Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Internet Crime Regarding Forums

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Internet Crime Regarding Forums

    Can people be held accountable for internet harrassment on web forums? seems to be popping up more and more lately...Where do the police stand on this issue.

  • #2
    Originally posted by uanick View Post
    Can people be held accountable for internet harrassment on web forums? seems to be popping up more and more lately...Where do the police stand on this issue.
    You should probably put this in ask a cop. However, in Illinois, this could very well be considered harassment. They would have to be able to identify the person though. I personally feel that harassment through the Internet and text messaging is far to common. I also think that it's not the same as face to face name calling. In most cases, you can just block the person and that will solve the problem. I would advise you to consider that before contacting the police, but if you feel threatened in anyway, contact the police immediately. Here is the statue for harassment. Be advised it is probably different in your state.

    ****(720 ILCS 135/1‑2)
    ****Sec. 1‑2. Harassment through electronic communications.
    ****(a) Harassment through electronic communications is the use of electronic communication for any of the following purposes:
    ********(1) Making any comment, request, suggestion or
    ****
    proposal which is obscene with an intent to offend;
    ********(2) Interrupting, with the intent to harass, the
    ****
    telephone service or the electronic communication service of any person;
    ********(3) Transmitting to any person, with the intent to
    ****
    harass and regardless of whether the communication is read in its entirety or at all, any file, document, or other communication which prevents that person from using his or her telephone service or electronic communications device;
    ********(3.1) Transmitting an electronic communication or
    ****
    knowingly inducing a person to transmit an electronic communication for the purpose of harassing another person who is under 13 years of age, regardless of whether the person under 13 years of age consents to the harassment, if the defendant is at least 16 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense;
    ********(4) Threatening injury to the person or to the
    ****
    property of the person to whom an electronic communication is directed or to any of his or her family or household members; or
    ********(5) Knowingly permitting any electronic
    ****
    communications device to be used for any of the purposes mentioned in this subsection (a).
    ****(b) As used in this Act:
    ********(1) "Electronic communication" means any transfer of
    ****
    signs, signals, writings, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectric or photo‑optical system. "Electronic communication" includes transmissions through an electronic device including, but not limited to, a telephone, cellular phone, computer, or pager, which communication includes, but is not limited to, e‑mail, instant message, text message, or voice mail.
    ********(2) "Family or household member" includes spouses,
    ****
    former spouses, parents, children, stepchildren and other persons related by blood or by present or prior marriage, persons who share or formerly shared a common dwelling, persons who have or allegedly share a blood relationship through a child, persons who have or have had a dating or engagement relationship, and persons with disabilities and their personal assistants. For purposes of this Act, neither a casual acquaintanceship nor ordinary fraternization between 2 individuals in business or social contexts shall be deemed to constitute a dating relationship.
    ****(c) Telecommunications carriers, commercial mobile service providers, and providers of information services, including, but not limited to, Internet service providers and hosting service providers, are not liable under this Section, except for willful and wanton misconduct, by virtue of the transmission, storage, or caching of electronic communications or messages of others or by virtue of the provision of other related telecommunications, commercial mobile services, or information services used by others in violation of this Section.
    (Source: P.A. 96‑328, eff. 8‑11‑09; 97‑303, eff. 8‑11‑11.)

    ****(720 ILCS 135/1‑3)
    ****Sec. 1‑3. Evidence inference. Evidence that a defendant made additional telephone calls or engaged in additional electronic communications after having been requested by a named complainant or by a family or household member of the complainant to stop may be considered as evidence of an intent to harass unless disproved by evidence to the contrary.
    (Source: P.A. 90‑578, eff. 6‑1‑98.)

    ****(720 ILCS 135/1‑4)
    ****Sec. 1‑4. Psychiatric examination. The court may order any person convicted under this Act to submit to a psychiatric examination.
    (Source: P.A. 90‑578, eff. 6‑1‑98.)

    ****(720 ILCS 135/2) (from Ch. 134, par. 16.5)
    ****Sec. 2. Sentence.
    ****(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a person who violates any of the provisions of Section 1, 1‑1, or 1‑2 of this Act is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor. Except as provided in subsection (b), a second or subsequent violation of Section 1, 1‑1, or 1‑2 of this Act is a Class A misdemeanor, for which the court shall impose a minimum of 14 days in jail or, if public or community service is established in the county in which the offender was convicted, 240 hours of public or community service.
    ****(b) In any of the following circumstances, a person who violates Section 1, 1‑1, or 1‑2 of this Act shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony:
    ********(1) The person has 3 or more prior violations in the
    ****
    last 10 years of harassment by telephone under Section 1‑1 of this Act, harassment through electronic communications under Section 1‑2 of this Act, or any similar offense of any state;
    ********(2) The person has previously violated the
    ****
    harassment by telephone provisions of Section 1‑1 of this Act or the harassment through electronic communications provisions of Section 1‑2 of this Act or committed any similar offense in any state with the same victim or a member of the victim's family or household;
    ********(3) At the time of the offense, the offender was
    ****
    under conditions of bail, probation, mandatory supervised release or was the subject of an order of protection, in this or any other state, prohibiting contact with the victim or any member of the victim's family or household;
    ********(4) In the course of the offense, the offender
    ****
    threatened to kill the victim or any member of the victim's family or household;
    ********(5) The person has been convicted in the last 10
    ****
    years of a forcible felony as defined in Section 2‑8 of the Criminal Code of 1961;
    ********(6) The person violates paragraph (4.1) of Section
    ****
    1‑1 or paragraph (3.1) of subsection (a) of Section 1‑2; or
    ********(7) The person was at least 18 years of age at the
    ****
    time of the commission of the offense and the victim was under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense.
    Last edited by sean3017; 11-25-2011, 12:49 PM.
    All posts are my personal opinion and are not necessarily reflective of the views of my department.

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm an adult. I just ignore it.
      For the cops out there: You are an adult. If you want to write someone, write them. If you don't want to write someone, then don't write them.

      "Jeff, you are the best cop on this board"-Anonymous Post

      Comment


      • #4
        Gubmint is here too help

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...m-the-web.html

        Coming to a computer near you.

        Comment


        • #5
          Untwist panties, get over it. That's how a man handles it.
          "Naw officer, I was hanging with my cousin"

          "Sooo, real cousin or play cousins ?"

          Originally posted by JasperST
          I'm thinking a battalion of menstruating bearded women could kick some serious booty!

          Comment


          • #6
            Troll Jail?

            (\__/)
            (='.'=) This is Ninja Bunny.
            (")_(")
            Copy and paste Bunny into your
            signature to help him gain world domination

            Comment


            • #7

              Comment


              • #8
                uanick, I am going to guess that you are perhaps thinking of some of the very sad recent cases where children have been targeted by other kids-- to me that is a serious business, but I am not sure the legal system is the best way to handle it.

                I think the best defense is probably to keep a strong relationship with your child (so communication can flow freely and you know when something is hurting him/her) and to stay aware of the child's computer use.

                I do not know if there might be recourse through an ISP or forum administrator-- if you could show them that a certain poster was harassing your child, it would perhaps be a violation of the TOS, and you could perhaps get that poster banned. (Of course, we all know that is not a permanent solution, as it is easy enough to get around that.)

                I think the best thing is to talk to your child about the nature of bullies. It is a petty thing, to pick on someone who is not in a position to stop you. In my opinion, it is all the more cowardly online. Help your child to see that it is very easy to be mean-- and very ugly. Help them to see what sort of person they can be, in contrast to that.

                And, if this is about adults harassing adults, for example on a social network-- cowardly bullies are cowardly bullies at any age, insecure enough to need to throw their weight around, but only picking targets they can handle-- ignore them.

                If it rises to the level of an actual threat to your safety, you might look here for information:
                http://www.ncvc.org/src/Main.aspx
                We do not all come to religion over the wandering years,
                but sooner or later we all get to meet God. -- Edward Conlon

                Comment


                • #9
                  harassment as in i cannot stand your opinion you are an idiot and you are wrong. On top of that I doubt you ever fill in the blank no it's not a crime.

                  If I write I am going to harm or kill you you better watch your back for example, then yes I have committed a crime. Let's say I have naked photos of you that were not public. i post them, yes i committed a crime.

                  Just calling you a name is not criminal. If I repeatedly flood your inbox and post on the forum bad stuff about you after my initial post then yes. In that case I will get maybe 5 seconds of probation if it even goes to court.

                  Threats of bodily harm could get me prison.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by uanick View Post
                    Can people be held accountable for internet harrassment on web forums? seems to be popping up more and more lately...Where do the police stand on this issue.
                    [/QUOTE]

                    Excellent question, uanick. Pretty profound subject and Critter Assassin throws out a good question to ponder.

                    Actually in response to your question, this is probably a good time to discuss some things that have happened over the past few months, out in our cities, as well as here on O.com.

                    Notwithstanding the concerns about children bullying children on the internet, some of the truly serious illegal electronic bullying activities we will soon see repercussions from were those engaged in by certain Occupy Wall Street (OWS) proponents and backers. Activity that was illegal thuggery at its height and has brought the attention of law enforcement from every level onto them like flies on sh**.

                    The activity included serious threats of harm as outlined in most every bullet in Sean's thread. Like take Zuccotti Park. Remember when everyone kept asking why the owners changed their minds early on about evicting the protestors who were ILLEGALLY OCCUPYING private property known as Zucotti Park? Well among other bullying tactics, the owners were illegally threatened by hackers that every aspect of their business would be completely wiped from electronic existence. Just a minor case of blackmail there. I'm sure most of that story is under seal from public view, but the initial story did make it out into the open press.

                    During their early reign of terror, the OWS hackers penetrated numerous police departments' and other government entity's electronic property, and were cocky enough to brag about it out in the ether, which they tried like hell to later delete and cover up. Uhhhh, yeah.

                    Then there's the example which hits closest to home for those of us here on O.com. Most of you are probably aware of the subtle threat left in the inboxes of those of us involved in the very first "Occupy Wall Street" thread back in early September, and some of you may even be aware that after taking our email addresses, these same little terrorists collected massive personal (i.e. phone, home addresses, spouse workplaces and supervisors, etc., etc., etc) and dissimenated the info in the ether along with not so subtle threats about how these hackers would be taking justice into their own hands, but almost none of you are aware of other highly illegal activity these anti-O.com actors were engaged in, and are still fully engaged in.

                    Because of several pending investigations, none of it can be discussed in detail, however, I do want to remind people of a few things they already know, but need to be more vigilant about:

                    The first is that coltkilla has engaged in not only the offensive posts we all remember very well, but engaged in using data obtained (both legally and illegally) to electronically stalk members of O.com outside of O.com for the purpose of intimidation and harassment, and has impersonated members of O.com outside of O.com for the purpose of provoking "serious" repercussions to those O.com members, in some cases without members even being aware they were put in those crosshairs.

                    Coltkilla was a proven member of the OWS movement, and though he and all his other fake accounts have been removed from O.com and his activities curtailed by the heavy heavy hand of the law, he acted in concert with other members of this forum that have been banned but have re-appeared in other forms here, along with new "friends."

                    Without getting into details, recommend everyone be vigilant about new members who appear overly familiar in trying to befriend you and those who drive up your spidey senses when they start asking lots of questions about other members. This is something you already know in your gut; just giving you a little extra data to go on.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by btfp View Post
                      harassment as in i cannot stand your opinion you are an idiot and you are wrong. On top of that I doubt you ever fill in the blank no it's not a crime.

                      If I write I am going to harm or kill you you better watch your back for example, then yes I have committed a crime. Let's say I have naked photos of you that were not public. i post them, yes i committed a crime.

                      Just calling you a name is not criminal. If I repeatedly flood your inbox and post on the forum bad stuff about you after my initial post then yes. In that case I will get maybe 5 seconds of probation if it even goes to court.

                      Threats of bodily harm could get me prison.


                      ^^^^^ Read this---------------it is the answer

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        [/QUOTE]
                        Then there's the example which hits closest to home for those of us here on O.com. Most of you are probably aware of the subtle threat left in the inboxes of those of us involved in the very first "Occupy Wall Street" thread back in early September, and some of you may even be aware that after taking our email addresses, these same little terrorists collected massive personal (i.e. phone, home addresses, spouse workplaces and supervisors, etc., etc., etc) and dissimenated the info in the ether along with not so subtle threats about how these hackers would be taking justice into their own hands, but almost none of you are aware of other highly illegal activity these anti-O.com actors were engaged in, and are still fully engaged in.

                        Because of several pending investigations, none of it can be discussed in detail, however, I do want to remind people of a few things they already know, but need to be more vigilant about:

                        The first is that coltkilla has engaged in not only the offensive posts we all remember very well, but engaged in using data obtained (both legally and illegally) to electronically stalk members of O.com outside of O.com for the purpose of intimidation and harassment, and has impersonated members of O.com outside of O.com for the purpose of provoking "serious" repercussions to those O.com members, in some cases without members even being aware they were put in those crosshairs.

                        Coltkilla was a proven member of the OWS movement, and though he and all his other fake accounts have been removed from O.com and his activities curtailed by the heavy heavy hand of the law, he acted in concert with other members of this forum that have been banned but have re-appeared in other forms here, along with new "friends."

                        Without getting into details, recommend everyone be vigilant about new members who appear overly familiar in trying to befriend you and those who drive up your spidey senses when they start asking lots of questions about other members. This is something you already know in your gut; just giving you a little extra data to go on.[/QUOTE]
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Emma, this is exactly what I was talking about. Threats online are still threats no matter how you look at them. I was just curious as to regards to recent postings here if legally anything was being done. I've been a member here for a while and I followed the site starting in 2006 so I have been around a while and feel what others felt in regards to recent attacks. I wont mention what I found the on the forums a few days back but that is what I have been refering to.

                        I didnt want to make it to obvious because I didnt want the thread removed. I just feel like it's an honest discussion we need to have because of the cyber attacks that are very real now a days. Just look at that water plant in Illinois recently that was attacked.

                        I will say that it is great to see there is strong support to keep things safe on here for members.

                        Comment

                        What's Going On

                        Collapse

                        There are currently 9555 users online. 384 members and 9171 guests.

                        Most users ever online was 19,482 at 11:44 AM on 09-29-2011.

                        Working...
                        X