We deal with psychos like this on a daily basis and it is the one reason I'd be more than happy to quit my 15 year stint as operator of an online community.
It is absolutely incredible, the kind of viciousness some people will direct at those they claim to once have loved.
They've obviously got some issues that require professional help. This doesn't seem that far off from stalkers who feel like they are part of a person's life, and turn nasty when rejected (even though they never were a part of the person's life).
That's exactly what they are, only this is the online variety. The hardest problem of all for me in dealing with this is that you simply can't reason with these people.
The only thing you can do is ignore them. Become a stone wall. If the stalker can't seem to get any reaction out of you, he/she will eventually get bored and start stalking someone else instead.
In the absence of a reaction/interaction mentally disturbed people will make up their own in their head (i.e. he really wants to talk to me, but he's busy; sure he's married, but she holds sway over him and it's obviously a loveless marriage; etc). There is no logic to be applied here.
Surely this is the wrong approach - instead of trying to remove every post about him online (ultimately impossible) he could employ a company to produce content with enough SEO juice to outrank everything else when searching for his name.
What you suggest might be possible if the sites were low PR etc., but now that it's a news story, the Streisand effect pretty much negates that approach.
That's true. Plus the fact he is an unemployed teacher who probably has no money to spare on SEO. However, I think this story at least will help a little getting a new job. I guess he will certainly put a link to this piece on his resume.
Male teachers are probably the most vulnerable targets to such attacks. If you're male and a teacher, it's probably best to use a different name in all non-professional activities (said only partially in jest).
That said, he should've announced his name on a press release associated with this news story and took advantage of the Google juice of the mainstream press (EDIT: oh he did).
One can't do much about comments on websites, but man, secure your machines. I'm willing to bet that "hacking his email" consisted of firing up his Windows machine, opening the account with no password, and starting Outlook. Same for the nude photos.
Yeah, yeah, "trust" and all that. I don't think my own wife of nearly 20 years has spent more than ten minutes total logged onto one of my accounts on any machine in our home. I trust her, she just doesn't need to, she has her own account. Random chick I've been dating who displays just a little bit of psycho bitch from time to time? Yeah, that machine gets locked down with a high-entropy password and she gets guest privileges.
Unless you've got full-drive encryption going on, I don't know what "accounts" have to do with actual security if they've stolen your computer and have physical access to the drive.
evil maid attack wouldn't have worked in this situation, since she broke in and stole the laptop. I also doubt she has the know-how to perform an evil maid attack. Enabling a BIOS boot password would make it more difficult to stealthily perform an evil maid attack. Finally, "no security is perfect" is not an excuse for having no security.
I was talking about the general situation - the grandparent post talks about his wife's access for example.
I also said a competent attacker.
Also, I wasn't saying that disk encryption is worthless. If your laptop gets stolen by someone who has not previously had access to your computer (or confiscated at a border) then your data is secure.
Googling "lebron james teacher" shows a few basketball instructional videos, so that's a start. And there are Vancouver articles about LBJ too, so that covers "lebron james vancouver"...
Widespread facial recognition didn't identify the Boston bombers. So long as he resists the need to post many photos of himself publicly, and avoids social networking sites, he should be relatively safe.
Yeah, I heard about sites like those before, often one is welcome to pay to have their info removed, similar to those "check to see if a registered criminal lives in this neighbourhood" sites.
I wanted to check if this was the case--they usually hint at it pretty clearly, as it's their main source of income--but it appears the domein is currently parked (or perhaps the news article listed it wrong and it's spelled differently, I don't care to figure it out).
... found it, liarscheatersrus.com/contact-us conveniently links to "internet reputation control.com" and "remove names.com", both sites that also conveniently name liarsandcheatersrus.com plus a short list of very similar SEO-happy domains. Wouldn't surprise me if they're all operated by the same people, or at least split the money people pay to have their names cleared.
This is unbelievable - what the hell does she gain by this? She not only ruined his life, but hers too. Now her pic is online, complete with what she did. She is on the run from Malaysian authorities. All of this, for what? This is beyond crazy.
Your last sentence almost certainly contains the answer to your question. It seems to me that this would be the next step: work on building a case to have her committed. That's not an easy thing to do even in the best of cases, but she seems to be cooperating (knowingly or otherwise).
Maybe that was the correct answer the first time. That's a dangerous pattern of behavior. Setting restraining orders and putting up barricades isn't the answer much of the time.
My heart goes out to this guy, he did what anyone would do. "I just want this to be over" and acted defensively. A life lesson, as I see it: Offense over defense. Get her in a room with a moderator and a camera, reason with her/use recording as grounds to get her committed.
I wonder if people (like that webmaster of liarsandcheaters etc) would sympathize more if the genders were reversed.
Also, it is sad that Google wouldn't remove these pages from their index, even after a court order. They spend so much time policing the DMCA stuff etc, but unwilling to spend a few minutes helping this guy out.
Can we all remember that being murdered by your spouse or ex is probably an order of magnitude more likely than this, purely from the fact this is making the news rounds where as generally you'll mostly not even hear of a murder by an ex in another state.
That's not to say this isn't interesting from a SEO or how do we live in a world where information cannot be removed once it's out there perspective. Or even how information attacks are possible.
But if you're getting up in arms about this personally it's a good reason why you shouldn't read the news because this is less likely than being murdered and that I doubt you'd worry much about that.
Are you suggesting that injustices only matter depending on their statistical likelihood to happen to me (or you) personally? For example, I shouldn't care about a serial killer murdering strippers because I'm not, nor ever intend to be a stripper?
People try to paint these types of things as being a problem unique and newly introduced with the advent of the Internet. In truth, there have always been ways to slander and defame someone just because you don't like them. You can always post an anonymous editorial in the paper about someone, or make an anonymous phone call to DHR or child services slandering someone. It's not just 'cyberstalking'. There has never been much recourse for victims of slander.
But surely it is very different when you can post an endless river of vicious comments in thousands of different places, have those comments searchable by anyone, and then have the world's most trusted search engines compile those comments in a way that suggests that they are the most relevant for a persons name.
And I don't think that anyone could ever have posted an "anonymous editorial" in a paper. Newspaper content is written by staff (or wire services) and letters to the editor are curated.
You can submit an editorial to any newspaper in the world anonymously, whether they choose to publish any of the material contained therein would be up to the newspaper and whether they though there was any validity (or more likely, public interest) in the editorial.
> "Little did I know, this was just the beginning of this campaign of harassment and cyberstalking," said Clayworth
Although the ex-girlfriend was responsible for the initial breakin, email spoofing, and posting of pictures, does the teacher know for sure she's really responsible for the continuing campaign of harassment and cyberstalking. Perhaps someone else is taking advantage of the opportunity for anonymity by supplementing her efforts.
Some people who harass do it anonymously, keeping themselves well hidden. This often also entails watching and monitoring the target closely. When they do say something publicly, it will have two possible meanings so it's all deniable. Often, they'll use their positions of influence to implicitly encourage others to do the hands-on dirty work of slagging publicly.
Yes, we can easily create a slew of alternative explanations.
But the simplest explanation - something that's happened many many times to many people - is that a single person is harassing this guy.
The problem with creating alternative explanations is that some people will start saying things like "Maybe he did something to cause this? Maybe he could have done something different?" And that's a problem, because stalking and erotomania are genuinely scary. It's hard to believe when you're the person that it's happening to, and it's hard to believe for people outside it, but that's why we should be careful not to pin blame onto the victim.
> It's hard to believe when you're the person that it's happening to, and it's hard to believe for people outside it, but that's why we should be careful not to pin blame onto the victim.
That's true, I'm not disputing that. But it's also hard for many people to believe that certain types of people exist who'll hide themselves, watch others, and run a smear campaign without ever showing themselves.
"does the teacher know for sure she's really responsible for the continuing campaign of harassment and cyberstalking. Perhaps someone else is taking advantage of the opportunity for anonymity by supplementing her efforts."
The courts believe otherwise and she cops to the efforts.
You can simply go by another name in many countries, without having to tell any formal authority. In the UK, if you want a piece of paper to go with it (perhaps for applying for a new passport or the like), you can get a statutory declaration or a deed poll; I know someone who needed one to get his bank account details changed and he literally dropped in unannounced over a lunchtime at a local lawyer's office to bang one out.
Of course, if the perpetrator discovers this, they can just start again using the new name.
But what about credentials? Any degrees or certifications would have to be re-issued, and past employers that might be called for reference would only know him by his current name.
Well, I think the key reason for the name change in this situation is to completely remove the old name from consideration. Having any papers referencing the old name brings up exactly the same issue, whereby a potential employer would say "oh, their name used to be Clayworth? I wonder what I can find about that on Google..."
He could throw around nastygrams, but those don't have the force of law behind them. To get the law on his side, he'd need to actually go through the legal system in the home country of the site in question.
This is my worst nightmare. I had a fairly recent being-trashed encounter and it was the worst month of my life. But thank god it was offline. Made me quite a bit more paranoid about photos, online accounts (closed all), etc. I can't imagine what this must feel like. There really needs to be better legislation for victims.
"When did you qualify? Where did you qualify? Can you give us your details for the criminal records vetting?"
Teachers are qualified (in his original name); registered (in his original name); referenced (in his original name); and vetted (in his original name).
True, but going by a different name may be enough to get past the "What if a parent Google's his name" hurdle that may be one of the reasons for not hiring him.
Going on a media counteroffensive is probably better than trying to change his name and experiencing backlash in the form of the Streisand effect. People would think that he had something to hide, which he doesn't. Going to the press shows humility, which in this case is the antidote to shame.
people will think he has something to hide no matter what. making decisions according to what people think ends up lol - you end up making decisions based on the worst things because those people often have the loudest and strongest opinion. based on what, i don't know, probably because liberal society worships youth and the brash cockiness associated with it.
if people are thinking the worst things about you, should you always be having to defend yourself? what about your own life, what if there are people in it that you're trying to protect who've been very hurt and just need safety and privacy? going to the press shows that in his experience, drawing attention to something has been mostly positive. this is not everyone's experience. the press is responsible for the streisand effect in the first place. i don't see how bowing down before this pressure is humble, although it is probably smart to be media-savvy, not everyone can afford the mental expense. people are different - as if theres only one way to react to a thing like this, as if the style of the reaction says anything about anything.
true humility would require that this person not care about his career any more, accept that probably he's getting a rightful punishment for his moral degradation by dating what seems like a much younger woman in a country where he has a great deal of power, who is not pulling these attacks out of thin air, in a context where, as one commentor says, a 'westerner and crazy chinese' is common - and move on. it's well known among asians that whites look old to them, and that asians look young to white people. white people have the luxury of not having to care what asian people think, and so this is not common knowledge to them and might explain some ignorance on this thread.
my grandfather was a good republican, a mayor of a small town in florida in fact. he raised me to not talk about politics and religion because it's not polite. he said just to do a good job and that would be enough. obviously his times are over if this is the discussion we are having to have and i think that says a lot about this new radical experiment in social relations that the internet has brought about.
slight problem--how would they reap the PR? it'd have to be an anonymous testimonial from the guy, nor is it a great success story you'd tell many people about and recommend them ...
More likely his haircut, or some other negative quality.
Name changes are cheap, at least in America. Change your name, get a new haircut, and voila, you can begin building your new identity. This isn't even an issue with technology, per se.
The guy's not powerless, he just has too much faith in courts. Why else would you be fool enough to sue your psycho ex-girlfriend? Has anyone ever said "boy, I'm glad I got into a legal entanglement with that person who hates me, because it sure resolved the grudge!"
No. Going to the courts is a fantastic method for elongating a momentary hatred to a lifelong vendetta.
Also, this is a culture clash. If you banged an American girl as an itinerant teacher in 1850, her brothers and her father might have just tracked you down to shoot you. Forget about cyberstalkin' -- they would've just stalk-stalked you and killed you like a possum.
Malaysia's sexual mores in 201* != America's 201* mores.
> Malaysia's sexual mores in 201* != America's 201* mores.
Can you elaborate? What does that have to with the article? Are you implying that in Malaysia is normal or acceptable for a woman to cyberstalk a guy like this?
He's implying that the teacher's relationship may have not been ok by Malaysian standards. She might be considered "damaged goods" now (note: I know literally nothing about Malaysian culture.) Here in the States, that might have been dealt with through street justice. That nobody really cares about that sort of thing in the US anymore doesn't mean that it's not a consideration abroad. Her romantic prospects in her home country might be potentially destroyed. That's all speculation; and I'm not, of course, justifying her actions.
Judging by her looks and her name, she is Chinese (there is a large Chinese minority in Malaysia). Also, for Westeners in Malaysia its far more likely to get involved with a Chinese than with a Malay girl, because they Malays are Muslims and are usually looking for Muslim boyfriends.
"Westener with crazy Chinese girlfriend" is something very common, judging by what I witnessed in many years living in China.
I had a friend that returned from Japan after breaking up with a Chinese girl that he met there. The aftermath was interesting to say the least. Must be something cultural.
It doesn't say her age anywhere. He's 35, she looks like she could be rather young. It also says "after they split up" which strikes me as saying nothing; who broke up with whom, how and why? Oh, and "dated for several months", does that mean "had sex with, while she was under the impression it was serious when he knew all along it wasn't for him"?
Mind you, even IF any of those speculations hold any truth, that still wouldn't excuse her way of dealing with that (though it would excuse kicking him in the nuts with gusto though, in my books). But still, that this story is one-sided can't be helped, that it has missing pieces I consider vital makes me suspicious enough to not really care either way.
I'm sure none of the courts ever looked into this when they acted against her. You should be a lawyer with your keen and striking insights that nobody has ever thought of before!
And this has nothing to do with the law, at all, it has to do with my sympathy. It's perfectly legal to hump and dump a third world girl who nearly could be your daughter, and perfectly shitty. That doesn't mean this is what happened here, but we are simply not told WHAT actually did - just that "they separated", as if they did that as a single entity. She's just a psycho ex, that's all you lot here care about; who needs details, who ever saw men take advantage of young girls without technically doing anything wrong, right? Bah, weak, next.
My goodness, you're a piece of work. Do you usually call random people over the internet "too ugly" when they disagree with your opinions?
I support the guy with the limited sets of information I have combined with the experiences of friends who've been stalked and had to file restraining orders and call the cops MANY TIMES against the persons "wronged" by them.
I'm "callous" to unthinking devils' advocates who ignore all the details of any case so they can construct an alternate version of reality and then argue from that position. I care about victims, not you personally.
That I got downmodded within minutes by some clown who didn't feel it necessary to, you know, peruse the keyboard. Couldn't help to notice how pathetic that is.
And no, I simply think context and chronology matters. If I break into a house, does that justify the house owner strapping me down and torturing me for weeks? No, but it's a crucial detail. If you hurt someone who you think can't fight back, and then they do, that's a different story than a random attack out of nowhere.
It still doesn't justify the attack, so I fail to see how it is material. If you thought that (for example) breaking into someone's house justified weeks of torture, then the "breaking into someone's house" part would be relevant. If it doesn't than it's a detail with little importance. There may be some importance in a trial or at sentencing, but this is not a court, and you a not a judge holding sway over his ex-girlfriend's punishment/future.
"So I ran into this guy in a totally dark house, and before I know it I'm strapped to this chair"... what led to something does matter when evaluating sympathy or Schadenfreude. Which is what I actually said in my first post, "for me to care". I haven't been given enough information to get upset on behalf of this guy I never met -- sorry. And I actually don't think what interests me here would interest in court; so?
None of us are judges, now that you mention it. So if there is no use in asking questions, what is the use of accepting it at face value? What, exactly, are we convening here for, as it were?
| what led to something does matter when
| evaluating sympathy or Schadenfreude
Even though you say that breaking and entering doesn't justify weeks of torture, your other statements don't back that up. If you think that nothing deserves weeks of torture, then why do you even need that information to evaluate it (to care)?
Your making up a fantasy situation is why you were downvoted by many people. It's unnecessary slander and the courts did not find any of it in reality. Victim shaming is pretty nasty.
Are there cases where your scenario is true? Sure. Is there absolutely any evidence of this outside your fantasies? No. Someone "looks young" and you're still carrying on with this fantasy after you were informed that AS PER THE STORY she was a well-grown adult.
I think about the opposing sides to plenty of stories, including this one. I don't "bravely" stumble into conversations with baseless crackpot theories and then suggest that others are wrong for not taking them seriously.
It ended badly. That doesn't justify stalking, harassment, and the lies she tried to spread about him, and pushes sane persons towards thinking that perhaps it ended badly because she's not grounded in reality, not because he was somehow cruel. Again, if the stuff she tried to spread in internet postings were true, I would have much more sympathy for her. Since they're fabrications, everything else seems to point towards her being unglued.
I don't understand why we emphasize this article when many women deal with stalking daily. Why is this particular teachers story different? Just last week I had to tell a female co-worker that unfortunately I don't know how to stop someone from following her on Spotify.
It's a daily occurance, to so many women. And it's very uncomfortable.
Why do people keep naked pictures of themselves? That is a bad idea, and doubt that there is anything good that can come from it. Just sayin.
Now- looking at this girls postings, it appears that most were to memegenerator, and other forums that I wouldnt exactly give much credibility to. I guess I just dont see how this could cost someone a job. Arrest records, news stories, etc maybe but a meme generator picture???
>and doubt that there is anything good that can come from it.
For a couple where neither person is crazy, plenty of good comes from it in the form of sexual intimacy.
The fact is that if you're in a long term relationship with someone, trust them, and get close to them, you're going to share details of your life with them that could be used against you. Nobody is so clean that they are immune to this - the only limiting factors are the intelligence of the scorned lover, and the degree of their psychosis.
Here's a thought experiment: What if some guy actually were a child molester, a pedophile, or something from the list of things mentioned in the article. Then one day, his girlfriend finds out about it. And she starts an internet campaign like that -- not because she wants to warn others, but just for personal reasons like the girl from the article.
Would that change how you feel about an internet "smear" campaign like that, the difference obviously being that it's not defamation but facts?
EDIT: Since I'm getting downvoted already, I'd like to add that I don't want to imply that the above is my opinion (nor that it isn't). I'm just genuinely interested in the truthfulness of the statements posted by the girl is a factor relevant to people's judgment of what she's doing. It is completely hypothetical (but that's often the nature of thought experiments).
You're getting downvoted not just because before your edit it did actually seem very much like that is in fact your opinion, but also because it's a very stupid question.
You're asking about a ridiculous hypothetical situation where a person would be guilty of all the things she smears him with (check the articles), a situation where you ask the opinion of random onlookers to imagine they are somehow magically 100% certain of his guilt as a fact, yet this person is somehow not convicted.
I call troll.
Maybe not even on purpose. If you have to qualify your question with "I am just genuinely interested ...", I don't think I ever used that phrase outside of circumstances where I was purposefully trolling.
I see how my post could be perceived as trolling while in fact that was not my intention at all. I certainly did not write about being genuinely interested while I'm actually not.
You're making a good point about how the situation I described is hypothetical. However, I did not write that you as an onlooker would be 100% convinced that all of the things she claims were true. The article actually only names some accusations she makes, and I referred to these in my original question. Therefore, the things she posts may in parts be correct in my thought experiment, and the onlooker knows about that, while other parts of her posts may still be incorrect ("smear").
Note that even with the actual article, i.e., without any knowledge about what actually happened other than what is written in the article, we are all "random onlookers". And we're all forming opinions one way or the other when we read something like this.
I am interested to know how these opinions would perhaps be influenced if we had additional knowledge that isn't explicitly mentioned in the article. The thought experiment I sketched certainly is on an extreme end of the spectrum.
If anything in my post was purposeful, then that it was hypothetical. Since your reply I'm thinking now that perhaps it was indeed "ridiculous" to think something like this up. But again, it wasn't my intention at all to troll.
Why concern yourself with these hypotheticals? I enjoy tech prognostication, but there are so many ways for people to be terrible to each other in reality that dwelling seems unnecessary.
Well, different people find different things interesting. For instance, I might ask: "why concern yourself with Twilight", yet there are many devout fans of the shows.
Devils' advocacy for the sake of devils' advocacy seems a bit onanistic, or worse when it comes to seeing sinister plans in the eyes of victims. I find it interesting to ~do~ it in my own head, plenty of "what if?"s, but targeting victims of various crimes with "what if they deserved their abuse?" sans-evidence doesn't come off as very healthy. It goes in a darker direction than most brainstorming, IMO.
No it wouldn't. It would be just as bad. If a theoretical girlfriend has knowledge of that, she should go to the police and let them and the courts ruin a man's life, regardless of whether it is true.
Statements like this are a serious matter, and the truth or falsehood of them is left for the courts to decide: until then, presumption of innocence rules the day. Barring that, the hypothetical case you mention is essentially indistinguishable from the actual case being discussed.
Yet the roles of the proponents are clearly set in the article: he's the good guy, she's evil girl.
My question is not about whether this is actually the case. My question has been called hypothetical (and rightfully so), thus let me make it clear that I'm not actually talking about these very people, but just about the described events in terms of an abstract storyline.
I think that what we make of a story like that is very much influenced by how we perceive the characters. Many of us will, for instance, be outraged by the actions of this girl - how could she! Now, since we're putting reality aside, what if a week later, there was another newspaper article, this time reporting the conviction of the guy from the first article.
This would then perhaps change our perception of the roles. That was what I was after with my question, and whether that would change the way we assess the girl's actions. I was hoping for a (perhaps more philosophical) discussion, but that clearly didn't work you.
It is now clear to me that I should have made a stricter separation between the abstract events and the concrete people involved. I never meant to accuse the guy (or the girl for that matter) of anything, I apologize for any misunderstandings that might have given such an impression.
Other than that, I've been basically asked "why bother about hypotheticals", so it seems that not a lot of people find such a thought experiment as interesting as I do.
"This would then perhaps change our perception of the roles. That was what I was after with my question, and whether that would change the way we assess the girl's actions.
...
Other than that, I've been basically asked "why bother about hypotheticals", so it seems that not a lot of people find such a thought experiment as interesting as I do."
We all have filters (of varying weight and severity) set up in place to check veracity of the facts streaming into our heads. I don't think we've all "made up our minds", but I'd rather not devote much more effort and headspace to this until any new news comes in.
The problem isn't that people necessarily take presented facts as reality, myself, I consciously go through your process for every article I read. I suppose I'm downplaying your posting it here because I find outward discussion of a situation with limited but fairly striking facts from fairly trustworthy sources (multiple court records). All is possible to be skewed, but I don't have the energy to call up the "attacker" and the "victim" and perform independent research in the matter.
I find it quite disturbing that this is seen as such a terrible situation. You do know that there are several porn sites dedicated to ruining the lives of ex-girlfriends? When the victim is male, suddenly this justifies news articles and a heated discussion.
I feel terrible for the guy, but this is gender-biased hypocrisy. The comments on the article considering "if it was the other way around he'd be in jail" are so out of touch with reality that it hurts my brain.
How you can possibly view this as "gender-biased hypocrisy" astounds me. There's a person being stalked, slandered, and having their career ruined by a vindictive and determined person of questionable mental and emotional stability. It would be the exact same story if the victim was female.
>You do know that there are several porn sites dedicated to ruining the lives of ex-girlfriends?
Like what, gfrevenge? There's a massive difference in scale and severity between posting nude photos and videos of an ex online without their permission, and accusing them of child molestation and attempting to ensure they can never find work in their field again. It's the difference between throwing a rock through someone's window, or doing the same with a molotov cocktail.
I agreed with your first paragraph, but the second one surprised me. Your comparison does not apply to everyone. Many people would much prefer to be hit with baseless accusations and rumors rather than have footage of their most intimate moments be immortalized for public access.
agreed. men get carried away with our bullshit and forget that images are attached to people. women dont forget that and its much shittier for them. as a man i know we suck.
>You do know that there are several porn sites dedicated to ruining the lives of ex-girlfriends? When the victim is male, suddenly this justifies news articles and a heated discussion.
How can you possibly have missed all of the news articles and heated discussion about revenge porn sites? Both situations deserve attention.
When I first saw this on Reddit I though a similar thing. It (unsurprisingly) was getting a disproportionate amount of coverage compared to similar things the other way round. Reddit is quite dark when you read between the lines on many of the things and issues they take up.
It is absolutely incredible, the kind of viciousness some people will direct at those they claim to once have loved.