Swatting -- Another New Form of Harassment On Rise

By David Simms, Senior Contributor
The Global Institute for Cyber Safety and Standards

A new trend in cyber harassment is something called swatting. This assault occurs when a harasser anonymously files a false police report such as a bomb threat, murder, or other crime in progress for the purpose of provoking the police to raid a victim’s home or business. Although it is considered a harmless way to have “fun” by many younger people, they are in for a sore surprise as it has recently cost one teenager much more than he bargained for. 15-year-old Paul Horner broke down in tears after a judge found him guilty on two counts of domestic terrorism and was sentenced to twenty-five years to life in a United States prison. He is the first person in history to be charged with swatting. In this case, he was found guilty of calling in multiple false threats against rival internet gamers, all resulting in police action that placed individuals in harms way as raids were carried out.  

Swatting is a new fad among gamers targeting those who broadcast themselves and their game play live over the internet to game rivals. It is common for online games to become very competitive, often leading to escalating adverse behaviours. If an internet harasser is able to obtain personal information of their rival or anyone they have a problem with, such as locating their IP and residential address, they will call in a dangerous threat to law enforcement and watch, if possible, on webcams as the victim’s house is forcibly entered by police. Law enforcement agencies say the crime, which has been happening with greater frequency since 2013, wastes valuable resources and places innocent people at risk. Unfortunately, this crime has gone largely unpunished, a fact which seems to encourage more of the same behaviours. However, with the prosecution of the teenager in the above mentioned case, it is sending the message that people will be held substantially accountable for their digital actions.

A Society Dictating Moral Order Online Is A Vigilante Society Of Lawlessness

By David Simms, Senior Contributor
The Global Institute for Cyber Safety and Standards

There is a perspective floating around whereby cyber-bullying on social media is viewed as the result of society’s desire to create moral order online. In certain parts of the world shaming others for their mistakes by identifying what is morally right or wrong gives the ability for internet users to shape social codes and force conformity. A graduate student in Yogyakarta Indonesia faced the wrath of thousands of social media users after tweeting negative angry statements about petrol station staff in the city. People rallied together online demanding the student be banished from the province for her demeaning comments. As a result, police arrested her on defamation charges under the controversial Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) law established in that country.  Another case involved a commuting female worker complaining online about how pregnant women always get a seat wherever they board. In just a matter of hours, her post went viral and she faced a chorus of condemnation.

Countries such as Indonesia where ethnic and religious sentiments are very present in the social fabric of society, tend to see much more group mob-like behaviour when it comes to defending cultural or religious practices.  This drives people to utilise social media as a tool to criticise others they see as breaching the moral code. But is it right?

Contrastingly, a recent study by Pew Research Centre revealed that social media actually works to silence public debate in the United States. The study found Americans tend to not voice their opinions in social media, especially when they feel that their opinion is different from popular views.

Regardless of how you look at the issue, using the online platform to harass others into conformity or bash them because they disagree with prevailing views is wrong. This is not to say people should voice scathing negative opinions without considering the impacts of their statements on others. The bottom line is we should all be kinder and more conscientious when it comes to any online interaction. We must always consider how our comments will be taken but we must also restrain from taking up torches to silence others we disagree with.

A society dictating moral order online is a vigilante society of lawlessness and of that we should be very aware and concerned.

Right To Be Forgotten

By David Simms, Senior Contributor
The Global Institute for Cyber Safety and Standards

In today’s digital world of cyberspace, hate comments, derogatory remarks, or embarrassing photographs that are posted can remain there indefinitely. This has presented a unique problem for those targeted because they have little to no recourse in having harmful content removed. In the not-too-distant-past when a rumour was told it may have made its way about the local circle but would eventually die out. In cyberspace  there is no refuge or reprieve as the same types of damaging personal information or fabrications of such, are ticker-taped around the world.  This has prompted something called the “right to be forgotten” which is becoming a practice in the European Union and Argentina. 

The right to be forgotten enables an individual to have certain data deleted from the internet so that it cannot be viewed or traced. It has been described as the right to remove from view, past events in life that are no longer occurring thereby preventing search engines from indexing them. So far this has helped many find solace from the online harassment experienced in their lives, but it is being challenged in countries such as the United States. The primary argument against “right to be forgotten” is the “right to free speech” which is a central ideology and constitutional right in America.  Interestingly though, current broad interpretations of free speech have nothing to do with its original context, which dealt with the rights of citisens to freely speak opinions against their government without the threat of harm or prejudice toward them for doing so.  The right to be forgotten seems to be a sensible and appropriate practice that should be implemented everywhere yet isn't at the expense of victims.

The Humiliation Game

By David Simms, Senior Contributor

A common tactic used by cyber harassers is to create websites in the name of the person they wish to publicly humiliate. Social media pages have become the most common form of social interaction.  In America and other countries, platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and others, allow people to establish personal relationships and network in the business world. All of these websites make it extremely easy to create profile accounts that can be published and viewed immediately by a very large audience. There is little to no policing of anyone establishing a new account. Cyber harassers take advantage of this fact by generating profiles of the person they are targeting.  Profiles will typically have photos of the person, sometimes in humiliating poses, along with contrived information that puts the victim in a negative light, all with the intent to humiliate as much as possible. 

It is sometimes difficult for a targeted individual to have these false profiles removed as website hosts are typically overwhelmed with requests in the thousands to have content deleted for whatever reason. In order to remove items, the platform provider must have their own staff research the validity of the claim and make a determination based on company policy together with free speech and defamation laws. This process can potentially take an inordinate amount of time to find resolution and is compounded by instances where profiles are not obvious in their malicious intent. These require much additional research to make a proper determination.  Many requests for removal of content are not valid or are trivial but nonetheless draw company resources in resolving them. Unfortunately this takes away from those cases needing immediate resolution. Instead of dealing with the problem on the back end when it has already occurred, preventing it in the first place would be a much better solution.

Talk Or Walk?

By Abigail Clarke: Contributing Content Blogger 

I've a question. Is social media talking the talk without walking the walk? Looking at one of the largest social media websites on the planet, YouTube expresses they are vigilant and proactive when it comes to cyber harassment on their site. They explain that their users express and share opinions on all sorts of topics but that sometimes these expressions can become over-passionate. YouTube says it comes down to simple respect and that the simple rule of thumb should be: if you wouldn’t say it to someone’s face, don’t say it on YouTube. This site claims to take cyber harassment very seriously but also says it will not remove all negative or mean videos about others. They, like all other social media platforms, must walk a fine line between what falls under free speech and what constitutes unlawful harassment. One of the criteria they use is to determine whether an account is dedicated to harassing a particular user or the community at large. If it can be clearly shown this is the case, YouTube says it will terminate the harassers account. The problem with this is that not all harassment may be interpreted by YouTube personnel to be harassment, when it clearly is to the individual targeted. 

It occurs to me, bottom line, all social media has to do more than talk the talk. If they really have an interest in protecting social media users then they have to walk the walk. For all their reassuring words, I'm not seeing much weight resulting from what should be their actions.