Cyberstalking

[Laura]

While poking about searching for things, I found a site about cyberstalking:
http://www.fireflysun.com/book/stalking_overview_tactics.php

Since we've been through it all with Vincent Bridges, just about everything said here rings true. I just didn't realize it was so widespread.

Overview of Tactics in Stalking

The following overview is a roadmap to the procedures or maneuvers used by stalkers to achieve objectives. Links to detailed reports on each of the tactics can be found in the section titled "Stalking Tactics."

The primary goal of the cyberstalker is to achieve greater control over the life of the victim. Some instrumental cyberstalkers (e.g. stakeholders in a business or academic community) may choose to remain invisible to instill in the victim a sense of fear and a sense that the cyberstalking may never end. Anonymity is required to sustain the kind of cyberstalking campaign that impacts the affairs of the victim (e.g. business transactions or online communications). Some cyberstalkers from the jilted or unrequited genre may need their victims to know who is responsible, as the goal is not so much that a victim's life is being disrupted, but who is disrupting the victim's life.

Creating documents that present a victim in a false and unflattering light is one of the most direct methods of seizing a victim's attention by force. The cyberstalker would like to believe that the victim is paying so much attention to him personally or to his handiwork that the victim has little if any time for that part of life where he is not concerned.

If the cyberstalker is distressed by the content of an author's book, he will design a cyberstalking strategy that assumes control of how the public views the book and / or diverts the author from marketing practices.

Cyberstalkers derive their greatest pleasure from disrupting their victims' relationships with third parties, where the third party is (a) the general "unspecified" audience, (b) significant others and current or prospective associates, and (c) providers of services the victim needs to use the Internet.

Some of the most egregious tactics deployed to disrupt the way a victim is perceived by the general population involves the creation of libelous Web sites search optimized through the dissemination of links in news groups. For maximum effect, the cyberstalker houses the libelous material on a network of hyperlinked Web sites bearing the name of the victim (e.g. JoeSmith.com, JoeSmith.org, JoeSmith.info). As a substitute for a Web site, a critical mass of deliverables to news groups and other Web-based forums may be sufficient to vandalize the front page of results for a Google search on the victim's name.

Tactics deployed in disrupting relationships with family & friends, colleagues, and other associates are more wide-ranging. Once cyberstalkers sleuth the identities of these third parties, they may begin dropping the names into messages that remain primarily about the victim, but eventually messages may be created as unctuous commentary about these third parties themselves. The goal of most instrumental cyberstalkers is to pressure the third parties to persuade the victim to stop using the Internet. This is achieved by creating a situation in which significant others and associates blame the victim for the stress they begin to feel as the harassment hits closer to home. In some cases, employers may be contacted directly or indirectly mentioned in messages (which may be accurate or misleading) about the victim's use of company property (e.g. PC) on company time.

Impersonation is also a popular tactic in the disruption of relationships with friends and associates. Victims may learn from a Google search on a name that they are the forged authors of a message (in some forum) that defames an associate or significant other or; conversely, that the associate (or significant other) may be forged authors of messages that defame the victim. Acts of impersonation vary so widely that no exhaustive list is possible, and any act of impersonation can potentially disrupt any and all category of relationship. A cyberstalker may create a faux directory entry for the victim (e.g. Yahoo profile), composed to appear as if they were written by the victims themselves (for maximum effect). The profile could be used to humiliate the victim by including a revealing or embarassing photograph (i.e. "pic"). The profile may be used to "out" a person who has been conducting business on the Web under a pen name. Cunningly sleuthed residential address information may also be included to expose the victim to risks. In cases of jilted or unrequited cyberstalking, a real or "doctored" photo may portray the victim in a sexually compromising position. Not only can everything you see on the Web be falsified, but some Web-based tools were created to doctor communications records that you would not normally associate with the Internet, as when a Web-based Caller ID Spoofing Tool was used to manufacture evidence one victim actually phoned his cyberstalker.b/b] Stalkers have even been known to impersonate authors in efforts to cancel speaking engagements.

Similarly, cyberstalkers may use or invent through aliases a confederate network to deliver a critical mass of false, fulsome, or frivolous complaints of abuse to a victim's providers of Web hosting, NNTP posting, or Internet Service. More options are available to the digitally savvy cyberstalker, who may use spam he routed through a victim's PC as evidence of victim abuse.

The cornerstone of the cyberstalker tactical plan is the lie ... and the truth. The same cyberstalker, in the same message, may disclose painfully accurate truths about who you are and where you can be reached and painfully inaccurate falsehoods. More typically, a cyberstalking gang divides this labor, with some members specializing in weaving lies out of whole cloth. In what amounts to great theater, the same cyberstalker may compose a message that feigns fly-on-the-wall knowledge of events / non-events in your life -- from your office to your bedroom. The division of labor available through gang stalking not only makes the individual stalker less conspicuous, but it can be used to divide the once-indivisible crime into a series of acts that cannot be considered criminal when viewed independently. Law enforcement officers are easily daunted by what they perceive as a prohibitively work-intensive challenge of identifying all the members of a cybergang and then attributing responsibility for various crimes or para-criminal acts among the members.

Cooperative networking may be used to recruit other belligerents and full-time flamers on the Web into the anti-victim gang (or to form such a gang). While the tactic sounds like great fiction, it is more the rule than the exception in Usenet's un-moderated "news groups."

In the era before Google, cyberstalkers in the instrumental genre were by and large impotent and could be effectively ignored. However Google gives cyberstalkers the power to affect the victim almost universally, in a way that compels the victim to monitor the cyberstalkers' activities for possible risks to his or her reputation, safety, employment and Web-based business. Many victims need a defensive strategy, a Web-based statement on the propaganda or harassment which, as you might suspect, also draws additional cyberstalking.

 

[Laura]

From the same website:
http://www.fireflysun.com/book/overview_science_cyberstalking.php

Overview of Social Science of Cyberstalking Gangs

Sociology breeds cynicism. For decades, sociologists (and social psychologists) grappling with tragic events (e.g. the shooting deaths of four Kent State University students by ROTC cadets) have attempted to elevate the study of mobs and crowds into a science of "people going berzerk." Scholars of collective behavior identify characteristics of groups and individuals that present a combustible mixture. Which kinds of individuals, under which circumstances, can produce a mob? A crowd? A cult? A battallion of World War II German infantry? And just what happens to a person during his or her transformation from inner-directed individual to a rank-and-serial number ... a leaf in the wind of group activity?

As a social psychologist myself, I'd like to see the mission of social psychologists shift from one of keeping the peace between racial & ethnic groups to one of understanding the potentially damaging effects of groups on individuals and, in turn, on groups. We are living in an increasingly group-oriented society. Progress is measured in mergers & acquisitions. Scientists publish in packs of six. Aspiring professionals negotiate career milestones evaluated by committees, from peer review to faculty search to tenure review. The intrinsic worth of books and films are measured in millions of units sold. The worth of the individual is measured by the size of his or her network. Hospital patients coordinate care between multiple five-member physician groups. We have entered a new era of viewing and manipulating individuals through groups, and individuals are coordinates in social space, where membership has its privileges.

Social psychologists have known since the early 70s that individuals can surrender their own priorities and decision-making faculties to a group in exchange for social identity, which is to say for a sense of belonging, guidance / resources, social and material amenities, harmony, and even self-definition. Groups use direct pressure, appointed mindguards, and collective rationalizations to promote illusions of morality and invulnerability, activate in individual members a propensity for self-censorship, and stereotype real or "straw" rivals.

Even the social body responsible for producing knowledge about groups and individuals (i.e. academe) is shaped by these uniforming-mechanisms. I am referring here of course to faculty departments within universities (e.g. Department of Psychology). The social structures and discourses invented by academic communities -- and their ever-widening nucleus of core policies and procedures governing everything from research to classroom instruction -- generate friction for apprentices-in-training. Some critics allege an underlying "ideology" designed to present prohibitive challenges to students with highly developed personalities and original thinkers whose individuality is grounded in a cause (even where the cause is a grass roots focus on the subject matter itself). Even the speech of many academic insiders gives some hint as to a problem, using words like "guild," "professional gatekeeping," "perfect fit," "willingness to adjust," and "socialization into professional culture" to refer to the lodge-like nature of academic training. I am also reminded of colorful phrases from my dissertation advisor -- "you have to keep one hand on the mast and one on the sail" -- "you have to learn how to shave the balloon to make it in barber college" -- and "you have to get your union card first" -- that put things in just the right perspective to help me navigate the political headwinds and bureaucracy within my PhD program. And while academics might grow queasy with the thought of being compared to the military, new classes of graduate students are, like new military recruits, more likely to survive boot camp if they show up to training with nothing to be broken down and re-built in the image of the armed forces.

While self-awareness may be lacking, the resentment within academe toward corporate America, the military, and Republican-controlled legislative bodies did manage to inspire concepts like deindividuation, which refers to the deterioration of morality and consciousness in many individuals within like-minded and / or similarly-aroused groups. In its explanation of collective phenomenon like mobs and crowds, convergence theory proposes that the similiarity of group members is the active agent in assembly (and depicts the process of coming together as somewhat deliberate). By contrast, the older contagion theory (LeBon, 1896) sought to explain how persons can behave more irrationally in group settings than as individuals, suggesting a contagious emergent property to groups capable of "hypnotizing" individuals. Emergent-norm theory (Turner & Killian, 1987) proposes that unexpected behavior from groups of similiar individuals is the result of new norms and expectations that emerge in response to new circumstances. While this theory approaches an adequate account of mob behavior within communities (e.g. McCarthyism, the Salem Witch Trials, Inquisition), a truly comprehensive theory will need to revisit the irrationality of the group behavior. For example, how do we make sense of the occasional "witch hunt" among academics? This phenomenon may not be as sellacious a headline as the occasional murder of a homeless man by impromptu gatherings of high school teens. But I find this inhouse collective behavior among professors quite illustrative of sociological/social psychological principles ... that a collection of ten or more professors -- all scientists by vocation -- can "switch off" their truth-finding radar and / or truth-sounding siren and slavishly comply with a small group of their colleagues bent on ousting a graduate student they do not like (i.e. typically a graduate student in excellent academic standing who simply does not embody the same theory or ideology). Members of the same academic community published excellent research demonstrating how the goal of accuracy in information-gathering tasks can be subverted to the goal of preserving group harmony (Thompson, Petersen, & Brodt, 1996).

But group harmony is not always the whole story. In a synthesis of the aforementioned theory and research, I suggest that we look for the group's irrationality in the glue that binds its individuals (i.e. in the similarity). The individuals that make up a group may harbor similar sensitivities. Where these sensitivities are unarticulated (and this is usually the case), it may be meaningful to speak of the group's collective unconscious. For example, psychology professors aspiring to be treated as rank-and-file scientists may resort to extraordinary measures to engineer solidarity within their own community and present a united, cosmetically rigorous front to the public. One method of doing this is to design policies & procedures that standardize and regulate an ever-widening scope of activities which, had they been left to the discretion of the individual, would have resulted in an embarassing diversity of pet theories, research styles, and teaching methods (something quite problematic for the scientific persona of a discipline in which the human being is both the subject and object of scientific study and in which the individual scientist can claim authoritative knowledge of him- or herself). The policies and procedures conceal, control, and compensate for this natural diversity (but which also occludes the kind of original thinking and exploratory research that may prove vital to genuine progress). This explains instances in which psychology professors use end-of-semester evaluation meetings as vehicles for identifying, reigning in, and weeding out graduate students who at one time or another exhibited an idiosyncratic (but not necessarily illegitimate) choice in the design of a research project or design of a course he or she is teaching as an assistant. Such students, many of whom are in excellent academic standing, are surprised by a formal letter (cc'd to their permanent file) threatening them with one or more categories of conduct probation ... surprised to be on the receiving end of such characterological labels as "unwilling to adjust," "imperfect fits," and "arrogant" ... surprised to learn their conduct will be monitored by future professors whose expectations have been skewered by what just passed for slander. Given the right chemistry (i.e. motivation, support, and freedom from self-awareness / consequence), even educated professionals can lose themselves in the pride and passion of a group in which they are invested.

An individual's investment in a group has many facets. Individuals may have some stake in the group. Individuals may have deferred formative powers over their own identity and self-worth to the group. Individuals may have sacrificed a great deal to become a group member. The theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) is invoked to explain how hazing rituals are used to manufacture extreme loyalty in new group members. Individuals who expect extraordinary harmony within their group are usually the same individuals who once expected similar harmony within themselves. These are individuals who would rather turn their back on imperfections within their community because the idea of an imperfect community is painfully inconsistent with the idea they gave up so much to become members. According to cognitive dissonance theory, individuals are driven to reduce the unpleasant arousal associated with the inconsistency (i.e. dissonance) and that in instances where an attitude is inconsistent with a behavior, the person finds it simpler to change the attitude (i.e. what I think of my job / community) to conform to the behavior (i.e. I am employed here / I am a member here). Much in the same way not all individuals have the same tolerance for pain, not all personalities have the same tolerance for dissonance. Individuals with a low tolerance for dissonance make for great loyalists. You behavioral science and statistics majors may have heard that something cannot correlate with something else to a degree greater than it correlates with itself. I mention it only for its metaphorical value, and to set up my next hypothesis, which is that many individuals are driven to expect a level of conformity to the group norms (and bring a level of pressure to bear) that is equal to the level of dissonance they were compelled to reconcile through attitude adjustments. We already know that many academics begrudge "bitching" among their apprentices because, by golly, they had to do it. So we know that many of them expect from future generations of academics the same level of conformity required of them, and this is all rationalized in the name of maintaining standards. Unfortunately, the corollary of this theory is that in an era of more tightly controlled communities, the most innovative individual is left out on the doorstep like a skanky barn cat.

So in revisiting emergent-norm theory, what we are observing in many groups are individuals with common expectations and norms who, in response to perceived challenges or risks, create new norms and expectations that structure and rationalize punishment for nonconformity. In many cases, the degree of structure appears completely unnecessary or overdone (e.g. policies & procedures in academic psychology), serving a cosmetic purpose in concealing or compensating for the irrational impetus (i.e. appetites, emotional "ego-driven" issues) at the root of it all. So by now you have more of a handle on how individuals may be transformed in becoming and in being a member of a group. This is a rather crude Jeckyll-to-Hyde way of conceptualizing what is fundamentally an adaptation. A more nuanced view from social identity theory suggests an individual can have multiple selves that correspond to widening circles of group membership, such that one thinks, feels, and acts as this or that person depending on the social context (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

Computer-Mediated Communication Augments Etiological Factors in Group Formation, Maintenance

In many ways, groups that form on the Web and that use the Web for its networking and image enhancement are extremely susceptible to the factors by which self and other (i.e. adversary to group) is deindividuated and dehumanized. Nothing is more efficient than the Web at bringing together people with similar interests. No where else can one voice opinions as loudly, as universally, and as anonymously. In short, the technology augments the social effects of group membership, resulting in greater facilitation, legitimation, and immunization. In cyberspace, even individuals with no group-related education or brick-and-mortar affiliation with the group can experience the priviliges of membership by performing services for the ranking members of the group (e.g. recruitment, outreach, dirty chores like slander and hacking). This is where antisocial types form an unholy symbiosis with academics and professionals, executing their wishes in exchange for an adda-boy and a place at the table.

In this cyberstalking blog, we take up the factors associated with the formation, maintenance, and proliferation of cyberstalking gangs. You may be surprised to learn that these gangs are not comprised of low socioeconomic youth & minorities as much as by well-to-do digerati (e.g. network administrators with hacking know-how), academics and professionals with sensitive egos bent on preserving their field's reputation from unconventional wisdom on the net, and computer chair potatoes like you seeking some perch from which to leap safely into the coliseum for gladiatorial hobbies. However, these cyberstalking gang members often share issues of identity and turf with their traditional gang counterparts.

 

[Laura]

Overview of Motives in Stalking

Various companies provides Web-based products or services leveraged by cyberstalkers in the harassment or defamation of their victims. Companies providing search engines or domain registration and hosting services.
Companies operating listservs or discussion forums. And then there are enterprising individuals whose inventions -- Web-based Caller ID spoofing tools and anonymous remailers -- and even Usenet may not be sponsored or funded by a corporation.

The question of liability for harassment and character assassination is particularly salient since the original authors of the offending material are, more often than not, not only anonymous, but untraceable. Remarkable are the reactions of company staffers when the abuse is brought to their attention. Some companies avail themselves of exemptions or provisions in existing legislation to wash their hands completely of any role in the prevention or mitigation of the abuse. Once assigned the same conduit-status as the telephone companies, employees of search engines (and even the open source "encyclopedia" Wikipedia) claim "no responsibility" under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which treats these services like passive piping carrying "other people's" content to third parties around the world. This legislation confers a status consistent with legal responsibility (i.e. re-publisher / distributor) on companies offering Web hosting and, even more strangely, news readers (Web sites automatically converting streams of news group messages into Web pages for archiving by search engines). But search engines and open source encyclopedias bear no responsibility when some cyberstalker, or gang of stakeholders, decide to "hijack" the company product for the purpose of harming others.

Strangely enough, until the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (9.22.2001), the families of commercial airline passengers killed during a hijacking could actually seek civil judgment against the airlines. To this day, even though the airliner's assets are protected under the Act, surviving families could continue to collect what is available through the airliner's insurance coverage.

No such negligence is tendered against search engines and open source encyclopedias for elevated risks ... or damages ... when cyberstalkers vandalize a search engine / encyclopedia to threaten a victim's earnings / employment, reputation, or safety.

There is no constitutional right to trial by jury, nor is there a process by which a Special Master could dole out from a limited pool of funds made possible by some kind of malpractice or misadventure insurance.

Some Web hosting companies realized that in a vastly competitive market, a zero tolerance policy for clients with abusive Web sites, was not prudent. With tongue firmly in cheek and American flag in hand, companies like GoDaddy.com decided to cater to individuals whose Web sites require bulletproof protection from complaints.

GoDaddy.com even markets a subsidiary "privacy service" (Domains by Proxy), whereby they substitute the company name and address information for the name and address of a client.

Complainants chipping away at the privacy wall to unearth the identity of a cyberstalker may use a certified mail complaint process to persuade Domains by Proxy to rescind the privacy services, only to reveal a name and address that is fraudulent. And an investigation revealed that even the United States Postal Service can be faulted for allowing cyberstalkers to use aliases when signing for certified mail delivered to their P.O. Box.

 

[Laura]

http://www.fireflysun.com/book/overview_Internet_defamation.php

The Axis of Evil

Businesses Complicit with Cyberstalking Create a Defamation Superhighway

Search behemoths (most notably Google), Usenet news groups (most notably psychologists on sci.psychology.psychotherapy), and the news readers, have joined forces to build a defamation delivery system, otherwise known as the Defamation Superhighway, in reference to the ease in which defamatory material can be disseminated on the Web.

At the top of the diagram, we have the individual stalkers themselves, though it is not meaningful to refer to these persons as individuals in that none of them would be engaged in stalking if he or she did not have the support of confederates. The stalking is inspired, anonymized, modeled, legitimated, and disseminated by the group. Individuals working under multiple aliases and in collaboration with confederates creates an illusion of "much to do about something." As displayed in the diagram, the stalkers achieve another level of anonymity by expressing themselves through the use of tools that conceal or distort the address of their computer. Anonymous re-mailers relay a message to the news group through as many as six proxy servers, making the source of the message virtually untraceable. NNTP posting services (news servers) substitute the address of its own server for that of the messenger. These tools, in addition to other spoofing techniques & technologies, anonymize the messenger at the source. The Usenet platform (news groups) supports all these practices.

Once the messages are distributed to news groups, they become more immovable than any historical landmark. Usenet news groups have no ownership nor oversight, so there is no moderator to whom to direct complaints. This is one of the characteristics of the Usenet environment that make news groups attractive to stalkers. The other benefit of Usenet is its universality and innervation of the search engines. With thousands of news servers (also "news readers") programmed to receive messaging streams automatically from a thematic subset of news groups (e.g. health-related groups), any given news group message may be duplicated into dozens of pages with distinct URLs so that each one is recognized as independent content by robots (i.e. spiders, crawlers, wanderers) that index the Web for search engines. This multiplicity, coupled with the sheer number of ISPs that provide access to news groups, also contribute to the privileged ranking of news group messages in the results of a search.

The news reader is the only entity complainants can effectively lobby. While Article 230 of the Communications Decency Act excuses search engines from moderating responsibilities by immunizing them against civil liability, news readers, despite content automation similar to search engines, are not similarly protected as conduits. However, the sheer number of news readers presents a prohibitive challenge to complainants, who compare efforts to expunge news readers of false or unflattering messages to plugging 50 holes in a dam with 10 fingers. The creators of news readers range from well-meaning facilitator extraordinaires who believe they're connecting the masses to valuable resources (e.g. _www.pahealthsystems.com/ and _www.laborlawtalk.com) to stalkers and voyeurs who think the world wants to eavesdrop on flame wars or who seek to harass targets by skewing the way they're viewed through the eyes of Google (e.g. news-reader.org, _www.news2mail.com). Regardless, each type of news reader admin has a reason to hide, if for no other reason than to avoid the work involved in adjudicating a critical mass of complaints.

Enter Domains by Proxy, Inc., a subsidary of Go Daddy.com, which provides privacy services by substituting its own company name and address for the name and address of its clients.

Once the Domains by Proxy, Inc. manager responds favorably to letters of complaint delivered by certified mail and removes its privacy services, the complainant discovers that the name and address information for the owner of the news reader (or libelous anti-target Web site) is fraudulent. In an alarmingly growing number of cases, these news readers are registered and hosted by Go Daddy.com, which built a business on the reputation for protecting abusive sites. Thus what we find at this level of the diagram is the domain registar / host that anonymizes the owner of the web site carrying the abusive content. In addition to an anonymous messenger, the parties responsible for the message's medium is either non-existent (Usenet news group) or hiding (news reader / abusive web site).

Like many news readers (e.g. pych-one.com), The Chat about Network web site and The Out Support Forums web site (AlltheSupport.com) web site are hosted by Domains by Proxy, contain no valid contact information, and provide false contact information to "WHOIS" databases.

Oh, the Chat about Network talks tough on legality. It's Terms of Service, designed exclusively to protect -- guess who? -- the Chat about Network, reads like an operations manual for the Department of Defense.

But when it's all said and done...

The company is apparently based in Virginia, but Domain Registration information directs your correspondence to Arizona-based Domains by Proxy. Domains by Proxy replied to a solicitation for legitimate contact information. In the reply, Domains by Proxy required that requests connected with legal issues be delivered by certified mail.

We also notice the same abusive evasiveness and deception by Domains-by-Proxy client allthesupport.com:

At first, I try to reach them through the e-mail address advertised on the web site as a point of contact:

When that fails, I use the official contact address presented by Domains by Proxy to the "Who Is" directories of domain registration web sites:

And the search engine Google, which purchased Usenet's archive from deja.com (i.e. Google Groups), is beginning to archive these messages directly from its Google Groups (Usenet news groups) to Google Web, ensuring that even a total recall of a message from the news readers will not prevent the message from appearing in a Google search of your name. The screen capture below serves as evidence that Google is indexing Usenet news groups.

It is a perfect marriage, the one between Domains by Proxy, Google, Usenet, and the network of news servers that multiply the white light from Usenet into a spectrum of web sites for the Google search engine. I too once championed the right to complete anonymity on the Internet, that is, until it became all too plain that these services make spamming and cyberstalking possible and provide no protection to the victims. Isn't it interesting that the most vocal defenders of freedom and privacy are those who depend on it to break laws or generally inflict harm on others?

All parties attempt to deflect responsibility for the defamation on to some other entity. Google refers me to the news readers, and in so doing, feeds me to the stalkers who developed some of these things. Google also suggests I blame the original authors -- stalkers -- as well. And as for my stalkers, well, they blame me for being the person I am. They will cease using the news groups for harassment and character assassination once I terminate my book, my Web site, and my association with an individual who happens to be on their enemies list.

But it is not my responsibility to change who I am and what I believe, and news readers that circumvent disclosure laws cannot be held accountable either, not without an attorney and a good private detective. As for Google, well, Google recently informed me that if I compelled them by legal document to alter their archives in any way, which includes removing some post with no value beyond its potential for threat and libel, they would forward my name and documentation to an enemies of free speech web site for black listing (i.e. chillingeffects.org). Sounds like a threat to me.

Consultants closely monitoring the stalking of 'Wyatt Ehrenfels' feel strongly that many of the news readers (e.g. allthesupport.com) cropping up in recent months are created by Usenet stalkers with the intent of using the search engines as a defamation superhighway. Previously, the messages were only accessible through a search of the target's name in Google Groups (i.e. Google's interface with Usenet). But assuming you are a moral person free of mental illness, you won't spend very much time in Google Groups. Fond of pointing out that Usenet's network of news groups is "not the Internet," the stalkers are the first to realize the necessity of making the libelous messages in Usenet prominently available to the broader Internet community. Now these messages are accessible through a search of the target's name in Google Web, not to mention other web search engines and, failing to accomplish their purpose of creating doubt about the target, they at least clutter the search results in a way surfers find distracting. "A reasonable human being sees the message for what it is. The forehead wrinkles after an initial scan of the link to the message, and they move on to the next listing without giving it another thought. But while they may not believe the bad, just a handful of prominently placed junk like this can make it more difficult for them to find the good.

 

[mechanima]

-----------------------------------------------

 

[purplehaze]

Laura - we'd like to post that article - with attribution of course and give u a big ole' hat tip for finding it!

 

[Laura]

I say go for it!

 

[purplehaze]

This won't surprise you but we get a big kick out of the predators/ psychopaths who cyberstalk their victims... then go into a non-stop rage ....
and of course followed up quickly with "THEY are cyberstalking ME"
Projection at its finest.

 

[Laura]

This won't surprise you but we get a big kick out of the predators/ psychopaths who cyberstalk their victims... then go into a non-stop rage ....
and of course followed up quickly with "THEY are cyberstalking ME"
Projection at its finest.

Yes, it can be very entertaining. Here's a good example of Vinnie doing his cyberstalking again, this time on a 9-11 website: _http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2434

Actually, when you read this thread, you get the distinct impression that the person who started it is either a "good buddy" of Vinnie or a sockpuppet created by Vinnie.

Here's the whois info for the site:

Registrant Contact Information:
Name: Registration Private
Organization: Domains by Proxy, Inc.
Address 1: DomainsByProxy.com
Address 2: 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
City: Scottsdale
State: Arizona
Zip: 85260
Country: US
Phone: +1.4806242599
Fax: +1.4806242599
Email:

Nothing really unusual in a 9-11 Truth "action" group wanting to keep their details private. However, the thread attacking me seems to be right in line with their Mission Statement. Obviously, TRUTH is not what they are after, but rather "action."

Mission Statement

truthaction.org is dedicated to achieving justice for the crimes of 9/11. To this end our primary focus is promoting activism to raise awareness about the lies of the official 9/11 story and to push for an independent criminal investigation into those events.

It is our aim to grow the movement for truth on a global level through the promotion of International Days of Truth Action on the Eleventh Day of Every Month and to encourage and support everyday activism.

We aim to put an end to the global war on terror by exposing the truth about its foundational myth. 9/11 truth is the key to stopping the global war machine.

We aim to restore our rights and civil liberties and repeal all laws based on 9/11 propaganda.

The 9/11 Truth Movement is at the forefront of the global movements for justice and peace and we will continue to build bridges with our natural allies within these movements.

truthaction.org is a wholly peaceful organisation and we totally reject violence in activism.


Recommendations for 9/11 Truth Activism

Guiding Principles

We support the following:

1. A dedication to rational, dignified and nonviolent activism and debate motivated by compassion, justice and truth
2. Awareness of public perception and the need for a strategic and responsible promotion and presentation of our cause
3. A commitment to building credibility and encouraging constructive alliances with the peace movement and other natural allies
4. Adherence to the scientific method and journalistic standards with a focus on facts, substance, and sources
5. Continually reaching out to new people in new places and in new ways

Conversely, we will actively seek to counteract, minimize and withdraw from the following:

1. Motivations based on ego, hatred and personal agendas
2. Promotion of speculative and unsubstantiated claims
3. Disruptive, divisive, diversionary and irrational behavior
4. Damaging and marginalizing associations
5. Highly partisan representations of the movement and cults of personality
6. Ongoing debate on divisive issues (see section on divisive issues)

We will engage others in the movement to make them aware of our recommendations, developing constructive dialogue while raising awareness of them and the reasoning behind them, while being open to critique and revision. We will disengage from groups and persons that continue with destructive or divisive behavior.


Dealing with destructive and divisive behavior

1) Identify and critique behavior that is harmful to the movement (i.e. speculative theories without evidence and activists who engage in disruptive behavior, divisive incidents, etc). Challenge leaders who unreasonably continue to support and tolerate such damaging behavior.

2) Refuse to debate solidly debunked theories by simply referencing responsible websites, articles, and blogs which have already refuted such claims

3) Discourage unnecessary and unproductive antagonism (i.e. infighting, personal attacks, gossip, etc.) that wastes time and causes divisiveness.

4) Avoid the divisive labeling of individuals and groups.(i.e. shill, agent etc)

5) Be aware and vigilant concerning the presence of agent provocateurs within the movement. Do not engage in witch hunts or unsubstantiated accusations. Treat those who continually, and despite consultation, act in word and deed in the manner of agent provocateurs, as such. While these people can rarely be proven to be agents, they should be treated as counterproductive and untrustworthy. Such groups and individuals should not be engaged in unproductive ways, such as aggression, name-calling, personal attacks, etc. Instead, the substance of their destructive behavior should be detailed, after which they should be avoided when possible. If appropriate, exclusionary action (banning from forums or groups, removal of links from websites, cancellation of speaking engagements etc.) or in extreme cases legal action should be taken.

6) Do not allow the proliferation of irresponsible information or damaging behavior simply because the individuals or groups in question maintain a certain reputation or notoriety within the movement. The fact that someone may “have done good work in the past” is never a valid excuse to tolerate damaging participation in the present. The movement must be about truth and justice rather than character and popularity.

In Summary: It is in our experience that group unity is not achieved by ignoring divisiveness. It is achieved through civil critique and a constructive response to the disruptive behavior.


Divisive Issues

1. Debunked Theories

We recognize an important distinction between private speculation and public promotion. Speculation, hypothesis, and experimentation are the basis of the scientific method. However, the promotion of highly speculative claims is irresponsible and damaging to our credibility. Instead, verifiable fact-based research must be primary in our search for and promotion of the truth. For these reasons we do not support the promotion or debate of the following during activism or blogging:

1. No planes hit the WTC towers
2. Directed Energy Weapons were used to demolish the towers
3. Theories based on inconclusive video and photographic evidence


2. Off Topic Associations

Some associations that are damaging and marginalizing to the movement are listed below. It is a historical fact that the mere mention of these topics has been seen to cause us long term damage. Consequently it is considered by TruthAction.org that only a clear focus on 9/11 fact based evidence will achieve our goals.

1. UFO and alien theories
2. Holocaust revisionism
3. Religion based conspiracy theories
4. Moon landing hoax

Note: It is often a method of the media to bait us on various conspiracy theories in an attempt to discredit us. We suggest any questions on unrelated subjects should not be responded to; rather we should redirect the conversation back to the hard evidence regarding 9/11. This approach is also appropriate with the public.

3. What hit the Pentagon?

The question of "what hit the pentagon" has been the single most divisive issue within the movement, but we can all agree that absolutely nothing could have hit the Pentagon without those in charge allowing it to happen. While we support ongoing research into the event, we urge unity on our common ground; refocusing energy towards demanding accountability and away from endless debate. We urge framing our public presentation of the Pentagon issue around unanimously agreed upon issues such as the absent air defense, the missing 2.3 trillion dollars, the conflicting testimonies, the inconsistencies regarding the official flight path of AA77, the very low probability of an amateur pilot achieving the maneuver seen and the refusal by government agencies to release evidence.

4. Global Warming

It has become apparent during attempts to reach out to environmentalists in our communities that questioning the veracity of man made global warming has prevented many in this group from continuing dialog with us. We suggest these “off topic” assertions or debates should not be brought to the public domain during 9/11 truth outreach. truthaction.org as a group holds no particular view on this issue.

Conclusion

Many activists came together to make these recommendations possible. We have all had direct experience with behavior and information that has impeded our cause. Thus we hope this document will help the 9/11 truth movement to achieve greater unity and focus. We encourage activists to cite and link to these recommendations as a standard response to diversionary and disruptive behavior. Hopefully, this will allow us to move beyond some of our major obstacles to spreading truth and securing justice.

These recommendations were inspired by and contain large portions of the TruthMove Declaration 2008.
Thank you to TruthMove and the other activists who contributed to this document.