****1999 REPORT ON CYBERSTALKING:  A NEW CHALLENGEFOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INDUSTRY****
>  **Cyberstalking:****A New Challenge for Law Enforcement and Industry****___________________****A Report from the Attorney General to the VicePresident****August 1999**_______________________  **Introduction**
The new millennium is fast approaching, and the information superhighwayis undergoing rapid growth. The Internet and other telecommunications technologiesare promoting advances in virtually every aspect of society and every cornerof the globe: fostering commerce, improving education and health care,promoting participatory democracy in the United States and abroad, andfacilitating communications among family and friends, whether across thestreet or around the world. Unfortunately, many of the attributes of thistechnology - low cost, ease of use, and anonymous nature, among others- make it an attractive medium for fraudulent scams, child sexual exploitation,and increasingly, a new concern known as "cyberstalking." **"*Make no mistake: this kind of harassment can be as frightening *** 
***and as real as being followed and watched in your neighborhoodor*** 
***in your home."*** 
Vice President Al GoreRecognizing this emerging problem, Vice President Al Gore asked the AttorneyGeneral on February 26, 1999, to study the problem and to report back withrecommendations on how to protect people from this threat. Responding tothis request, this report explores the nature and extent of cyberstalking;surveys the steps law enforcement, industry, victims groups, and otherscurrently are taking to address the problem; analyzes the adequacy of currentfederal and state laws; and provides recommendations on how to improveefforts to combat this growing problem.
As discussed below, the nature and extent of the cyberstalking problemis difficult to quantify. In addition, while some law enforcement agenciesare responding aggressively, others are not fully aware of the problemand lack the expertise and resources to pursue cyberstalking cases. Similarly,while some Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have taken affirmative stepsto crack down on cyberstalking, others have not, and there is a great dealmore that industry can and should do to empower individuals to protectthemselves against cyberstalking and other online threats.
Indeed, current trends and evidence suggest that cyberstalking is aserious problem that will grow in scope and complexity as more people takeadvantage of the Internet and other telecommunications technologies. Theanalysis and recommendations contained in this report offer a frameworkfor an initial response to the problem. These recommendations, however,are only a first step. Important advances can be made if industry, lawenforcement, victims service providers and support groups, and others worktogether to develop a more comprehensive and effective response to thisproblem. Ultimately, however, the first line of defense will involve industryefforts that educate and empower individuals to protect themselves againstcyberstalking and other online threats, along with prompt reporting tolaw enforcement agencies trained and equipped to respond to cyberstalkingincidents.
**What Is Cyberstalking?**
Although there is no universally accepted definition of cyberstalking,the term is used in this report to refer to the use of the Internet, e-mail,or other electronic communications devices to stalk another person. Stalkinggenerally involves harassing or threatening behavior that an individualengages in repeatedly, such as following a person, appearing at a person'shome or place of business, making harassing phone calls, leaving writtenmessages or objects, or vandalizing a person's property. Most stalkinglaws require that the perpetrator make a credible threat of violence againstthe victim; others include threats against the victim's immediate family;and still others require only that the alleged stalker's course of conductconstitute an implied threat.(1) While someconduct involving annoying or menacing behavior might fall short of illegalstalking, such behavior may be a prelude to stalking and violence and shouldbe treated seriously. **Protecting Children from On-Line Dangers**
Although the Internet and other forms of electronic communication offernew and exciting opportunities for children, they also expose childrento new threats. For example, Federal law enforcement agencies have encounterednumerous instances in which adult pedophiles have made contact with minorsthrough online chat rooms, established a relationship with the child, andlater made contact for the purpose of engaging in criminal sexual activities. 
Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies have responded aggressivelyto protect children from online sexual predators. For example, in 1995,the Federal Bureau of Investigation launched an undercover initiative,dubbed Innocent Images, to combat the exploitation of children via commercialonline services. Based in Calverton, Maryland, "Innocent Images" is thecentral operation and case management system for all FBI undercover onlinechild pornography and child sexual exploitation investigations. As of December31, 1998, the initiative has resulted in 232 convictions. Similarly, theU.S. Customs Service's CyberSmuggling Center, based in Sterling, Virginia,plays an important role in combating sexual exploitation of children viathe Internet and other online communications media. The Center developsleads and tips for law enforcement investigation, receives complaints viathe U.S. Customs Service website, and coordinates undercover operationsagainst international child pornography and child sexual exploitation rings.The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children unveiled a new CyberTiplinein March 1998 to serve as a national online clearinghouse for tips andleads about child sexual exploitation.www.cybertipline.com) 
The Department of Justice, through the Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention's Missing and Exploited Children Program (MECP),provides funding to state and local law enforcement agencies to createmultijurisdictional responses to prevent and combat Internet crimes againstchildren. In 1998, ten state and local agencies received grants under MECP;an additional eight task forces will be funded in 1999.         
There are steps parents and others can take to protect children from online           dangers. Parents should teach their children to follow the common-sense           "rules of the road" for the Internet, including the need to protect           their privacy in the online world. The FBI, for example, has prepared           an online "Parent's Guide to Internet Safety." (www.fbi.gov)           Moreover, individuals should report inappropriate behavior to their           Internet Service Provider (ISP) or, if it involves potentially illegal           conduct, to appropriate law enforcement agencies. Law enforcement agencies           need to establish and/or improve programs that train their personnel           to recognize the seriousness of online child sexual exploitation and           how to investigate this new form of criminal conduct. They also need           to work closely with ISPs and others to facilitate communication and           cooperation. Finally, private companies, including ISPs, need to provide           parents and children with effective tools to protect children from online           exploitation, including filtering technology, parental controls, and           other efforts. ISPs also need to establish clear policies that prohibit           online solicitation or exploitation of children and to take appropriate           action when such incidents come to their attention, as is now required           under federal law. See U.S.C. 13032.      **Nature and Extent of Cyberstalking**
***An existing problem aggravated by new technology***
Although online harassment and threats can take many forms, cyberstalkingshares important characteristics with offline stalking. Many stalkers -online or off - are motivated by a desire to exert control over their victimsand engage in similar types of behavior to accomplish this end. As withoffline stalking, the available evidence (which is largely anecdotal) suggeststhat the majority of cyberstalkers are men and the majority of their victimsare women, although there have been reported cases of women cyberstalkingmen and of same-sex cyberstalking. In many cases, the cyberstalker andthe victim had a prior relationship, and the cyberstalking begins whenthe victim attempts to break off the relationship. However, there alsohave been many instances of cyberstalking by strangers. Given the enormousamount of personal information available through the Internet, a cyberstalkercan easily locate private information about a potential victim with a fewmouse clicks or key strokes.
The fact that cyberstalking does not involve physical contact may createthe misperception that it is more benign than physical stalking. This isnot necessarily true. As the Internet becomes an ever more integral partof our personal and professional lives, stalkers can take advantage ofthe ease of communications as well as increased access to personal information.In addition, the ease of use and non-confrontational, impersonal, and sometimesanonymous nature of Internet communications may remove disincentives tocyberstalking. Put another way, whereas a potential stalker may be unwillingor unable to confront a victim in person or on the telephone, he or shemay have little hesitation sending harassing or threatening electroniccommunications to a victim. Finally, as with physical stalking, onlineharassment and threats may be a prelude to more serious behavior, includingphysical violence. **Offline vs. Online Stalking -- A Comparison(2)**
**Major Similarities** 
Majority of cases involve stalking by former intimates, although strangerstalking occurs in the real world and in cyberspace. 
Most victims are women; most stalkers are men. 
Stalkers are generally motivated by the desire to control the victim. 
**Major Differences** 
Offline stalking generally requires the perpetrator and the victim tobe located in the same geographic area; cyberstalkers may be located acrossthe street or across the country. 
Electronic communications technologies make it much easier for a cyberstalkerto encourage third parties to harass and/or threaten a victim (e.g., impersonatingthe victim and posting inflammatory messages to bulletin boards and inchat rooms, causing viewers of that message to send threatening messagesback to the victim "author.") 
Electronic communications technologies also lower the barriers to harassmentand threats; a cyberstalker does not need to physically confront the victim.
While there are many similarities between offline and online stalking,the Internet and other communications technologies provide new avenuesfor stalkers to pursue their victims.
A cyberstalker may send repeated, threatening, or harassing messagesby the simple push of a button; more sophisticated cyberstalkers use programsto send messages at regular or random intervals without being physicallypresent at the computer terminal. California law enforcement authoritiessay they have encountered situations where a victim repeatedly receivesthe message "187" on their pagers - the section of the California PenalCode for murder. In addition, a cyberstalker can dupe other Internet usersinto harassing or threatening a victim by utilizing Internet bulletin boardsor chat rooms. For example, a stalker may post a controversial or enticingmessage on the board under the name, phone number, or e-mail address ofthe victim, resulting in subsequent responses being sent to the victim.Each message -- whether from the actual cyberstalker or others -- willhave the intended effect on the victim, but the cyberstalker's effort isminimal and the lack of direct contact between the cyberstalker and thevictim can make it difficult for law enforcement to identify, locate, andarrest the offender. **Actual Cyberstalking Incidents**
In the first successful prosecution under California's new cyberstalkinglaw, prosecutors in the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office obtaineda guilty plea from a 50-year-old former security guard who used the Internetto solicit the rape of a woman who rejected his romantic advances. Thedefendant terrorized his 28-year-old victim by impersonating her in variousInternet chat rooms and online bulletin boards, where he posted, alongwith her telephone number and address, messages that she fantasized ofbeing raped. On at least six occasions, sometimes in the middle of thenight, men knocked on the woman's door saying they wanted to rape her.The former security guard pleaded guilty in April 1999 to one count ofstalking and three counts of solicitation of sexual assault. He faces upto six years in prison. 
A local prosecutor's office in Massachusetts charged a man who, utilizinganonymous remailers, allegedly engaged in a systematic pattern of harassmentof a co-worker, which culminated in an attempt to extort sexual favorsfrom the victim under threat of disclosing past sexual activities to thevictim's new husband. 
An honors graduate from the University of San Diego terrorized fivefemale university students over the Internet for more than a year. Thevictims received hundreds of violent and threatening e-mails, sometimesreceiving four or five messages a day. The graduate student, who has entereda guilty plea and faces up to six years in prison, told police he committedthe crimes because he thought the women were laughing at him and causingothers to ridicule him. In fact, the victims had never met him.
The anonymity of the Internet also provides new opportunities for would-becyberstalkers. A cyberstalker's true identity can be concealed by usingdifferent ISPs and/or by adopting different screen names. More experiencedstalkers can use anonymous remailers that make it all-but-impossible todetermine the true identity of the source of an e-mail or other electroniccommunication. A number of law enforcement agencies report they currentlyare confronting cyberstalking cases involving the use of anonymous remailers.
Anonymity leaves the cyberstalker in an advantageous position. Unbeknownstto the target, the perpetrator could be in another state, around the corner,or in the next cubicle at work. The perpetrator could be a former friendor lover, a total stranger met in a chat room, or simply a teenager playinga practical joke. The inability to identify the source of the harassmentor threats could be particularly ominous to a cyberstalking victim, andthe veil of anonymity might encourage the perpetrator to continue theseacts. In addition, some perpetrators, armed with the knowledge that theiridentity is unknown, might be more willing to pursue the victim at workor home, and the Internet can provide substantial information to this end.Numerous websites will provide personal information, including unlistedtelephone numbers and detailed directions to a home or office. For a fee,other websites promise to provide social security numbers, financial data,and other personal information.
***Evidence suggests cyberstalking is a growing problem***
Although there is no comprehensive, nationwide data on the extent ofcyberstalking in the United States, some ISPs compile statistics on thenumber and types of complaints of harassment and/or threats involving theirsubscribers, and individual law enforcement agencies have compiled helpfulstatistics. There is, moreover, a growing amount of anecdotal and informalevidence on the nature and extent of cyberstalking.
First, data on offline stalking may provide some insight into the scopeof the cyberstalking problem. According to the most recent National ViolenceAgainst Women Survey, which defines stalking as referring to instanceswhere the victim felt a high level of fear:(3)- In the United States, one out of every 12 women (8.2 million) and one outof every 45 men (2 million) have been stalked at some time in their lives.
- One percent of all women and 0.4 percent of all men were stalked duringthe preceding 12 months.
- Women are far more likely to be the victims of stalking than men - nearlyfour out of five stalking victims are women. Men are far more likely tobe stalkers - 87 percent of the stalkers identified by victims in the surveywere men.
- Women are twice as likely as men to be victims of stalking by strangersand eight times as likely to be victims of stalking by intimates.
In the United States, there are currently more than 80 million adults and10 million children with access to the Internet. Assuming the proportionof cyberstalking victims is even a fraction of the proportion of personswho have been the victims of offline stalking within the preceding 12 months,there may be potentially tens or even hundreds of thousands of victimsof recent cyberstalking incidents in the United States.(4)Although such a "back of the envelope" calculation is inherently uncertainand speculative (given that it rests on an assumption about very differentpopulations), it does give a rough sense of the potential magnitude ofthe problem.
Second, anecdotal evidence from law enforcement agencies indicates thatcyberstalking is a serious - and growing - problem. At the federal level,several dozen matters have been referred (usually by the FBI) to U.S. Attorney'sOffices for possible action. A number of these cases have been referredto state and local law enforcement agencies because the conduct does notappear to violate federal law.
In addition, some local law enforcement agencies are beginning to seecases of cyberstalking. For example, the Los Angeles District Attorney'sOffice estimates that e-mail or other electronic communications were afactor in approximately 20 percent of the roughly 600 cases handled byits Stalking and Threat Assessment Unit. The chief of the Sex Crimes Unitin the Manhattan District Attorney's Office also estimates that about 20percent of the cases handled by the unit involve cyberstalking. The ComputerInvestigations and Technology Unit of the New York City Police Departmentestimates that almost 40 percent of the caseload in the unit involves electronicthreats and harassment -- and virtually all of these have occurred in thepast three or four years.
Third, ISPs also are receiving a growing number of complaints aboutharassing and threatening behavior online. One major ISP receives approximately15 complaints per month of cyberstalking, in comparison to virtually nocomplaints of cyberstalking just one or two years ago.
Finally, as part of a large study on sexual victimization of collegewomen, researchers at the University of Cincinnati conducted a nationaltelephone survey of 4,446 randomly selected women attending two- and four-yearinstitutions of higher education. The survey was conducted during the 1996-97academic year. In this survey, a stalking incident was defined as a casein which a respondent answered positively when asked if someone had "repeatedlyfollowed you, watched you, phoned, written, e-mailed, or communicated withyou in other ways that seemed obsessive and made you afraid or concernedfor your safety." The study found that 581 women (13.1 percent) were stalkedand reported a total of 696 stalking incidents; the latter figure exceedsthe number of victims because 15 percent of the women experienced morethan one case of stalking during the survey period. Of these 696 stalkingincidents, 166 (24.7 percent) involved e-mail. Thus, 25 percent of stalkingincidents among college women could be classified as involving cyberstalking.(5)
**Current Efforts to Address Cyberstalking**
***The law enforcement response***
Cyberstalking is a relatively new challenge for most law enforcementagencies. The first traditional stalking law was enacted by the state ofCalifornia in 1990 - less than a decade ago. Since that time, some lawenforcement agencies have trained their personnel on stalking and/or establishedspecialized units to handle stalking cases. Nonetheless, many agenciesare still developing the expertise and resources to investigate and prosecutetraditional stalking cases; only a handful of agencies throughout the countryhave focused attention or resources specifically on the cyberstalking problem.(6)
**Law enforcement response: awareness and training are key factors**
Based on recent informal surveys of law enforcement agencies, it appearsthat the majority of agencies have not investigated or prosecuted any cyberstalkingcases. However, some agencies - particularly those with units dedicatedto stalking or computer crime offenses - have large cyberstalking caseloads.As noted above, the New York Police Department's Computer Investigationand Technology Unit and the Los Angeles District Attorney's Stalking andThreat Assessment Team estimate that 40 and 20 percent of their caseloads,respectively, involve cyberstalking-type cases. "Cyberspace has become a fertile field for illegal activity. By theuse of new technology and equipment which cannot be policed by traditionalmethods, cyberstalking has replaced traditional methods of stalking andharassment. In addition, cyberstalking has led to offline incidents ofviolent crime. Police and prosecutors need to be aware of the escalatingnumbers of these events and devise strategies to resolve these problemsthrough the criminal justice system." 
Linda Fairstein 
Chief of Sex Crimes Prosecution Unit 
Manhattan District Attorney's Office
The disparity in the activity level among law enforcement agencies canbe attributed to a number of factors. First, it appears that the majorityof cyberstalking victims do not report the conduct to law enforcement,either because they feel that the conduct has not reached the point ofbeing a criminal offense or that law enforcement will not take them seriously.Second, most law enforcement agencies have not had the training to recognizethe serious nature of cyberstalking and to investigate such offenses. Unfortunately,some victims have reported that rather than open an investigation, a lawenforcement agency has advised them to come back if the cyberstalkers confrontor threaten them offline. In several instances, victims have been toldby law enforcement simply to turn off their computers. **Law Enforcement: Lack of Training and Expertise****Can Frustrate Victims, Hinder Response**
A recent incident demonstrates how the lack of law enforcement trainingand expertise can frustrate cyberstalking victims: A woman complained toa local police agency that a man had been posting information on the webclaiming that her nine-year-old daughter was available for sex. The webposting included their home phone number with instructions to call 24 hoursa day. They received numerous calls. The couple reported the problem tothe local police agency on numerous occasions, but the agency simply advisedthe couple to change their home phone number. Subsequently, the couplecontacted the FBI, which opened an investigation. It was discovered thatthe local police agency did not have a computer expert, and the investigativeofficer had never been on the Internet. The local agency's lack of familiarityand resources may have resulted in a failure to understand the seriousnessof the problem and the options available to law enforcement to respondto such problems.
Another indication that many law enforcement agencies underestimatethe magnitude of the cyberstalking problem is the wide disparity in reportedcases in different jurisdictions across the country. For example, one stateattorney general's office in a midwestern state indicated that it receivedapproximately one inquiry a week regarding cyberstalking cases and thatit is aware of approximately a dozen prosecutions last year alone. In contrast,the state attorney general's offices in neighboring states indicated theyhave never received an inquiry into this type of behavior. Although onewould generally expect some disparity in differing jurisdictions, the sizeof the disparity suggests that some law enforcement agencies do not havethe training or expertise to recognize the magnitude of the problem intheir jurisdictions.
**Law enforcement response: jurisdictional and statutory limitationsmay frustrate some agencies**
Some state and local law enforcement agencies also have been frustratedby jurisdictional limitations. In many instances, the cyberstalker maybe located in a different city or state than the victim making it moredifficult (and, in some cases, all but impossible) for the local authorityto investigate the incident. Even if a law enforcement agency is willingto pursue a case across state lines, it may be difficult to obtain assistancefrom out-of-state agencies when the conduct is limited to harassing e-mailmessages and no actual violence has occurred. A number of matters havebeen referred to the FBI and/or U.S. Attorney's offices because the victimand suspect were located in different states and the local agency was notable to pursue the investigation.
The lack of adequate statutory authority also can limit law enforcement'sresponse to cyberstalking incidents. At least 16 states have stalking statutesthat explicitly cover electronic communications,(7)and cyberstalking may be covered under general stalking statutes in otherstates. It may not, however, meet the statutory definition of stalkingin the remainder. In many cases, cyberstalking will involve threats tokill, kidnap, or injure the person, reputation, or property of another,either on or offline and, as such, may be prosecuted under other federalor state laws that do not relate directly to stalking.
Finally, federal law may limit the ability of law enforcement agenciesto track down stalkers and other criminals in cyberspace. In particular,the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (CCPA) prohibits the disclosureof cable subscriber records to law enforcement agencies without a courtorder and advance notice to the subscriber. See 47 U.S.C. 551(c), (h).As more and more individuals turn to cable companies as their ISPs, theCCPA is posing a significant obstacle to the investigation of cybercrimes,including cyberstalking. For example, under the CCPA, a law enforcementagency investigating a cyberstalker who uses a cable company for Internetaccess would have to provide the individual notice that the agency hasrequested his/her subscriber records, thereby jeopardizing the criminalinvestigation. While it is appropriate to prohibit the indiscriminate disclosureof cable records to law enforcement agencies, the better approach wouldbe to harmonize federal law by providing law enforcement access to cablesubscriber records under the same privacy safeguards that currently governlaw enforcement access to records of electronic mail subscribers under18 U.S.C. 2703. Moreover, special provisions could be drafted to protectagainst the inappropriate disclosure of records that would reveal a customer'sviewing habits.
**Law enforcement response: the challenge of anonymity**
Another complication for law enforcement is the presence of servicesthat provide anonymous communications over the Internet. To be sure, anonymityprovides important benefits, including protecting the privacy of Internetusers. Unfortunately, cyberstalkers and other cybercriminals can exploitthe anonymity available on the Internet to avoid accountability for theirconduct.
Anonymous services on the Internet come in one of two forms: the firstallows individuals to create a free electronic mailbox through a web site.While most entities that provide this service request identifying informationfrom users, such services almost never authenticate or otherwise confirmthis information. For these services, payment is typically made in advancethrough the use of a money order or other non-traceable form of payment.As long as payment is received in advance by the ISP, the service is providedto the unknown account holder. The second form comprises mail servers thatpurposefully strip identifying information and transport headers from electronicmail. By forwarding mails through several of these services serially, astalker can nearly perfectly anonymize the message. The presence of bothsuch services makes it relatively simple to send anonymous communications,while making it difficult for victims, providers, and law enforcement toidentify the person or persons responsible for transmitting harassing orthreatening communications over the Internet.
**Law enforcement response: specialized units show promise in combatingcyberstalking**
A growing number of law enforcement agencies are recognizing the seriousnature and extent of cyberstalking and taking aggressive action to respond.Some larger metropolitan areas, such as Los Angeles and New York, haveseen numerous incidents of cyberstalking and have specialized units availableto investigate and prosecute these cases. For example, Los Angeles hasdeveloped the Stalking and Threat Assessment Team. This team combines specialsections of the police department and district attorney's office to ensureproperly trained investigators and prosecutors are available when cyberstalkingcases arise. In addition, this specialized unit is given proper resources,such as adequate computer hardware and advanced training, which is essentialin investigating and prosecuting these technical cases. Similarly, theNew York City Police Department created the Computer Investigation andTechnology Unit. This unit provides regular training for police officersand prosecutors regarding the intricacies of cyberstalking investigationsand prosecutions. The training includes understanding how chat rooms operate,how to obtain and preserve electronic evidence, and how to draft searchwarrants and subpoenas.
The programs in New York and Los Angeles both ensure that enforcementpersonnel receive proper training and have adequate resources to combatcyberstalking. Other jurisdictions are also taking steps to combat cyberstalking.One of the critical steps is learning how to trace communications sentover computers and the Internet. Traditional law enforcement techniquesfor surveillance, investigation, and evidence gathering require modificationfor use on computer networks and often require the use of unfamiliar legalprocesses. Law enforcement at all levels must be properly trained to usenetwork investigative techniques and legal process while protecting theprivacy of legitimate users of the Internet. These techniques are similarto those used in investigating other types of computer crime. Just as aburglar might leave fingerprints at the scene of a crime, a cyberstalkercan leave an "electronic trail" on the web that properly trained law enforcementcan follow back to the source. Thus, technological proficiency among bothinvestigators and prosecutors is essential.
At present, there are numerous efforts at the federal and state levelsthat focus solely on high technology crimes. These units do not focus oncyberstalking alone, but they have the necessary expertise in computersand the Internet to assist in the investigation of cyberstalking when itarises. For example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has ComputerCrime Squads throughout the country, as well as the National InfrastructureProtection Center in Washington, to ensure cybercrimes are properly investigated.Additionally, they have Computer Analysis and Response Teams to conductforensics examinations on seized magnetic media. Similarly, in 1996 theJustice Department established the Computer Crime and Intellectual PropertySection within the Criminal Division. These units have highly trained personnelwho remain on the cutting edge of new technology and investigative techniques.In addition, each U.S. Attorney's office contains experienced computercrime prosecutors. These individuals -- Computer and TelecommunicationsCoordinators -- assist in the investigation and prosecution of a wide varietyof computer crimes, including cyberstalking. In addition, at the statelevel, several attorneys general have established special divisions thatfocus on computer crimes.
Although high-tech expertise is essential, police and prosecutors havedeveloped other strategies for helping victims of cyberstalking. An AssistantU.S. Attorney reported that in two recent cases of e-mail harassment, heasked an FBI agent to confront the would-be harasser. The agent advisedthat such behavior might constitute a criminal offense. In both instances,the harassment stopped. Such strategies, however, are no substitute forprosecution under federal or state law in the appropriate circumstances.
A critical step in combating cyberstalking is understanding stalkingin general. In many instances, cyberstalking is simply another phase inan overall stalking pattern, or it is regular stalking behavior using new,high-technology tools. Thus, strategies and techniques that have been developedto combat stalking in general often can be adapted to cyberstalking situations.Fortunately, many state and local law enforcement agencies have begun tofocus on stalking, and some have developed special task forces to dealwith this problem. In addition, the Attorney General submits an annualreport to Congress entitled "Stalking and Domestic Violence." This reportcompiles valuable information about what the Department of Justice haslearned about stalking and stalkers and is a valuable resource for lawenforcement agencies and others.(8)
Cyberstalking is expected to increase as computers and the Internetbecome more popular. Accordingly, law enforcement at all levels must becomemore sensitive to cyberstalking complaints and devote the necessary trainingand resources to allow proper investigation and prosecution. By becomingtechnologically proficient and understanding stalking in general, agencieswill be better prepared to respond to cyberstalking incidents in theirjurisdictions. In addition, state and local agencies can turn to theirlocal FBI or U.S. Attorney's office for additional technical assistance.Also, computer crime units and domestic violence units should share informationand expertise, since many cyberstalking cases will include elements ofboth computer crime and domestic violence. Finally, law enforcement mustbecome more sensitive to the fear and frustration experienced by cyberstalkingvictims. Proper training should help in this regard, but law enforcementat all levels should take the next step and place special emphasis on thisproblem. Computers and the Internet are becoming indispensable parts ofAmerica's culture, and cyberstalking is a growing threat. Responding toa victim's complaint by saying "just turn off your computer" is not acceptable.
***Industry efforts***
Although the Internet industry has tried to combat abusive electroniccommunications overall, the industry as a whole has not addressed cyberstalkingin particular. According to a review conducted as part of the preparationof the report, most major ISPs have established an address to which complaintsof abusive or harassing electronic mail can be sent (generally, this addressis "abuse@[the ISP's domain]" -- for example, "abuse@aol.com".In addition, these providers almost uniformly have provisions in theironline agreements specifically prohibiting abusive or harassing conductthrough their service and providing that violations of the policy willresult in termination of the account.
In practice, however, ISPs have focused more on assisting their customersin avoiding annoying online behavior, such as receiving unsolicited commercialelectronic mail ("spamming") or large amounts of electronic mail intentionallysent to an individual ("mail-bombing"); relatively less attention has beenpaid to helping victims of cyberstalking or other electronic threats. Forsome ISPs, the procedures for lodging complaints of online harassment orthreats were difficult to locate, and their policies about what does ordoes not constitute a violation of service agreements were generally unhelpful.In addition, many ISPs do not inform their customers about what steps,if any, the ISP has taken to follow-up on their customer's complaint. Theseproblems -- hard-to-locate complaint procedures, vague policies about whatdoes and does not constitute prohibited harassment, and inadequate follow-upon complaints -- may pose serious obstacles to cyberstalking victims whoneed help.
Online industry associations respond that providing such protectionto their customers is costly and difficult. Although they recognize thatlarger ISPs have begun to commit resources to dealing with harassment online,they caution that the costs of imposing additional reporting or responseobligations upon ISPs may make it difficult for small or entrepreneurialISPs to continue providing service at competitive rates. For example, theCommercial Internet Exchange, whose members carry approximately 75 percentof U.S. backbone traffic, cautions that no attempt to impose reportingrequirements should be made unless fully justified by the record. However,according to the same group, the decentralized nature of the Internet wouldmake it difficult for providers to collect and submit such data. Accordingly,the evidence of the scope of the cyberstalking problem is likely to remainfor the forseeable future defined primarily by anecdotal evidence, withno basis to determine whether the phenomenon is growing, static, or declining.
**Industry efforts: educating and protecting consumers**
Despite the difficulty in fully defining the scope of the cyberstalkingproblem, however, industry has made notable efforts to inform consumersabout ways to protect themselves online. Such information is principallyfocused on protecting children and consumers on the Internet. For example,since 1996, the Internet Alliance, one of the key Internet industry groups,has worked with the Federal Trade Commission and government agencies onProject OPEN (Online Public Education Network). Project OPEN provides informationabout fraud, parental controls, and protecting privacy.(9)Although this information is not specifically relevant to cyberstalking,much of the advice about protecting children and safeguarding privacy whileonline may be of assistance to individuals who want to use the Internetwhile protecting against potential cyberstalkers. More recently, a numberof industry organizations have joined together to develop, GetNetWise.Com- a single, comprehensive online resource to help parents and childrenuse the Internet in a safe and educational manner.
Other similar industry efforts have recently been announced to addressother aspects of computer-related crime. For example, the Department ofJustice and the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) announcedthe Cybercitizen Partnership in March 1999. This partnership is intendedto boost cooperation between industry and government, expand public awarenessof computer crime issues among children and adolescents, and provide resourcesfor government to draw upon in addressing computer crime. The industryhas also responded to the complaints of parents who are worried about thecontent available to their children over the Internet by announcing the"One Click Away" initiative to give parents important information aboutprotecting their children in a central location. Similar education andoutreach efforts, approached through cooperation between industry and government,may educate individuals concerned about these issues and therefore mitigatesome of the dangers of cyberstalking.
In addition, other Internet industry sectors have begun to address aspectsof the cyberstalking problem. Many of these solutions focus on the abilityof individuals to protect themselves against unwanted communications. Forexample, most Internet "chat" facilities offer users the ability to block,squelch, or ignore chat messages or "paging" from individuals who are attemptingto annoy or threaten them. Similarly, many e-mail users have tools whichallow the users to block e-mail from individuals who are attempting toharass or annoy them. Such a solution may be useful in situations wherethe communications are merely annoying. Unfortunately, such a solutionis less appropriate when threatening communications are received, becausea victim who never "receives" the threat may not know they are being stalked,and may be alerted, for the first time, when the stalker shows up to acton the threat.
In another type of response, providers have begun to set up "gated communities"for individuals, families, and children. The techniques used by such communitiesare still in developmental stages, but they range from specialized servers,which allow potentially objectionable content to be filtered at the server,to designated areas for children and teens, which place restrictions onthe amount or types of personal information that will be provided to others.Individuals who are concerned about being stalked may find refuge in suchcommunities.
While these efforts all reflect important initiatives for self-protection,both industry and government representatives agree that a key componentof addressing the cyberstalking problem is education and empowerment: Ifindividuals are given clear direction about how to protect themselves againstthreatening or harassing communications, and how to report incidents whenthey do occur, both industry and law enforcement will be in a positionto cooperate to conduct investigations.
**Industry efforts: cooperation with law enforcement**
Both industry and law enforcement benefit when crime over the Internetis reduced. In particular, the Internet industry benefits significantlywhenever citizen and consumer confidence and trust in the Internet is increased.Accordingly, both industry and law enforcement recognize the need to cooperatemore fully with one another in this area. Industry representatives havenoted that contact between industry and law enforcement -- particularlyin the area of harassment -- is sporadic and episodic. Industry representatives,who were consulted as part of the preparation of this report, indicatedtheir willingness to participate in training efforts for law enforcement.Law enforcement -- particularly on the state and local level, who willoften be first responders to cyberstalking complaints -- should be willingto engage industry in dialogue and take advantage of the expertise offeredby industry in designing training programs. Moreover, closer cooperationbetween law enforcement and industry will help to ensure that law enforcementofficers know who at the ISPs to call and how to proceed when they receivea complaint, and ISPs have a contact in law enforcement when they receivea complaint that warrants intervention by law enforcement.
***Victims and support organizations***
Because cyberstalking is a relatively new criminal phenomenon, verylittle public attention and resources have been committed to addressingthis crime. Consequently, victims of online harassment and threats, oftenin collaboration with victim service providers and advocates, have hadto step in to fill the void by developing their own informal support networksand informational web sites to exchange information about how to respondto these crimes effectively.
Victim service providers report that the Internet is rapidly becominganother weapon used by batterers against their victims. Just as in reallife, abused women can be followed in cyberspace by their batterers, whomay surreptitiously place their target under surveillance without her knowledgeand use the information to threaten her or discredit her by putting misinformationon the Internet. Victim service providers recommend that victims make copiesof all e-mails sent by the batterer as evidence of his stalking and advisea victim to let the stalker know that she does not want to have any furthercontact with him. SAFE House, a domestic violence victim service providerin Michigan, suggests that victims change their passwords often; refrainfrom telling anyone what the password is; do not use a password or otheridentifying information that the batterer/stalker can guess; set up a programthat requires a password even to get on the computer; be sure to clearout the history information if programs such as ICQ, AOL Communicator,and Excite PAL, are used; remember that many chat rooms have archives thatcan be accessed later on by anyone; be careful about what is said in chatrooms and use an alias that is only known to good friends; be aware thatif the screen name of the assailant is known, he can be blocked from trackingvictims through a buddy list on AOL; and, consult the ISP about the bestway to secure their account.
A focus group convened on October 30, 1998, by the Office for Victimsof Crime, a component within the U.S. Department of Justice, sought toidentify the needs of stalking victims, including victims whose stalkersused the Internet to track and to harass their victims. The victims atthe focus group emphasized that although the response of law enforcementand victim service providers is important, stalking victims need a widerange of services from doctors, mental health providers, day care providers,welfare and child protection workers, school staff, and employers. In addition,the focus group participants indicated that community awareness and understandingof what constitutes stalking behavior is critical to the support and well-beingof stalking victims. Finally, all of the stalking victims reported thatthe consequences of not being believed or supported, or having their fearsviewed as exaggerated or unrealistic, can be devastating. Some victimsfeel isolated and alone, are made to believe that the stalking is theirfault, lose primary relationships, or fear losing their jobs. These issuesare just as relevant to cyberstalking victims as they are to victims ofoffline stalking.
**Adequacy of Existing Laws**
Although stalking has been a problem for many years, only in this decadehas it received significant attention from lawmakers, policy officials,and law enforcement agencies. In 1990, California became the first stateto enact a specific stalking law. Since that time, all 50 states and theDistrict of Columbia have enacted stalking laws.
***State cyberstalking laws***
Less than one third of the states have anti-stalking laws that explicitlycover stalking via the Internet, e-mail, pagers, or other electronic communications.California, for example, only recently amended its stalking statute tocover cyberstalking. This law was used in the prosecution of a 50-year-oldformer security guard who pleaded guilty on April 28, 1999, to one countof stalking and three counts of solicitation of sexual assault after usingthe Internet to solicit the rape of a woman who rejected his romantic advances.While the general stalking statutes in some states may cover cyberstalking,all states should review their laws to ensure they prohibit and provideappropriate punishment for stalking via the Internet and other electroniccommunications.
***Federal cyberstalking laws***
Federal law provides a number of important tools that are availableto combat cyberstalking. Under 18 U.S.C. 875(c), it is a federal crime,punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000,to transmit any communication in interstate or foreign commerce containinga threat to injure the person of another. Section 875(c) applies to anycommunication actually transmitted in interstate or foreign commerce -thus it includes threats transmitted in interstate or foreign commercevia the telephone, e-mail, beepers, or the Internet.
Although 18 U.S.C. 875 is an important tool, it is not an all-purposeanti-cyberstalking statute. First, it applies only to communications ofactual threats. Thus, it would not apply in a situation where a cyberstalkerengaged in a pattern of conduct intended to harass or annoy another (absentsome threat). Also, it is not clear that it would apply to situations wherea person harasses or terrorizes another by posting messages on a bulletinboard or in a chat room encouraging others to harass or annoy another person(as in the California case, discussed infra.).
Certain forms of cyberstalking also may be prosecuted under 47 U.S.C.223. One provision of this statute makes it a federal crime, punishableby up to two years in prison, to use a telephone or telecommunicationsdevice to annoy, abuse, harass, or threaten any person at the called number.(10)The statute also requires that the perpetrator not reveal his or her name.See 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(C). Although this statute is broader than 18 U.S.C.875 -- in that it covers both threats and harassment -- Section 223 appliesonly to direct communications between the perpetrator and the victim. Thus,it would not reach a cyberstalking situation where a person harasses orterrorizes another person by posting messages on a bulletin board or ina chat room encouraging others to harass or annoy another person. Moreover,Section 223 is only a misdemeanor, punishable by not more than two yearsin prison.
The Interstate Stalking Act, signed into law by President Clinton in1996, makes it a crime for any person to travel across state lines withthe intent to injure or harass another person and, in the course thereof,places that person or a member of that person's family in a reasonablefear of death or serious bodily injury. See 18 U.S.C. 2261A. Although anumber of serious stalking cases have been prosecuted under Section 2261A,the requirement that the stalker physically travel across state lines makesit largely inapplicable to cyberstalking cases.
Finally, President Clinton signed a bill into law in October 1998 thatprotects children against online stalking. The statute, 18 U.S.C. 2425,makes it a federal crime to use any means of interstate or foreign commerce(such as a telephone line or the Internet) to knowingly communicate withany person with intent to solicit or entice a child into unlawful sexualactivity. While this new statute provides important protections for children,it does not reach harassing phone calls to minors absent a showing of intentto entice or solicit the child for illicit sexual purposes.
Thus, although current statutes address some forms of cyberstalking,there are gaps in current federal and state law. As outlined in the Recommendationsbelow, States should review their existing stalking and other statutesto determine whether they address cyberstalking and, if not, expeditiouslyenact laws that prohibit cyberstalking.
Federal legislation also is needed to fill the gaps in current law.While most cyberstalking cases will fall within the jurisdiction of stateand local authorities, there are instances - such as serious cyberharassmentdirected at a victim in another state or involving communications intendedto encourage third parties to engage in harassment or threats - where statelaw is inadequate or where state or local agencies do not have the expertiseor the resources to investigate and/or prosecute a sophisticated cyberstalkingcase. Therefore, federal law should be amended to prohibit the transmissionof any communication in interstate or foreign commerce with intent to threatenor harass another person, where such communication places another personin fear of death or bodily injury to themselves or another person. Becauseof the increased vulnerability of children, the statute should providefor enhanced penalties where the victim is a minor. Such targeted, technology-neutrallegislation would fill existing gaps in current federal law, without displacingthe primary law enforcement role of state and local authorities and withoutinfringing on First Amendment-protected speech. **First Amendment and Other Legal Considerations**
All 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the federal governmenthave passed laws that criminalize stalking to address the serious harmsand dangers that result from stalking, including the fear of violence andloss of privacy and control suffered by the victim. In addition to thedirect harms caused by stalking, stalking is also frequently a precursorto physical violence against the victim. By its nature, however, stalkingis not a crime that can be defined with a particularized, discrete setof acts. Frequently stalking consists of a course of conduct that may involvea broad range of harassing, intimidating, and threatening behavior directedat a victim. The conduct can be as varied as the stalker's imaginationand ability to take actions that harass, threaten, and force himself orherself into the life and consciousness of the victim. As new technologiesbecome available, stalkers adapt those technologies to new ways of stalkingvictims, as is the case with the Internet and cyberstalking. 
As a result of the breadth of conduct potentially involved in stalking,anti-stalking statutes need to be relatively broad to be effective. Atthe same time, however, because of that breadth and because stalking caninvolve expressive conduct and speech, anti-stalking statutes must be carefullyformulated and enforced so as not to impinge upon speech that is protectedby the First Amendment. This is particularly true with regard to cyberstalkinglaws, which frequently will involve speech over the Internet. The Internet,moreover, has been recognized as an important tool for protected speechactivities. See, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S.844, 850-52, 870 (1997); American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, 31 F.Supp.2d473, 476, 493 (E.D. Pa. 1999). 
The fact that stalking behavior (including cyberstalking) may implicateimportant issues of free speech, however, does not eliminate the significantpublic interest in its criminal regulation or suggest that any criminalregulation would be prohibited by the freedom of speech guarantees of theFirst Amendment. The First Amendment does not prohibit any and all regulationthat may involve or have an impact on speech. Of particular relevance tostalking, the Supreme Court has recognized that governments may criminalizetrue threats without violating the First Amendment. See, e.g., Watts v.United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969) (per curiam). As discussed in the Introductionof this report, stalking (as well as cyberstalking) generally involvesconduct reasonably understood to constitute a threat of violence, and suchthreats may be criminalized consistent with the First Amendment. 
One of the recommendations in this report calls on states to reviewand update their statutes, where necessary, to cover electronic communicationswithin their stalking laws. Care must be taken in drafting cyberstalkingstatutes to ensure that they are not so broad that they risk chilling constitutionallyprotected speech, such as political protest and other legitimate conduct.A carefully drafted statute can provide broad protections against cyberstalkingwithout running afoul of the First Amendment.**Recommendations**
***General recommendations***- The law enforcement community, private industry, victims assistance providers,and individuals must recognize that cyberstalking is a serious problem-- not only as a potential precursor to offline threats and violence, butalso as a serious invasion of an increasingly important aspect of people'severyday lives. At the same time, it is important to note that many formsof annoying and menacing activity on the Internet do not rise to the levelof illegal activity and are properly addressed by individuals and serviceproviders without recourse to law enforcement channels.
- The lack of comprehensive data on the nature and extent of cyberstalkingmakes it difficult to develop effective response strategies. Future surveysand research studies on stalking should, where possible, include specificinformation on cyberstalking. Industry organizations can and should playa role not only in increasing the amount of data on the cyberstalking problem,but also ensuring that the data can be analyzed in a meaningful way.
***Legislative recommendations***- States should review their existing stalking and other statutes to determinewhether they address cyberstalking and, if not, promptly expand such lawsto address cyberstalking.
- Although State and local law enforcement agencies should retain primaryjurisdiction over cyberstalking cases, federal law should be amended toaddress gaps in existing law where the conduct involves interstate or foreigncommunications. Such legislation should prohibit the transmission of anycommunication in interstate or foreign commerce with intent to threatenor harass another person where such communication places another in reasonablefear of death or bodily injury. Enhanced penalties should be availablewhere the victim is a minor. Such legislation should be technology neutraland should apply to all forms of communication technologies.
- Federal law also should be amended to make it easier to track down stalkersand other criminals in cyberspace while maintaining safeguards for privacy.In particular, the Cable Communications Policy Act should be amended toprovide access to the same type of subscriber records, and under the samestandards and privacy safeguards, as those for electronic mail subscribersunder 18 U.S.C. 2703 (while maintaining strict limits on access to recordsthat reveal customer viewing habits).
***Recommendations for law enforcement and criminal justice officials***- Law enforcement agencies and courts need to recognize the serious natureof cyberstalking, including the close links between offline and onlinestalking.
- Law enforcement agencies need training on the nature and extent of thecyberstalking problem, including specific training on the legal tools availableto address the problem, the need for, and effectiveness of, prompt actionby law enforcement agencies, the most effective techniques to investigateand prosecute cyberstalking crimes, and the resources available to cyberstalkingvictims.
- Law enforcement agencies with existing stalking or computer crime unitsshould consider expanding the mission of such units to include cyberstalking,and law enforcement agencies that do not presently have a stalking sectionshould consider expanding their capabilities to address this issue. Atthe least, law enforcement agencies should understand the patterns underlyingstalking in general and be prepared to respond and intercede on behalfof cyberstalking victims.
- Law enforcement agencies should use mechanisms for quickly and reliablysharing information about cyberstalking incidents with other law enforcementagencies, thereby making it less likely that a cyberstalker can continuethreatening behavior simply because neither the jurisdiction of the sendernor the jurisdiction of the victim believes that it can prosecute the offender.
 U.S. Attorneys' Offices, in consultation with other federal, state andlocal agencies, should examine the available resources and networks ofinvestigators and prosecutors with the expertise to handle cyberstalkinginvestigations. These include violent crime specialists, computer crimeinvestigators and prosecutors, computer forensic specialists, and victim-witnesscoordinators, among others. The Law Enforcement Coordinating Committees,which have been established in each U.S. Attorneys' Office and are designedto foster coordination among law enforcement agencies, would be an appropriatebody for addressing these issues.
Law enforcement agencies should work more closely with victim groups toidentify cyberstalking patterns and victims' experiences and to encouragecyberstalking victims to report incidents to law enforcement authorities.
***Recommendations for the Internet and electronic communications industry***
The Internet and electronic communications industry should --- Create an industry-supported website containing information about cyberstalkingand what to do if confronted with this problem. Contact information forthe major ISPs should be included so that Internet users can easily reportcyberstalking cases after visiting this centralized resource. This recommendationcould be implemented by expanding the "One Click Away" initiative or througha complementary but separate initiative focused on cyberstalking.
- Develop additional means to empower individuals to protect themselves againstcyberstalking. Such means might include more accessible and effective filteringand blocking options. While some major ISPs already allow such options,others do not.
- Develop training materials designed specifically to assist law enforcementin the investigation and prosecution of cyberstalking and related crimes.For example, a short training video could be developed to increase awarenessof the cyberstalking problem and to provide law enforcement officers withessential information on how to work with ISPs and others in the investigationof cyberstalking cases.
- Cooperate fully with law enforcement when investigating cyberstalking complaints.The industry can do this, for example, by immediately freezing and retainingdata for law enforcement use on any potential cyberstalking case.
- Establish best business practices to address illicit activity by terminatingholders of fraudulent accounts.
- Sponsor an Internet Security and Law Enforcement Council of ISPs and othermembers of the Internet community to develop and promote industry bestbusiness practices relating to security and law enforcement issues (includingcyberstalking), develop and distribute training materials for law enforcementon the investigation and prosecution of Internet crime, and promote moreeffective communication and cooperation between industry and law enforcementin combating online criminal activity.
- Establish and enforce clear policies that prohibit cyberstalking and relatedbehaviors, including the termination of accounts for persons who violatesuch policies. While it appears that most of the larger ISPs have suchpolicies, some smaller ISPs do not. Representatives from the Internet industryshould consider establishing an industry-wide code of conduct that encouragesall ISPs to adopt such procedures.
- Establish clear and understandable procedures for individuals - both customersand non-customers - to register complaints about individuals using thecompany's service to engage in cyberstalking. Such procedures should beeasily accessible to individuals.
- Develop and widely disseminate educational materials to customers and otherson how to protect themselves online.
***Recommendations for victim service providers and advocates***
Victim service providers and advocates should --- Provide direct services and referrals to available resources that are specificallydesigned to assist victims of cyberstalking, or stalking in general wherecyberstalking services are not available, and work to ensure that cyberstalkingservices are expanded to meet the needs of victims and enhance their safety;
 Train domestic violence and other victim service providers and advocateson Internet technology, the tactics used by cyberstalkers, and how to respondto the specific needs of cyberstalking victims;

 Name the behavior as cyberstalking and validate that a crime is occurringwhen working with individual victims;

 Serve as catalysts in community efforts to form partnerships among lawenforcement, prosecution, the judiciary, the medical community and othercommunity allies to address the specific safety needs of cyberstalkingvictims and hold offenders accountable for their actions;

 Raise public awareness about the devastating impact on cyberstalking victimsof the tactics used by cyberstalkers and the steps that can be taken toprevent and combat this crime; and

 Inform public policy decision making.
 **Appendix I: ****Cyberstalking Resources Online**
**CyberAngels:** Non-profit group devoted to assisting victims ofonline harassment and threats, including cyberstalking. www.cyberangels.org. 
**GetNetWise:**Online resource for families and caregivers to helpkids use the Internet in a safe and educational manner. Includes a guideto online safety, a directory of online safety tools, and directions forreporting online trouble. www.getnetwise.org. 
**International Association of Computer Investigative Specialists:**IACIS is an international volunteer non-profit corporation composed oflaw enforcement professionals dedicated to education in the field of forensiccomputer science. IACIS offers professional training to law enforcementagencies in a wide range of computer crime investigative techniques, providesan opportunity to network with other law enforcement officers trained in 
computer forensics, and promotes research and development of specializedhardware and software to assist computer forensic professionals. www.iacis.com. 
**National Center for Victims of Crime:** The National Center forVictims of Crime (formerly known as the National Victim Center) providesreferrals and advocacy services to victims through its toll-free nationalhotline. Through the hotline, victims are referred to the nearest, appropriateservices in their community, including crisis intervention, assistancewith the criminal justice process, and counseling and support groups. TheNational Center publishes bulletins on a number of topics, including domesticviolence, sexual assault, and stalking. www.ncvc.org. 
**National Cybercrime Training Partnership:** This interagency, federal/state/localpartnership, led by the Department of Justice with extensive support fromthe Office of Justice Programs and the National White Collar Crime Center,is developing and delivering training to federal, state and local law enforcementagencies on the investigation and prosecution of computer crime. Informationabout the partnership can be found through the NWCCC website: www.cybercrime.org. 
**Privacy Rights Clearinghouse:** Nonprofit consumer informationand advocacy program that offers consumers a unique opportunity to learnhow to protect their personal privacy. PRC's services include a hotlinefor consumers to report privacy abuses and request information on waysto protect their privacy, fact sheets on privacy issues, including oneentitled " Are You Being Stalked? Tips For Your Protection." www.privacyrights.org. 
**Search Group, Inc.:** SEARCH, the National Consortium for JusticeInformation and Statistics, provides assistance to state and local criminaljustice agencies on a wide variety of information technology issues. SEARCH,through its National Technical Assistance and Training Program, providescomprehensive, hands-on training on computer crime investigations at itsheadquarters in Sacramento, CA, and at regional training sites around thecountry. www.search.org.         
**Working to Halt Online Abuse (WHOA)**: Founded by women to educate           the Internet community about online harassment, WHOA empowers victims           of online harassment and develops voluntary policies that systems administrators           can adopt to create an environment free of online harassment. WHOA educates           the online community by developing website resources, including the           creation of a safe-site and unsafe-site list to enable users to make           informed decisions, and providing information about how users can protect           themselves against harassment. www.haltabuse.org. **Appendix II:****How You Can Protect Against Cyberstalking -****And What To Do If You Are A Victim**
**Prevention Tips** 
* Do not share personal information in public spaces anywhere online,nor give it to strangers, including in e-mail or chat rooms. Do not useyour real name or nickname as your screen name or user ID. Pick a namethat is gender- and age-neutral. And do not post personal information aspart of any user profiles. 
* Be extremely cautious about meeting online acquaintances in person.If you choose to meet, do so in a public place and take along a friend. 
* Make sure that your ISP and Internet Relay Chat (IRC) network havean acceptable use policy that prohibits cyberstalking. And if your networkfails to respond to your complaints, consider switching to a provider thatis more responsive to user complaints. 
* If a situation online becomes hostile, log off or surf elsewhere.If a situation places you in fear, contact a local law enforcement agency. 
**What To Do If You Are Being Cyberstalked** 
* If you are receiving unwanted contact, make clear to that person thatyou would like him or her not to contact you again. 
* Save all communications for evidence. Do not edit or alter them inany way. Also, keep a record of your contacts with Internet system administratorsor law enforcement officials. 
* You may want to consider blocking or filtering messages from the harasser.Many e-mail programs such as Eudora and Microsoft Outlook have a filterfeature, and software can be easily obtained that will automatically deletee-mails from a particular e-mail address or that contain offensive words.Chat room contact can be blocked as well. Although formats differ, a commonchat room command to block someone would be to type: /ignore <person'sscreen name> (without the brackets). However, in some circumstances (suchas threats of violence), it may be more appropriate to save the informationand contact law enforcement authorities. 
* If harassment continues after you have asked the person to stop, contactthe harasser's Internet Service Provider (ISP). Most ISP's have clear policiesprohibiting the use of their services to abuse another person. Often, anISP can try to stop the conduct by direct contact with the stalker or byclosing their account. If you receive abusive e-mails, identify the domain(after the "@" sign) and contact that ISP. Most ISP's have an e-mail addresssuch as abuse@(domain name) or postmaster@(domain name) that can be usedfor complaints. If the ISP has a website, visit it for information on howto file a complaint. 
* Contact your local police department and inform them of the situationin as much detail as possible. In appropriate cases, they may refer thematter to state or federal authorities. If you are afraid of taking action,there are resources available to help you, Contact either: -The National Domestice Violence Hotline, 800-799-SAFE (phone); 800-787-3224(TDD) -A local women's shelter for advice and support. 1. Statutes that require a showing of a "credible threat"may be problematic in the prosecution of stalking. Stalkers often do notthreaten their victims overtly or in person; rather, they engage in conductthat, when taken in context, would cause a reasonable person to fear violence.In the context of cyberstalking, a credible threat requirement would beeven more problematic because the stalker, sometimes unbeknowst to thevictim, may be located a great distance away and, therefore, the threatmight not be considered credible. The better approach, codified in thefederal interstate stalking statute, 18 U.S.C. 2261A, is to prohibit conductthat places a person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury.
2. Comparisons based on data currently available.The data for cyberstalking, as noted in the text of this report, is largelyanecdotal and informal.
3. "Stalking in America: Findings from the NationalViolence Against Women Survey," U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, and Department of Health and Human Services, Center for DiseaseControl and Prevention, April 1998 (available at www.usdoj.gov/ojp).
4. The CyberAngels, a not-for-profit organizationthat assists victims of cybercrimes, including cyberstalking, using statisticsfrom unspecified sources, estimates there are approximately 63,000 Internetstalkers and 474,000 victims worldwide. For additional information aboutthis estimate, see the CyberAngles website at www.cyberangels.org.
5. Fisher, B. S., F. T. Cullen, J. Belknap, and M.G. Turner, "Being Pursued: Stalking Victimization in a National Study ofCollege Women." (From a forthcoming report on sexual violence against collegewomen funded by the US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice).
6. The information gathered on the issue of cyberstalkingis largely anecdotal. It was gathered through informal surveys of stateAttorneys General, U.S. Attorneys' Offices, and, to a lesser extent, localprosecutors' offices. Victim accounts were given voluntarily through outreachconducted by the Violence Against Women Office of the U.S. Department ofJustice. In addition, the American Prosecutors Research Institute of theNational District Attorneys' Association compiled a report with backgroundinformation on cyberstalking, which provided valuable information on currentlaw enforcement efforts.
7. These states are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California,Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts,Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, and Wyoming. Arkansas andMaryland have enacted statutes that cover harassment via electronic communicationsoutside their stalking statutes.
8. Copies of "Stalking and Domestic Violence: TheThird Annual Report to Congress Under the Violence Against Women Act" canbe obtained by contacting the National Criminal Justice Reference Service,Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000--(800) 851-3420.
9. Other resources available to individuals wishingto protect themselves against cyberstalking are listed in Appendix I, infra.
10. The definition of the term "telecommunicationsdevice" in that section excludes "interactive computer services." The intentof the exclusion is to insulate the service provider from liability, butnot to insulate an individual user from liability for his or her criminalbehavior. Accordingly, the Department of Justice has taken the positionand successfully argued that a modem was a telecommunications device withinthe meaning of the statute. Therefore, an individual who used a modem toconnect to the Internet and harass an individual is likely to fall withinthe terms of the statute. See American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, 929F.Supp. 824, 829 n.5 (E.D. Penn. 1996), aff'd, 521 U.S. 844 (1997); ApollomediaCorporation v. Reno, 19 F.Supp.2d 1081 (N.D. Cal. 1998), aff'd, --- U.S.---, 119 S.Ct. 1450 (U.S. Apr. 19, 1999).
  Return to . . . CCIPS home page || Justice   Department home page    Updated page February 7, 2003 usdoj-crm/mis/krr