On Friday, a New York man was arrested and charged in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York with conducting an extensive cyberstalking and threats campaign. He was charged with one count of cyberstalking and two counts of sending interstate threats.
According to the affidavit in support of the complaint:
“Waldman is charged with engaging in an extensive cyberstalking campaign targeting a woman he briefly dated. The campaign began in April 2014, shortly after Waldman and the victim ended their relationship, and continued intermittently until the date of Waldman’s arrest. Over the course of almost four years, Waldman sent the victim hundreds of text messages, voicemail messages, and e-mail messages, and made voluminous posts on a variety of online platforms, in which he claimed, among other assertions, that she had been diagnosed with bipolar and narcissistic personality disorder, used drugs, and fabricated claims that she had been a victim of child sexual abuse. In his online communications, Waldman also repeatedly threatened to show up at the victim’s apartment and office and threatened to injure, torture, and sexually assault her. Waldman also sent email messages to the victim’s employers, accusing her of being a ‘habitual drug user’ and claiming that he would sue her for defamation, theft, illegal trespass, violating HIPAA, and engaging in other ‘illegal behaviors.’”
The updated cyberstalking law, § 2261A(2), became effective on October 1, 2013 and provides that:
Whoever...
"(2) with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that—
A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A); or
B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A),
shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title."
Common Elements of Cyberstalking
- Repeated, unwanted, intrusive, and frightening communications from the perpetrator by phone, mail, and/or email
- Direct or indirect threats to harm the victim, the victim’s children, relatives, friends, or pets
- Harassing the victim through the internet
- Posting information or spreading false information about the victim on the internet
- Obtaining personal information about the victim by accessing public records, using internet search services, hiring private investigators, searching through the victim’s garbage, following the victim around the internet and contacting the victim’s friends, family, co-workers, neighbors, etc.
- Email spoofing, in which the cyberstalker sends email impersonating the victim
- Creating social media accounts to harass, threaten and/or defame the victim
- Impersonating the victim on social media or elsewhere on the internet
- Tracking the victim’s movements on the internet, who they associate with and their activities
Threats often accompany cyberstalking and 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) can be used in addition to the cyberstalking statute. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, to transmit any communication in interstate or foreign commerce containing a threat to injure the person of another.”
Doxing, or the public posting of personally identifiable information online, is often a component of cyberstalking. And, while posting information that is already public isn't always a crime, it often is if the intent is malicious, such as in cases of cyberstalking. Depending on the specifics of the case, doxing may be considered harassment, intimidation, invasion of privacy or even assault.
Additionally, if the act of cyberstalking involves two or more people, all participants can be charged even if they only played a minor role in the cyberstalking. Federal prosecutors can use a federal conspiracy statute to hold all participants responsible. Because, legally, if two people agree to commit an offense and some step is taken in furtherance of the crime, conspiracy exists. Also, when cyberstalking is used in cases in which race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or gender is a factor, hate crime charges can also be added, which are punishable by up to 20 years on each count.
The Psychological Profile of a Cyberstalker
While trolls are relatively harmless and will generally move on to the next target if they are ignored, cyberstalkers cross the line from annoying to illegal behavior. Cyberstalkers are often propelled by the presence of personality disorders, poor emotional control, and antisocial tendencies.
A cyberstalker typically becomes obsessed with pursuing the victim.
According to Psychology Today:
“Cyberstalking is a compulsion. It aims to humiliate, control, frighten, manipulate, embarrass, get revenge at, or otherwise harm the victim. Many cyberstalkers are obsessed, unstable, or otherwise mentally ill. Still, others are simply angry or hurt and have crossed the line into criminal activity when expressing these emotions. While they can exhibit charm and eloquence, they are generally isolated and desperate, have very low self-esteem, and are especially sensitive to rejection. The financial ruin of the victim can also be part of their goal.”
Cyberstalking escalates into more threatening behavior, sometimes even deadly, for victims in over 70 percent of cases. It can result in physical attacks, abductions and other dangerous encounters with the cyberstalker.
A cyberstalker can be a former significant other, a coworker, a fan, a police officer or informant, a jealous rival, a competing business owner, etc.
Over the past year and a half there has been a significant increase in the amount of cyberstalking cases investigated by the FBI. Long sentences, such as this 10 year sentence, have been handed down for cyberstalking. Moreover, a life sentence was imposed on individuals’ whose campaign of cyberstalking ended in murder. Regarding that particular case, Kevin Perkins, who at that time was Special Agent in Charge of the Baltimore Field Office, said the conspiracy and stalking prosecution was groundbreaking. “People who actively take part in planning crimes, even though they don’t pull the trigger, will be held accountable,” he said.
Authorities have become more savvy in how they go about nabbing cybercriminals. And, with the sharp increase in cyberstalking cases reported, federal authorities have stepped up the pace of investigating these cases. For instance, a cyberstalking suspect was arrested after VPN providers shared logs with the FBI. In addition to improved forensic technology and the addition of more agents with backgrounds in IT security and digital forensics, noticeable progress in the apprehension of cyberstalking suspects can be seen.
The average FBI investigation takes around 18 months. If the FBI needs to coordinate with authorities in other countries, it can take even longer and the process of extradition will further extend the amount of time it will take to go to trial.
Break down IAM silos like Bitpanda, KnowBe4, and PathAI
Broken IAM isn't just an IT problem - the impact ripples across your whole business.
This practical guide covers why traditional IAM practices fail to keep up with modern demands, examples of what "good" IAM looks like, and a simple checklist for building a scalable strategy.
Comments
Mongcon - 7 years ago
In the process of doing research as a journalist, I have been accused of cyberstalking. This in spite of the fact that I am not anonymous, have never made threats and stopped direct contact with the subjects of the story when they requested that I do so. I have been investigated by one local Montana police department, the FBI and the Victoria Police (Australia). All of those investigations were opened based on a: false, hysterical allegations and b: the power of the dark associations with the term "cyberstalker". All three investigations found no basis for criminal action, period. So with that background, I take exception to the paragraph "Obtaining personal information about the victim by accessing public records, using internet search services, hiring private investigators, searching through the victim’s garbage, following the victim around the internet and contacting the victim’s friends, family, co-workers, neighbors, etc." Information in public records is just that, public. Using internet search services is exactly what journalists around the world do all the time. Contacting friends, family, co workers, etc. is also what journalists do. The difference that this article and so many articles on the subject miss is when someone is being "researched" as a private individual and when that person is an intentional public figure. By intentional public figure I refer to anyone who advertises themselves and their professional experience, qualifications in order to further their commercial interests. These are exactly the people I have been researching; self-described explorer/speaker/author, etc. who have web pages advertising them as a business and who have, in my research, used the intrinsic "truthiness" of the internet to commit fraud. All that said, please consider in the future making the critical distinction about a private citizen being "stalked" as opposed to someone who has chosen and promoted themselves as a public persona. Because without that distinction, every investigative journalist can be tarred with the lurid brush of "cyberstalker".
Candice_Lanier - 7 years ago
Any issues with the how the US Department of Justice defines cyberstalking would need to be taken up with them. And, using a search engine doesn't make someone a cyberstalker. It's a combination of actions carried out over a period of time. I didn't write the law. I just wrote about it, so maybe there's an avenue through which you can file a complaint with your government? Or, maybe employ the services of an attorney if you continue to run into problems. As for private vs public persona, in the US that is usually more the focus of civil law - in defamation and/or cyberstalking lawsuits.
Mongcon - 7 years ago
My point was that any article on cyberstalking would serve public knowledge well by including the distinction between public figures and private individuals.
Candice_Lanier - 7 years ago
I do plan to write on this topic again, in the future and can include cyberstalking and civil remedies, which would include the legal distinction between private and public personas.
GoingQuantum - 4 years ago
If you'd like a real time story that parallels the article you've written, please respond to this post and I will share the details of my injunction proceedings, criminal investigation, and year long terror campaign. I would like to do something to prevent other women from going broke paying lawyers to end the harassment and convince the authorities to do their jobs in a timely manner and not try to pass cyberstalking off as a joking matter.
Moreironic3000 - 7 years ago
Very informative article by Candice Lanier. Going on my website. We must be vigilante against the rising opportunity for people to attack and ruin others thru technology.
Candice_Lanier - 7 years ago
Thank you! :-)
GoingQuantum - 4 years ago
What does it actually take for a woman to be taken seriously with cyberstalking. I can't even get local LEO to send a file to the state attorney and it has been going on for a year. "Just ignore him" is not good advice.