Cyber Bullying/Stalking and Invasion of Privacy

Tyler Clementi suffered a grotesque invasion of privacy
Saturday, October 2, 2010

TYLER CLEMENTI'S last message on Facebook was as simple as it was poignant: "Jumping off the gw bridge sorry."

More details are sure to emerge about the Sept. 22 suicide of this talented violinist, an 18-year-old freshman at Rutgers University in New Jersey. But this much is known: He was secretly videotaped in his dorm room in a sexual encounter with another man. His roommate and another dorm resident are accused of streaming the video on the Internet, where friends and strangers alike could gawk. According to news reports, Mr. Clementi discussed the videotaping incident in a gay online chat room and then reported it to a dorm official. He appeared to be coping well. Then he jumped.

Privacy laws were undoubtedly broken, and law enforcement officials in New Jersey are pursuing a criminal case against the two alleged culprits. Rutgers should consider expulsion. But the response should go beyond this case. Colleges and universities should articulate a zero-tolerance policy for such invasions of privacy. Parents and teachers should use this tragic episode to talk about the need for decency and conscience in real and virtual encounters.

Technology is not the villain. Humans have never needed sophisticated tools to spread malice. Word of mouth and surreptitious notes have long done the trick. But technology has exponentially enabled and emboldened the mean or thoughtless among us. It allows those with less than noble intentions to hide behind screen names or lurk from afar, distancing themselves from their human targets and the possible consequences of their actions. And the trespasses are no longer contained to a circle of friends, a school or a town but accessible to millions.
ad_icon

Mr. Clementi's saga is grief-inducing not because of the breach of laws but because of the heartlessness. Did the video intruders pause to think how they would feel if they had been the targets? Probably not.

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/01/AR2010100107163.html

3. Why isn't this taken seriously? Does a cyber bullied or cyber stalked person have to commit suicide in order for the public at large to take this matter seriously? Why or why not?

Really..?? fuck the hell with the gay fuck bozo with his internet social networking habits!

You want a real heart breaking history? About being bullied..?



'Bullied' Schoolgirl Dies In Dad's Arms

10:15pm UK, Wednesday October 06, 2010

Lulu Sinclair, Sky News Online
A 12-year-old girl collapsed and died in her father's arms after apparently suffering months of bullying.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Schoolgirl-Holly-Stuckey-12-Dies-In-Her-Fathers-Arms-Amid-Claims-She-Had-Been-Bullied-For-Months/Article/201010115753114?f=rss<BR>




What do you call this then..?

wtf?

a internet being involved is what makes it "cyber" you dork.


as for you q...




Really..?? fuck the hell with the gay fuck bozo with his internet social networking habits!



did you misunderstand? the dude was in his dorm room having sex. his roommate, while in another dorm room, activated his webcam and streamed the video of the guy having sex...outing him.

the invasion of privacy has nothing to do with his sexuality. the same could happen to your children while they're away at university. would you be so callous then?

aside from that is the fact that he was outed by his roommate. clearly he had yet to come to terms with his sexuality if he feared it being known publicly. where his committing suicide was not foreseeable, the question is, should be held civilly liable for outing a gay person without their consent?

look at this with respect to "don't ask, don't tell." outing someone without their permission can end a career. or take some muslim nations for example where being lgbt is punishable by death. by outing a person who is in the closet, you could in effect subject this person to capital murder.

so my question is, should the person doing the outing be held liable if there are losses/distress that are in direct consequence of the outing?

or in this case, could should the state hold the roommate and his accomplice legally responsible for the boy's death (i.e. involuntary manslaughter) AND should the parents be allowed to sue for mental distress or some other legal premise?

no, calling you an ignorant fuck who needs their head medically extracted from their anus while being tortured with fire ants MIGHT be cyberbullying.

before you speak on what you do not know, google what happened to this young man. given you don't know what you're talking about, find the exit.

oh fucking wait, a capricorn who has 15 posts and claims to know TONS about me.

whomever you are, whatever your previous accounts are, try not to run behind my ass this time. either way, you no longer exist. sick fuck.

TUBBY , TUBBY get a grip.

-did you misunderstand? the dude was in his dorm room having sex.

Perhaps.. I don't have any positive feelings for the gay people, dorm as I understand is not a personal room but shared space with the others and shared space has no privacy what so ever especially in that age and ego.

-he same could happen to your children while they're away at university. would you be so callous then?

The same not going happen to my kids since there is no such a thing in Norway shared room is limited in bathroom and kitchen.

And like TwinGoat said.. it might not his room mate did it (directly at least)??_


One gay fuck less in the world.. WHO CARES..??


I DON??T??_!

You are so damn sensitive to the word??stalking??, get over it. I had tons of —stalkers?? too identify, ignore and you??ll be free in no time...

If he was a muslim homosexual would you still not care?

Eh..??

look, take the petty shit elsewhere.

in terms of suicide, kids under the ages of 20 make up the largest age group.

a dorm room is typically no different than a hotel room with 2 beds. the only difference would be whether or not the bathroom was in-room, if it was communal or shared between two rooms.

clearly you didn't bother to obtain additional info because it was the roommate's computer. it was the roommate's webcam. it was the roommate who left the room to allow the victim privacy with his date. and it was the roommate who invaded that privacy by activating his webcam. it was the roommate who put the video on the school's intranet and internet. it was the roommate who attempted to invade his privacy on a second occasion.

his being gay is separate from the obvious invasion of privacy. i think it's pretty fucked up that just because someone is lgbt that all of a sudden their life, their privacy, their right to happiness means nothing.

No. But... I don't provide would-be stalkers with any real information that could be used against me.



this was his roommate. he was in the confines of his domicile, his home. he wasn't attempting to have sex while the roommate was sleep in the next bed. he had every expectation of privacy and i can't imagine the HORROR of walking around on campus and not knowing that i have been violated to such a level. add the fact that he was closeted and it's even more shocking.

this isn't the case of some asshole on the internet with too much time her hands. try to equivocate it to yourself as an adult male...

say that you took some chick out for lunch a few times and told her your name or that you handed a potential client your business card that also had your name. this happens all the time so saying that you "don't provide would-be stalkers with any real information" is a lie.

where most normal people wouldn't use a business card maliciously, the reality is, not everyone is normal. some people are just THAT sick or THAT curious.

in the states for example, you can get tax records online. like if you wanted to know if someone owns their house, how much the house is worth, how much they pay in taxes, if there are any liens, all this crap is available online. sure, it is a matter of public record but before the internet, one had to make an effort to obtain this information. now all you need is a name and internet access.

what gets me is, people in the US scream about the patriot act and even before that legislation we were already exposed. in an age of online background check services and google maps where one can literally be stalked to their front door, who cares if the government is listening in when the weirdo across the street is doing the same thing?

Good point Dy
fair is faior
In some countrys Gays are put to death
So maybe we should put the outers to death here.

crap, i got the two virgos confused. totally missed that poo-faces avatar. either way, my last post was an amalgam 😛

yes, you were answering that question directly but my point is, does it matter if it originates in person if the person takes what you've told them in real life and uses it to stalk/bully you on the internet?

it becomes "cyber" not because of how the personal information was gathered but based on the realm in which the assault was waged.

ie someone i met in person, who i'd given my name locating me on FB isn't stalking. but if that person takes that information to gather other information...and more information and uses it in a malicious manner, it becomes "cyber" stalking.

we need to stop thinking of stalkers/bullying in a traditional sense. yes, chick sitting outside your house for hours and pissing in a mcdonalds cup is scary as hell. but "cyber" can be equally menacing. if you aren't on the internet like that, oh well. my 77 year old grandmother has absolutely NOTHING to worry about but i'm not my 77 y/o gma and neither was this kid who committed suicide...or any child that does (gay or straight).

agreed and that's what's creepy to me because someone doesn't even have to be on the internet to be on the internet.

it will be interesting to see how privacy issues evolve over time. given that nothing on the internet ever truly dies (especially in the hands of google), one has to wonder how these electronic dossiers we willingly create will effect us moving forward?

i mean if you think about it, at its inception, people were far more reserved and protective of their personal information and physicality than they are now. in the mid-late 90s the notion of meeting a stranger from some website for a cup of coffee, let alone dinner was considered CRAZY! now people do it as if it's old hat not to mention sharing every waking moment of their lives on social networks.

i wonder if public exposure, living your life in the open online, will become the norm or if increased incidences of "cyber" violations will result in a collective withholding and far more personal protection and privacy rights online? the internet is a harmless tool or an awesome weapon. in a weird way, arguments for/against gun rights can be tweaked to suit this issue.

^eh, that trailed off in the end. i shouldn't post when i'm distracted.

my point is, people get on their computer machine and they divulge willingly but just because the info is available does that mean a sick person can justify sick behavior because the information is available online?

ie so what if dude was gay? he was in the closet. it's something he chose to keep in private. hetero bedroom activities aren't "exposed" in this manner so should lgbt's be the exception?

imagine bill coming up to you and saying, "sally's husband fucked her in the ass last night. i have the video. i put it on the internet. do you want to see?"

after you say, "you betcha!," a normal person would wonder wtf does bill have video of sally getting ass fucked? wtf is wrong with bill? and whoaaaaaaa!, sally took it like a champ but DUDE! WTF is wrong with bill?

Posted by caligula
agreed and that's what's creepy to me because someone doesn't even have to be on the internet to be on the internet.

it will be interesting to see how privacy issues evolve over time. given that nothing on the internet ever truly dies (especially in the hands of google), one has to wonder how these electronic dossiers we willingly create will effect us moving forward?

i mean if you think about it, at its inception, people were far more reserved and protective of their personal information and physicality than they are now. in the mid-late 90s the notion of meeting a stranger from some website for a cup of coffee, let alone dinner was considered CRAZY! now people do it as if it's old hat not to mention sharing every waking moment of their lives on social networks.

i wonder if public exposure, living your life in the open online, will become the norm or if increased incidences of "cyber" violations will result in a collective withholding and far more personal protection and privacy rights online? the internet is a harmless tool or an awesome weapon. in a weird way, arguments for/against gun rights can be tweaked to suit this issue.

What really chaps my hide is when people who don't give a f@ck about their own personal business being put out there, try to chastise those who DO mind all their personal business being put out there. My thing is, if I want somebody to know something, I'll tell them; otherwise, why snoop into my personal business. I really don't bother with other peoples personal business. If a friend wants to tell me something about their business then that's fine, but I don't go around digging up ish about them via tax records/deeds of trust/criminal records, etc.

Quite honestly, I think if people had more stuff going on in their lives then hell, maybe they wouldn't be so concerned with what the f@ck I'm doing. Furthermore, the story you posted Tub/Cali is horrific, and I think that anybody who doesn't think that is a gross miscarriage of privacy, then I say, put webcams and stuff in your house and have people watching you eat/drink/f@ck/go to the restroom, etc. People should have some semblance of privacy afforded to them. This kid was in HIS dorm room, and had no reason NOT to think his privacy would not be invaded. I think it's terribly rude and disgusting, and if someone did that to me, I would beat their ass. You can bet on that.

yup!

i'm just trying to think of what it was like back in college and how horrific this would be. i mean today someone can easily "nanny cam" you on whim and justify it.

what gets me is the roommate was probably spying on the dude on other occasions too. what is the likelihood that this was the first time? i mean they said he tried again afterward so it would stand to reason that he'd tried before as well. and what purpose did this guy have to film his roommate having sex with a dude? frankly, how GAY is the roommate for sitting there and watching the shit?

it just amazes me how backwards folk's logic is and in a way, it really is like attempting to reason with a mentally ill person. "normal" people just don't do this shit. "normal" people don't treat you like prey. if it aint making you money or impacting your money, wtf do you care?

Posted by caligula
if it aint making you money or impacting your money, wtf do you care?

"If it don't make dollas' then it don't make sense!" WORD!
I don't care if people want to webcam themselves shoving a pole up their a $ $ or brushing their teeth or gardening. Just leave me the hell alone, and let me "be!"

I think it's ridiculous altogether that the LGBT crowd is suggesting prosecution for "outing" a gay without consent. Don't we have enough sinuous laws to contend with already? This was a horrific thing to do and, unfortunately for his humiliation, it involved Tyler's being gay. BUT THIS IS NOT A GAY ISSUE! This is a gross violation of privacy. If I tell Sally and Jane that Joe is gay b/c I overheard Joe talking on the phone to his lover and the rumor goes from there, should my "gossip"--even quietly or "benignly" conveyed--be prosecutable b/c I didn't have Joe's permission to "out" him? That's outrageous! However, catching him in the act and fanning it all over the Internet should be prosecutable--b/c I've exposed his profoundly-intimate SEXUAL ACTS without consent. His roommate could have just as well videoed and "outed" him in the act of masturbation. What hate crime would THAT fall under?? And though the premise would not have been homosexual in nature (well, um, not technically, lol), the effect could still have been the same. Something so private as one's sexual activity should NEVER be made available for public viewing--or even legally recorded without consent, orientation aside.

The prosecutable crimes should be gross invasion of privacy and public transmission of private sexual acts without consent. The card that the LGBTs are trying to play is ridiculous and all this hate crimes crap is just that: CRAP!

i see your point but the truth is, no matter what the media tries to tell you, no matter how accepting you as an individual might be, being lgbt CAN be more than mere gossip.

as i said, your running your mouth about a suspected gay soldier can result in his being discharged from the military. in a muslim country, he could lose his life. in certain churches, he could be ostracized. in certain families he can be isolated and disowned.

i think it oversimplifies the issue to relegate it to "gossip" because if that were the case, the suicide and addiction rates within this community wouldn't be above the average. where not everyone considers suicide, one of my friends did and fuck anyone who trivializes shit they so clearly don't understand.

it doesn't take a genius to realize that there are some things you just don't do and this is one of them. is it criminally prosecutable? no. but if there is an expectation of privacy, if there is an expectation of problems result from violating that privacy, you can and should be held civilly liable.