
I’ve Had a Cyberstalker Since I Was 12 - nols
https://backchannel.com/i-ve-had-a-cyberstalker-since-i-was-12-384ea9853b79
======
shalmanese
There's a moment in the pilot of The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt where the women
are rescued from the bunker and put on a daytime talk show and Matt Lauer asks
one of the women how she ended up in the bunker:

"I had waited on Reverend Richard at a York Steak House I worked at, and one
night he invited me out to his car to see some baby rabbits, and I didn’t want
to be rude, so… here we are."

And Matt Lauer responds: "I’m always amazed by what women will do because
they’re afraid of being rude…"

It's often hard for men to understand the societal pressure placed on women to
be accommodating and not be rude and how this can be manipulated to constrain
female agency in the world.

~~~
fpgaminer
> It's often hard for men to understand the societal pressure placed on women
> to be accommodating and not be rude and how this can be manipulated to
> constrain female agency in the world.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to call out this statement as sexist. There are
also several other strange "facts" being passed around in other comments which
are similarly biased. To be clear, I'm not calling you sexist. In fact, I
think your comment makes a great point about submission to societal pressures
leading to these sorts of problems.

Getting back to the quoted statement, I strongly suspect both genders are
equally susceptible to being manipulated by societal pressures. I also don't
think men find it hard to understand this. If there's data to show otherwise,
I welcome it. In its absence, I believe it more wise to hold this neutral view
rather than perpetuating a gender bias.

Let's use Curb Your Enthusiasm as a means to elucidate my argument. The lead
character in that show gets into all manner of uncomfortable and disastrous
situations as a result of bending to societal pressures; not wanting to be
"rude". The lead character is male and I'll bet more guys than not can relate.
Perhaps not to the same scale as what is portrayed in the show, because the
show is meant to be entertaining, but perhaps more on the level of The Office
(US) awkwardness.

So I doubt that societal malleability differs between the genders. You're
still right in bringing it up, though, because indeed this habit of not
wanting to be rude is clearly a contributing factor to cyberstalking cases. I
just don't think it's what leads to a greater number of females being victims
versus males.

~~~
jahewson
> I strongly suspect both genders are equally susceptible to being manipulated
> by societal pressures.

Sure but which gender does society place more pressures on?

~~~
wutbrodo
I won't pretend that I know what the answer to this is, but the idea that the
answer is evident is fucking absurd. Gender roles cut quite sharply both ways,
and the only way to think otherwise is willful ignorance: for one extremely
obvious example to anyone with even a second of thought, how often do you see
men crying?

------
btilly
Yeah, it sucks, but no surprise. Stalking is an old, old problem. And the
police won't do anything until it turns violent. You can stalk normal people,
movie stars, business people - pretty much anyone other than a psychiatrist.
(It turns out that psychiatrists have a really easy time getting their
stalkers committed to insane asylums.)

I know a woman who owns nothing in her own name, changes her phone number
frequently, and whose own family often does not know how to reach her. All to
make it harder for her stalker to keep tracking her down. When she acquired
the stalker she was high profile so the FBI actually did send someone to give
her advice. The advice was basically that she was screwed, how to best hide,
and to get trained guard dogs.

I wish I was joking.

~~~
jsmthrowaway
> And the police won't do anything until it turns violent.

Try violating a restraining order taken out against you and see if you
maintain that opinion.

The behavior you describe as well as that of the article qualifies for seeking
a restraining order, which this entire discussion seems to have forgotten is
in existence. Once you have a EPO/TRO/PRO, _then_ the police care when it is
violated. A _lot_. It's easy for them to enforce and requires no
investigation, which is the thorn that hits a lot of people when they try to
get cases like this going with the police. As an example, my father went to
jail more than once for violating my mother's PRO. It's also on the person's
record, which is why it is good to involve a lawyer if someone files one
against you.

I'm one more contact from my own stalker away from filing for one, but he
seems to have forgotten about me for now. I'm mystified that the FBI advised
your friend and the topic of a restraining order did not come up at all. I
spoke with the FBI about my stalker after he threatened to kill me across
state lines and it was the first thing they told me to do. Undoubtedly, there
is more to your anecdote.

In California, as long as you choose the right kind (i.e., not domestic for
civil), restraining orders are fairly trivial to get. In some cases you can
get a legally-binding TRO from a judge, in a day, for free. They also show up
on computers in a police officer's cruiser in California (thanks to the
digitization of all of it in CLETS), so if you are literally standing in front
of a person on whom you have a EPO/TRO/PRO and get a cop's attention, the
crime is open and shut and they _will_ arrest, speaking from experience. Bonus
in California and maybe elsewhere: if you successfully take out a restraining
order on someone, they have to surrender all their firearms or sell them (yes,
really).

Seriously. Restraining orders, people. The courts are at your disposal, and
they're not just for domestic violence.

Edit: Except in New York, apparently, where the author of the article lives.
Go New York. New York readers: vote to fix that incredibly moronic situation
at once, then travel to a sane state on this like California and go back home
with one of ours, which should be enforceable there. Seriously, in the
Internet age, the complete absence of a non-dating civil protective order
mechanism is an absolute and disgusting shame, and means your only recourse
from the courts exists _if you make out with your stalker._ What a grandly
perverse incentive you have there from your judicial system. I'm actually
worked up about this from learning it in this thread, and sympathize far more
with the article author now than I did before I knew that.

California resources:

\- [http://www.courts.ca.gov/1260.htm](http://www.courts.ca.gov/1260.htm)

\- [http://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-
domesticviolence.htm](http://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-domesticviolence.htm)
(dating/relationship/etc)

\- [http://www.courts.ca.gov/1044.htm](http://www.courts.ca.gov/1044.htm) (not
dating, impossible in New York, apparently)

~~~
btilly
Oh, she got specific advice about restraining orders.

The specific advice was, "The point at which a stalker is likely to flip out
is the point where it becomes obvious to the stalker that the attention is
unwanted and the relationship can never work. There is a real possibility that
the act of taking out a restraining order will trigger a murder-suicide."

When you're dealing with insane people, you can't expect a sane response to
legal threats.

(And yes, there is a _lot_ more to my anecdote. But not stuff I'll talk about
in public.)

~~~
ryanlol
At that point, why not just buy a gun and start going to a shooting range?
Most US jurisdictions have a legal framework that enables you to kill others
in self-defense.

I don't personally believe that anyone should have to do this, but I also
believe that if you feel sufficiently threatened it'd be silly to ignore your
legal right to self-defense.

~~~
hga
_Most US jurisdictions have a legal framework that enables you to kill others
in self-defense._

 _ALL_ US jurisdictions have such a framework, although a 7 plus D.C. make it
impractical to use by mostly not allowing concealed carry, and a subset of
them have a duty to retreat which will likely get you crucified later in court
(e.g. Maryland and at times, even in your home, Massachusetts). The author is
said to live in New York, which is all but no _possession_ let alone no issue
in NYC, and may issue, sometimes liberally upstate, so she probably can't take
your advice.

ADDED: And it still won't stop the cyberstalking, just give her a backstop if
it goes "real world".

~~~
ryanlol
I wasn't talking about the article, but responding to btillys comment and
btilly never clarified the jurisdiction where the events he was describing
took place.

I do think that the ability to defend yourself would be of great help if
you're faced with a serious threat of physical violence, as seemed to be the
case in the situation btilly described.

> a subset of them have a duty to retreat which will likely get you crucified
> later in court

This is what I was referring to with "most".

------
nowarninglabel
"When I got a Facebook account in 2006 he found me again and, not wanting to
be rude, I accepted his friend request."

It's hard to understand why, having previously already blocked this person
elsewhere, they would accept a friend request from them. I suppose now, 10
years later, one can hope that people exact greater control over their online
social networks.

~~~
scotty79
Firstly I'd like to state that there's no justification for what this guy is
doing. Making somebody's life intentionally and persistently miserable can
have no justification.

The story basically starts with a boy falling in love with a girl that won't
love him back. She's still using interaction with him for her purposes though.
Then the boy grows into a man and his addiction to a person gets deformed into
addiction to harming this person in non-violent ways. That's what happens to
some people. Happens in marriages too. If teenagers are weird adults are way
weirder.

I went similar route. I had it easier than this guy. I fell in love at the age
of 16 (so later than him). I already had one episode of unrequited love
earlier (probably around age of 12) which was extremely wisely ended by my
love interest and friend by cutting all (and I mean all) contact with me when
she learned about it.

This second girl I spent about 7 years addicted to. I was her friend. Even
after she learned that I'm in love with her she still kept me around. Used me
for comfort. Used me even as a rebound when she needed to ditch her second
boyfriend whom she loved but who apparently got bored with her (in my state of
mind I was more than happy to help).

Who knew how it all would end if I haven't made conscious decision to cut all
contact. It was really hard. It took a year of manually steering away my
thoughts from her. I had to vilify in my mind the person I loved. I had to
ignore all pings from her (fortunately it was before Facebook, so just emails
and texts) which fortunately wasn't that many of. When you are an addict every
dose is something you need to be very careful about. She had new boyfriend at
the time so she eventually forgot me and my brain formed mental scar tissue
around pathways carved over the previous 7 years. I got comfortable, even
happy. I met a girl who loved me and moved in with her (fortunately didn't get
addicted again).

10 years later I meet object of my addiction on the street 100 meters from my
new home where I live now. She's with another man, she's pregnant. She just
accidentally lives in my neighborhood. I'm scared shitless. Fortunately I
haven't met her again. I have no idea if she moved or still lives around. I
don't get out much. She made one more attempt to contact me (through Facebook
because I accepted her friend request, because everyone has capacity to be
stupid occasionally). I answered with "?" She responded with something with
something about staying at home with child broadening horizons. I responded
with image that basically implies that she finds her child boring. Which she
somewhat acknowledged and fortunately haven't contacted me ever since.

I can imagine many points in my history when I might have turned into a
stalker. If I was more lonely, had less support from my family, was less
intelligent, was less introspective, had less knowledge or interest in
psychology, had less awareness about how my feelings are not necessarily my
identity... It could have turned ugly for everybody.

Brother of my mother was an alcoholic. I might be prone to addiction. I binge
watch series. I binge game. I'm addicted to news. But I'm also addicted to
learning new things and to figuring why stuff doesn't work when it should. The
only addiction that severely harmed me was to a person. But I see I lucked out
when I read stories like these.

Issue of stalking is real and I hope in the future there'll be a lot more
research about this and that efficient ways to mitigate this will be
developed. I think whatever the solution is it involves stalker getting
psychological or psychiatric help.

~~~
hollander
About eight years ago I met a girl who I fell in love with almost instantly.
Except she didn't fall in love with me. We had a fantastic first date, a
terrible second, and an OK third, after which it ended. She had a real impact
on me, with that first date. And she knew it. She could transform herself, her
looks and her character, into this beautiful, lovely, hip, warm person. She
was not a model, not fake hair or makeup, just a really attractive woman.

The second date I didn't recognize her. She came in pale clothes, hair without
effort, barely makeup, and even today I'm confused if I think about it. It
could have been someone else, and the date was a disaster. Not because of her
clothes, but because of the stress test I was subject to. I didn't realize
then what it was, just was taken by surprise and didn't know how to handle it.
We had a third date, after which she let me know she didn't want to see me
anymore.

In the email she sent, she let me know that she would never contact me again,
really never, and I didn't have to try to contact her. She made it absolutely,
without any doubt, clear that it would be totally pointless for me to keep on
dreaming about her. Whatever I did could not change her mind. It was a long
mail with a thorough explanation, and sound conclusion that this was the end.

Looking back, I realize that she must have had several stalkers. Maybe not the
type that follows her 15 years, but guys that are flabbergasted by her
appearance, fall in love, but cannot handle her, after which she dumps them,
and they can't accept that. They may accept that mentally, but not
emotionally. This is like an addiction, that's what it is, to me at least.

Thinking about this, I believe that she had her quirks as well. The way she
devoted herself to things in her life, it was all or nothing. And so was my
date with her.

I don't blame her. I don't think she meant wrong, or tried to trick me. I
believe she was honest. But it is her way of acting that makes this happen as
much as my way of reacting. I'm over her by the way, mentally and emotionally,
and I haven't spoken to her since.

------
joyeuse6701
I feel for this person. I recently had a stalker over the summer, a family
friend whom I met at my sister's wedding. He had some sort of break down,
declared me to be his lover, received my email via unwitting family members.
Luckily someone had raised the alarm. Said stalked flew out of state fully
expecting to find me and be with me. It did not happen, but I certainly was
preparing for an altercation and was traumatized by every unexpected knock or
ring at the door.

------
Mithaldu
End result: The thing resolved itself, likely because someone else sued her
stalker.

I have to wonder though: If her local police was ignorant of actual laws
applying to her case, as she indicated, couldn't she just tell the officers
under which exact laws she is making a complaint?

Further, if the local police is generally ignorant and incompetent, what would
her chances for success be in using a lawyer to try and identify appropiate
channels and contacting them?

~~~
na85
>If her local police was ignorant of actual laws applying to her case, as she
indicated, couldn't she just tell the officers under which exact laws she is
making a complaint?

To me at least it's been conclusively demonstrated that 60-90% of police are
completely incompetent.

I would not trust them to do the right thing even if you mentioned the law.

~~~
chris_wot
I don't know how it works in the U.S. but in Australia I had a situation where
someone bumped into my mother on the road and intimidated her as she went down
the highway.

My mother noted the time, the license plate number and ensured she called the
Police Assistance Line we have, after he passed her by. They referred her to
her local police station. She went to see them the next morning, but the
Officer on Duty refused point blank to file a statement. She later went back,
and the same Office on Duty again refused to file a statement. So did his
supervisor.

I knew this was a crime, so I did the following:

1\. I called back the Police Assistance Line and explained that my mother had
been intimidated on the road. I explained the situation and asked if the
police were meant to look into the matter. The Police Assistance line
operator, whose details I took, advised me it is against the law and should be
followed up.

2\. I called the local police station and explained to the person on the line
that my mother had had someone bump into her on the highway, and she was
intimidated. I asked if this was something that was allowed, and the police
officer explained to me that actually, this was something that should be
looked into.

3\. I then explained to the police officer that my mother had already tried to
have a statement taken twice already, but it was declined each time and the
supervisor would not go ahead with it either. I asked to speak to the duty
sergeant.

4\. The duty sergeant, after I explained the situation to him again, sounded
very sheepish and promised to look into the matter.

The Police finally took a statement.

Now if that had been me, I would have taken matters further and lodged a
complaint with the Ombudsman. I very much think that police need to learn that
a. they aren't lawyers, and they don't know the law even though many of them
think they do, and b. they also need to know that if they literally stop
others from reporting crimes (not even the point of acting on crimes,
_reporting_ of a crimes) then they will be buried in paperwork because of
their jerkish behaviour.

~~~
kaitai
Are you a guy? It might have something to do with the different response.

~~~
chris_wot
Dunno why you got downvoted, that's a valid response. Yeah, I'm a guy and yes,
it did occur to me that might have been part of the reason I got a different
response.

------
fabulist
One thing I learned in this article is that it's someone's job to call the
victims of stalkers, apologize on their behalf, and ask to be notified if the
behavior continues. It makes me wonder what process is initiated if they
inform the lawyer that "Danny" has resumed harassing them. Will the lawyer
call "Danny" and tell his client to shut up? Will he be billed for that time?
Is the idea that, given a sufficiently expensive lawyer, he won't be able to
afford his stalking habit?

It is interesting that they appear to have published this under their real
name. No doubt "Danny" has read it with interest.

------
YouYouMeMe
What I've read from the article, beside the obvious, is how unaware people are
about how technology works.

"With Apple and Google unable to help ...".

She thinks Apple and Google should help with spoofed mails b/c an Apple mail
client is used and the spoofed email was from a Gmail address.

Also not understanding identity theft:

"including Danny’s latest identity theft."

Also not understanding the difference between civil legal action and crimes.

In most western countries education about technology and how it works is
insufficient. Same goes for law basics that help with life.

Edit: I don't blame this in any way on her.

------
meowface
While this must have no doubt been a horrid experience, I can see why the cops
would not have considered it worthy of launching a criminal investigation.

This is a perfect case for civil law: causing emotional distress, harassment,
defamation, etc. You should attempt to sue him and get a no-contact order if
you can.

~~~
st3v3r
Even though having a visit from the cops would probably cause this guy to be
scared into no longer doing this?

~~~
striking
Anecdotal evidence suggests that this tactic only works on some people. Some
stalkers don't care when they get a visit from the police (the police very
clearly can't do anything and will state that explicitly).

Some may take a short break and then feel the urge come back; others may just
go right ahead. (Some people don't realize they're stalking, and will stop.
It's worth a try to ask them to stop.)

After having asked nicely, suing is unfortunately your only recourse. And it
really sucks that suing takes so much time, effort, and money, especially in a
situation like this.

------
popeshoe
Not a woman, but Garry of Garrysmod fame has a very interesting set of blog
posts about dealing with and eventually befriending his internet stalker in an
attempt to curb the guy's worst behavior.

[http://garry.tv/2015/11/10/stalkers-and-abuse-
part-1/](http://garry.tv/2015/11/10/stalkers-and-abuse-part-1/)

------
rl3
> _I was never physically afraid of Danny and never will be._

I would be. Danny clearly has more than a few screws loose.

~~~
fabulist
It seems like they've had a lot of time to learn which ones, though.

~~~
rl3
True, although anyone that's both that obsessive and that malicious deserves
to be considered a potential physical threat—barring some sort of major
physical disability.

Even then, it's remotely possible they could still cause physical harm by
proxy.

------
cplease
Okay, so this creep's behavior pretty clearly rises to the level of harassment
at a minimum.

But legally the FIRST thing to do with a stalker or harasser is to TELL them
unequivocally that you want NO further contact. Preferably document in
writing; in New York, you can record conversations that you are party to. At
this point further unwanted contact becomes more clearly a criminal matter.

Too often, those on the receiving end ignore or laugh off bad behavior. This
is natural enough, but unless someone is clearly threatening, if they haven't
been told unequivocally to stop all further contact, then they can always
argue, sincerely or not, that they didn't know their contact was unwelcome. Or
that in any event they were free to continue their advances.

The closest the author explicitly posts is "I caved and sent him a message
asking him to please stop messaging me so much or I’d block him." That is
unlikely enough to suffice as "clearly informed to cease that conduct." All it
would take is a message saying "never contact me again." Period, full stop.
Better yet, add "or I will report you to police." At that point, further
contact is actionable, criminal harassment.

That being said, much of this cyberstalker's behavior is independently
harassing, e.g. forged emails to friends etc. But putting someone on notice is
a first step to protecting yourself. It is premature to go to police to say,
"X is bothering me, I'm not afraid of him and I haven't told him firmly to go
away, but I really want him to go away." If someone isn't in any way actually
putting you in fear, and all that is involved is unwanted
communications/nonphysical contact, then it's on you to first tell him to go
away before involving police. Then if he won't, you have an unambiguous
complaint.

Edit: The author does also describe some poor policing. Good community-
oriented policing centers around mediation. Ideally the police in this
situation would not simply say "it's not a crime" and make the complainant
feel helpless and ignored, but would try to solve help solve the problem.
Specifically by taking a report and offering to communicate to the person that
all further contact is unwelcome and may lead to a criminal complaint, and
documenting this. This type of approach is likely to help bring an end to the
behavior, or in the alternative lay a foundation for a future, actionable
criminal complaint. In the best case, behavior improves, complainant can move
on with her life, police don't have to deal with future complaints, everybody
wins. Sadly many departments just don't want to get involved or have the
resources to deal with community mediation, even if it pays for itself over
time.

~~~
jsmthrowaway
> in New York, you can record conversations that you are party to.

In case people get ideas from this and are unaware, California and several
other states are the "other" ones that forbid this without consent from both
parties in certain circumstances. Yes, even recording your stalker could get
you prosecuted. Yes, it has happened. Yes, it is stupid. Yes, it even affects
reporters to an extent.

IANAL, consult yours. You may also find the reference material I consulted on
this while working in journalism useful: [http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-
recording-guide](http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide)

------
randyrand
>Two years passed before I finally decided to take legal action, in late 2014.
Maybe it seems weird that I waited so long

What seems weird is it does not sound like she ever tried to actually confront
him. Block after block, but not really confronting him. It seems she didn't
want to hurt his feelings. But waited until police action? That seems like a
terrible approach.

The most confrontational she got was "I caved and sent him a message asking
him to please stop messaging me so much or I’d block him." How surprising that
didn't work.

You need to be more confrontational in a situation like this - either a heart
to heart approach where you lay it on them, or something more aggressive.
Blocking for the umpteenth time is not going to work.

You could call this critique victim blaming, but the my intent to encourage
people to handle the situation better, without someone repeating her mistakes.

------
fiatmoney
Most of these amount to libel, at worst. File suit.

There are excellent reasons for police to be uninvolved in what amounts to
people saying mean things, even if those mean things are directed at your
employer or friends.

~~~
tempestn
If it were a one-off incident I would agree with you. But a consistent pattern
like this over _years_ is stalking, and either is or should be a crime. In my
opinion this clearly summarizes why:

> For Franks, a big theme is that the “fundamental feeling of security that
> most people take for granted is taken away.” She has spoken to hundreds,
> maybe thousands, of victims in her research, who describe constant feelings
> “having to look over one’s shoulder” that keep them from engaging fully in
> their lives, online or off.

I feel that's true even if you don't believe that the stalker will try to
physically harm you. There is a huge emotional toll to dealing with that kind
of thing, and it's not something that should just be tolerated.

(That said, I recognize that police have limited resources, so putting more
toward this would mean less for something else, or an increase in funding.)

~~~
fiatmoney
So sue! That and restraining orders are designed for _exactly this_.

~~~
tempestn
So why have crimes at all? If someone steals from you, or assaults you, you
can always sue. The thing is, that shouldn't be the victim's responsibility.

~~~
fiatmoney
You're acting like libel just became a problem in the last 5 years. There are
good reasons why we don't really have criminal defamation prosecutions
anymore. They _always_ involve tons of disputed facts, and they require tons
of resources to investigate. Choice of cases is always political.

Let me tell you who is a good candidate for a "cyberstalking" charge. You
maintain a database of police involved in questionable shootings. When one of
them gets canned from their present department, you track the new PD they're
foisted onto, and make sure to let the local BLM chapter know about the bad
apple they're about to get, and a lurid description of what you think their
crimes are. Why, that sounds worthy of some prosecutorial resources (election
year, after all). Aren't you glad you made being mean on the internet a crime?

Get a fucking restraining order. It's ridiculously easy; too easy, in fact, to
the point where they're routinely used as leverage in other civil disputes.
Violation of restraining orders is a crime. This is a solved problem.

------
benten10
...so how many women are actually commenting on this post? Raise your hands
please?

Hahaha, this is a _classssic_ hackernews discussion. "There is absolutely no
discrimination. Women are held to the same standards as men. They just
complain. Saying that women have it unfair is ITSELF sexist" type arguments
are the best (for entertainment value).

@dang and other hackernews people: Regardless of if you agree with them or
not, you do realize that this will reflect on Ycombinator's perception/PR
right? No amount of office hours for women is going to counter this RIDICULOUS
volume of INSANELY UNAWARE sexism going around in these forums. I mean, for
YCombinator's sake I hope you guys agree with most of the comments here,
otherwise this is just deadweight on whatever your 'diversity' aims may be.
Calling them lazy, complaining fools is how you put the bullseye on your backs
for the time when the pitchforks come out.

Just saying. This is ridiculous. It doesn't have to be this way. Really.

~~~
marcusgarvey
thanks for saying this. it's shocking to see the cesspool that the comments
become whenever gender and race issues are raised on this site. are people
really this clueless?

------
zbruhnke
I think this person misses a key point here. She does not have a "Cyber
Stalker" \- She has a Stalker ... No matter the medium of the majority of
these incidents if materially affects her life in several ways and more and
more as our world blurs from the real world to a digital reality these things
are really one in the same and should be treated as such.

I say this not to say that she is wrong but to help raise all of our personal
awarenesses and biases to this type of situation.

The term "Cyber Stalker" tends to make it seem less threatening or serious
when in reality it can be just as dangerous and possibly even more so to the
person on the wrong end of this.

I hope she gets this remedied in the near future, but I also hope she and
maybe others reading this will realize how closely that line is walked and how
we should start considering it the same crime as our data and our digital
footprint becomes more an integral part of our lives.

------
chris_wot
I know this is entirely inadequate, but what about suing for defamation?

The police, I fear, want to start getting a bit more proactive. When someone
is able to get away with sabotaging someone else's life with complete impunity
from authorities, a lot of people take actions in their own hands.

------
randyrand
> Men can be victims of cyberstalking, too, but the majority of victims are
> women, who tend to experience “particularly severe” harassment online,
> according to the survey. Just about everyone has been name-called or subject
> to some other sort of verbal abuse online, but women are the predominant
> targets of sexual harassment and the sustained abuse that constitutes
> cyberstalking, typically considered the most serious form of internet
> harassment.

Love how she so quickly brushes men under the rug. "This is a woman problem!
Not a mans porblem!" Why do we generalize issues? Why not focus on all cyber
stalking, not just cyber stalking by men? Its serious issue that I sympathize
with.

------
arbre
There should be laws against this. A judge should be able to tell when a
behavior is harassment, and forbid the harasser from contacting the person
again with more severe charges if he does again.

~~~
rory096
There are – that's a restraining order.

~~~
wheat74
I think that's the point he was making. I think his post was saying she should
have pursued that sometime during those years of stalking.

~~~
enneff
If that was the point then it would have been better made explicit.

~~~
cplease
If someone is not a relative or intimate partner, there's no easy way to get a
civil restraining order against someone in New York the way you can in
domestic cases. There either has to be a criminal prosecution to get a
criminal restraining order, or you have to retain a lawyer and file a full-
blown lawsuit in a court of general jurisdiction.

It should definitely be enough for police to act if you establish that you
demanded that contact cease and and that it continued unabated. In this case
it seems that the author may not have clearly established it, perhaps did not
understand the best way to frame this, and police were unhelpful and didn't
want to be involved unless there were threats or a domestic incident involved
(where mandatory arrests come into play).

------
at-fates-hands
I knew two women who were being stalked online. Both took physical violence to
end their stalking.

The first woman I told a friend about. We worked together as landscapers for a
local company. He was a low level drug dealer and had some sketchy friends.
The more I talked about her and the ongoing saga, he finally told me for a few
hundred bucks, he could get it to stop. A few weeks went by and I didn't think
much about it, until she said her stalkers messages started going up a notch
just like in the story.

I never told her, but I found out the guy's name and after a quick DOXing, I
found out where he lived and some other useful information like the bars he
frequented. I paid my buddy $200 and turned the information I had on my
friends stalker over to him. A week later, my friend said she stopped getting
messages from the guy. I found out much later he sent two of his "associates"
over to talk to the guy at work. They got him out in the parking lot and
assaulted him pretty good. Broken nose, busted lip and several broken ribs.
They warned him they would come back and pay him another visit if he didn't
stop stalking my friend. It did work and less than a year later, she graduated
and moved out of the city.

The other situation was very similar. Another friend of mine was being stalked
by a college ex-boyfriend. He was unrelenting, showing up at her work,
following her to the bar, and other strange stuff. She finally told her father
about after almost two years of him stalking her. Her dad was an ex-marine and
had done several tours in Vietnam. He was a quiet guy, but you could tell you
didn't want to cross him.

She lived in the city where we were going to college, so most of the time, she
lived at home. Her stalker made the mistake of following her home one day. She
went in and her Dad asked why there was a car parked down the street. She went
to look out the window and knew it was her crazy ex and told her Dad to call
the police. Instead, he told _her_ to call the police and hurry because
something bad was about to happen. He took his handgun and went through the
backyards in order to sneak up on his car. He yanked him out of the car (he
later said, "You should have seen the terror in his eyes!") and slammed him on
the ground and put the gun in his face and told him he knew who he was and if
he ever came near his daughter he would make sure he would walk with a limp
the rest of his life or worse. He make it clear not to mess with him or his
family ever again. The cops showed up a few minutes later and arrested him for
an outstanding warrant and thanked her Dad for calling them. Thankfully, that
was the end of her ordeal.

I would never advocate violence in these situations, but when you feel
helpless, sometimes there are no other alternatives.

------
golergka
OK, first of all: I don't question that this guy turned out to be an asshole
and a stalker and that author is a victim.

But I can't help but raise a question of definitions here. He was a stalker
for 4 years, not for 12. His behaviour during first years of their
relationships wasn't something that I would even remotely call "stalker
behaviour". Up until this point:

> I caved and sent him a message asking him to please stop messaging me so
> much or I’d block him. “Ok. good luck on your quest,” he wrote back three
> minutes later. “Huh,” I thought. “That was easy.” Then he sent three more
> angry messages in quick succession and I blocked him on Facebook.

there's literally nothing in the description of his behavior that calls for
the term "stalker". (Later — of course).

------
YouYouMeMe
Amazing.

"I caved and sent him a message asking him to please stop messaging me so much
or I’d block him."

... "so much or I'd block him." <\--- the stalker?

~~~
hollander
Yep, it's reinforcement all over. Everything she does that does not shut him
off completely, without notice, without any reaction, that is rewarding to
him. I don't blame this girl for this, because she did the best she could, but
from the outside it is rather clear how this works. The problem is probably
mostly emotionally, on her side. For some reason she could not end it
completely and hand it over to the police.

~~~
ctdavies
Sorry, but it does sounds to me like you are blaming the victim when you write
"The problem is probably mostly emotionally, on her side." It's her stalker
who has the emotional problem. Calling her emotions the problem appears to me
rather sexist, given that women are stereotyped as overly emotional.
Furthermore, she DID stop responding, and she DID go to the police, but they
didn't do shit. Please read the article more carefully, and please don't place
the burden of justice on the victim.

------
kriro
What's with the image overlay. Can't read the text. Is that some sort of art?
It looks cool but makes the site unusable. Entire layout seems broken (latest
FF, OSX) Edit: seems to be broken on the entire site not just for this article

------
st3v3r
Honestly, this guy needs to be thrown away in a cell and forgotten about. He
clearly is not willing to stop on his own, and, quite frankly, I can't see him
stopping for anything other than being locked away.

~~~
jkern
That's a pretty disturbing concept of justice

~~~
st3v3r
Why? This guy has, time and again, harassed this person after being asked to
stop. He has shown that he does not care to follow the rules of civilized
society.

~~~
ank_the_elder
So there's no hope for his rehabilitation? I hardly think so. You also seem to
believe that prisons exist merely to punish rather than deter and/or
rehabilitate - which, incidentally, reveals the most cursory of understandings
of the penal system.

~~~
st3v3r
No, I am very much in favor of rehabilitation over punishment. However, there
are people who don't respond to that. I believe this guy is one of them. 12
years, and he didn't stop? That's not someone who's interested in
rehabilitation.

------
DanielDent
Is it weird that when I saw the article title, I thought it was going to be
about the NSA?

------
brandonmenc
Seems like a great opportunity for a company that "bounty hunts" cyberstalkers
- tracks them down then physically intimidates them for you.

~~~
NeutronBoy
Both Reddit and 4chan have demonstrated exceptionally well why this is a
terrible idea.

~~~
chris_wot
I shouldn't do this, but I will.

In the specific case mentioned here, where state and Federal law enforcement
won't take charge, why shouldn't she find a professional investigator to
confirm who the perpetrator is, then use the same tactics he has used against
her against him?

After all, law enforcement refuse to take action right? So it appears that law
enforcement wouldn't care if she ensured that he is kept out of the picture.

(for the record, I'm playing devil's advocate)

~~~
dbcurtis
I'm not sure an investigator is the most productive course. If it was me, I'd
start with a Cease and Desist letter from a lawyer. Cost: about 2 billable
hours. If that fails, since there is, in fact, a law being broken, and now the
creeper has ignored a C&D, get a court order. No need to involve police, they
can continue writing speeding tickets and tending to other urgent matters. If
the creeper ignores the court order, then see if you can get a bench warrant
issued. Although, in this case, it sounds like the person is mentally ill --
what you can do about that varies greatly from state to state.

~~~
chris_wot
Now that's actually a very clever solution! Never considered this. Thank you.

------
LordKano
So...

Why didn't she just give him a firm, but polite "I'm not interested"?

I'm not saying that stalking and/or harassment are acceptable. I'm just saying
that she probably could have avoided 14 years of misery if she had just
politely told the guy that there was no potential for anything more.

Women need to learn to reject people in whom they're not interested. They
think they're being "nice" or at the very least, being "not mean" but they are
being incredibly cruel by letting the other person think there's hope when
there isn't.

Don't expect him to take the hint. Tell him directly.

~~~
andreasvc
You're blaming the victim. Do you really believe she didn't tell him no
clearly?

> Women need to learn to reject people in whom they're not interested

No, that's not the problem, women get plenty of experience with that. People
should not stalk or harass, period.

~~~
goda90
People should not stalk or harass. Authorities and all other members of
society should take stalking and harassing seriously. BUT potential victims
should take reasonable measures to protect themselves too(not saying that a
"firm rejection" is enough or even safe though). I hope Internet safety
instruction becomes more of a thing in our education system.

~~~
LordKano
Exactly.

What she did would be interpreted by someone with limited social skills as
sending mixed signals. She went out for a meal with him when he showed up
unannounced and gave her a gift.

She'd block or ignore him sometimes and engage him other times.

No, he shouldn't have harassed her but she should have been clear from the
beginning that the attention was unwanted.

------
dsfyu404ed
So this woman is unlucky enough to both be the target of a persistent stalker
and persistent stalker who manages to stay withing the letter of the law while
being incredibly annoying. Big deal, people get struck with lightening and
bitten by sharks from time to time too. She just happens to be able to write
about her bad luck in a particular corner of the internet that gets more than
nil for traffic.

Sure it probably freaks her out a lot (and rightfully so) but did she really
expect any authority to be able to take action on that basis. Think of the
kinds of shit that would hit the fan if "distasteful behavior that freaks
others out" was enough to get someone arrested (and all the life ruining
things that go with it).

------
sandworm101
Am I the only one who thinks this sounds a little too perfect? A totally
sympathetic female victim, the evil older male, the dismissive male police
force ... it reads like a movie. I'm probably too jaded by such stories on the
internet, but if she was in my office I would probably have a few questions.
Of course if she was in my office then it would be far more than a story I
read on the internet.

