

[lxxviii] Paul Bocij, Cyberstalking (2004).

[lxxix] Ian Haberfield, Laws to Trap Cyberstalkers, Sunday Herald Sun, October 13, 2002, available at http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=21&hid=9&sid=309f4fba-41d3-4393-9705-448f967c81c8%40SRCSM2.

[lxxx] Leroy McFarlane, Paul Bocij, An Exploration of Predatory Behaviour in Cyberspace: Towards a Top Leroy McFarlane, Paul Bocij, An Exploration of Predatory Behaviour in Cyberspace: Towards a Topology of Cyberstalkers, 8 First Monday 9 (2003), available at http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_9/mcfarlane/index.html.

[lxxxi] Paul Bocij, Cyberstalking (2004).

[lxxxii] Id.

[lxxxiii] Id.

[lxxxiv] Id.

[lxxxv] Tom Zeller Jr, Despite Laws, Stalkers Roam on the Internet, The New York Times, April 17, 2006, available at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E7DB173FF934A25757C0A9609C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all.

[lxxxvi] Id.

[lxxxvii] Id.

[lxxxviii] Id.

[lxxxix] Id.

[xc] Paul Bocij, Cyberstalking (2004).

[xci] Author-Unknown, Cyberstalking on the Rise, 22 PC Magazine 10 (2003).

[xcii] Robert D'Ovidio, M.S. , James Doyle, A Study on Cyberstalking Understanding Investigative Hurdles, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, March 2003.

[xciii] Cynthia Southworth et al., Intimate Partner Violence, Technology, and Stalking, 13 Violence Against Women 8 (2007), http://vaw.sagepub.com/.

[xciv] Robert D'Ovidio, M.S. , James Doyle, A Study on Cyberstalking Understanding Investigative Hurdles, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, March 2003.

[xcv] Jerry Finn, A Survey of Online Harassment at a University Campus, Journal of Interpersonal Violence (2004), available at http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/4/468

[xcvi] Author-Unknown, Could you be a victim of cyberstalking?, Credit Management, Feb (2007).

[xcvii] Tom Zeller Jr, Despite Laws, Stalkers Roam on the Internet, The New York Times, April 17, 2006, available at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E7DB173FF934A25757C0A9609C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all.

[xcviii] Id.

[xcix] Paul Bocij, The Dark Side of the Internet (2006).

[c] Robert D'Ovidio, M.S. , James Doyle, A Study on Cyberstalking Understanding Investigative Hurdles, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, March 2003.