CYBER CRIMINALS STEAL MILLIONS

LONDON May 2013 (AP) — International law enforcement agencies say the recent $45 million dollar ATM heist is just one of many scams they're fighting in an unprecedented wave of sophisticated cyber-attacks. Old-school robberies by masked criminals are being eclipsed by stealth multimillion dollar cybercrime operations which are catching companies and investigators by surprise.

"We are seeing an unprecedented number of cyber scams that include phishing for financial data, viruses, credit card fraud and others," Marcin Skowronek, an investigator at Europol's European Cybercrime Center in The Hague said on Saturday.

"In Europe, we are generally quite well protected against some types of fraud because of the chip and pin technology we use, but there are still shops and machines around the world who still take cards without chips. And the most popular destinations for this type of fraud are the United States and the Dominican Republic."

U.S. Investigators said Thursday a gang hit cash machines in 27 countries in two attacks — the first netting $5 million in December and then $40 million in February 2013 in a 10-hour spree that involved about 36,000 transactions.  Hackers got into bank databases, eliminated withdrawal limits on prepaid debit cards and created access codes. Others loaded that data onto any plastic card — even a hotel keycard — with a magnetic stripe  A similar scam yielded some 50 arrests this year in Europe during a joint police operation between Romanian police and Europol, Skowronek said.  The operation took more than a year, involved some 400 police officers across Europe and required work comparing bank losses to illegal transactions and then cross-referencing suspects, said Skowronek, who said many national police forces were beefing up their undercover work in the cyberworld to catch criminals.

Investigators found illegal workshops for producing devices and software to manipulate point-of-sale terminals. Illegal electronic equipment, financial data, cloned cards and cash were seized in raids in Britain and Romania.  The group stole credit and debit card numbers and PIN codes by implanting card reading devices and malicious software on point-of-sale terminals. The criminals then used counterfeit payment cards with stolen data for further illegal transactions in countries that included Argentina, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand and the United States.

Some 36,000 debit card and credit card holders in some 16 countries were affected, Skowronek said. The amount stolen was unclear.  Bank fraud, ATM scams and phishing are common in Romania, one of the most corrupt countries in the European Union, according to Transparency International which monitors and measures graft.  Under the late communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, who was ousted and executed in 1989, Romanians specialized in mathematics and computer coding and criminal gangs have tapped into those skills. The tradition has continued and Romanian school students are more advanced in mathematics than many of their European counterparts.  Nadine Spanu, a spokeswoman for Romania's anti-crime prosecutors, said Saturday she had no statement to offer on the $45 million heist or a possible Romania connection.  Skimming works when criminals place devices on ATMs that copy consumers' card details and leave them vulnerable to fraud. There have been similar cases in the United States and Britain.

The EU is the world's largest market for payment card transactions and it is estimated that organized crime groups derive more than 1.5 billion euros ($1.9 billion) a year from payment card fraud in the EU.  Mike Urban, director of financial crime solutions at Fiserv, a Brookfield-Wisconsin-based company that provides financial technology to banks, credit unions and corporations across the world, says banks have not caught up with the threat of electronic crime.  "Compare this to a physical bank security. If someone walks in today, they're probably not going to get very much money, the dye pack is going to explode, they will be caught on video, they're probably not going to get away with it, and they're probably going to spend a long time in jail," said Urban. "Online, in the cyberworld, we're not there yet."

One security loophole thieves have learned to exploit is the lack of real-time transactions in ATM-speak.  Known as the "Gone in 60 Seconds" scam, thieves deposit money and then make coordinated cash-advance withdrawals in various places — but all in less than 60 seconds so the machines essentially regard all of the withdrawals as one transaction.  In October, 2012,  some 14 people were charged following an FBI-led investigation into the theft of more than $1 million from Citibank using the 60-second scam. The simultaneous transactions at casinos in California and Nevada tricked the system into thinking that they were one transaction. Even on some joint accounts where both partners have cards for the same account, users can often bypass withdrawal limits if the transactions are done at the same time.

"This type of attack might be preventable if ATM networks were able to monitor transactions in real time for unusually large numbers of transactions involving individual cards or cards from the same issuing institution. Unfortunately, that type of infrastructure doesn't exist today, but perhaps it's time to consider creating and implementing it now, especially after this latest attack," said Tom Cross, director of security research at the Lancope, a company specializing in flow analysis for security and network performance based in Alpharetta, Georgia.

Police Maj. Gen. Pisit Paoin, chief of Thailand's Technology Crime Suppression Division, said in a telephone interview Saturday that Thai police have arrested more than 20 suspects involved in the $45 million cyber heist including those from Bulgaria, Bangladesh and eastern Europe.  He said that in the latest arrest in early April, a group of Bangladeshi and Malaysian suspects were using about 50 cards to withdraw cash from machines in Bangkok for a month and took out about 10 million baht ($336,000).

Why Impose Criminal Sanctions?

Recently added to Wikipedia:

Why Impose Criminal Sanctions? 

The determination to impose criminal sanctions for any activity even one previously subject to civil liability is never one that should be made lightly, particularly given what some regard as the over-criminalization of American law.1 However, the Criminalization of intellectual property violations and computer misuse are grounded in both traditional and modern justifications for imposing criminal liability: preventing fraud, enforcing commercial honesty, punishing theft of property, and enhancing market reliability.2 

Intellectual property now plays an increasingly important role in the economic well-being and security of the United States.3 In response to this recognition, Congress has significantly broadened the scope of existing criminal laws that protect intellectual property rights 4 and has passed several laws.5 Such laws are necessary to deter copyright pirates, trademark counterfeiters or trade secret thieves who might otherwise regard civil penalties as the cost of doing business. In addition, criminalization of violation of intellectual property rights embodies important values expressed by the criminal law: deterring fraud, protecting property, and facilitating commercial interaction.6 These values, which reflect concerns with morality, punishment and efficiency are analogous to those expressed by the criminalization of forgery.7 Criminal law is essential to further these goals, by asserting certain sanctions on behalf of those ill-positioned to do so themselves.8  Of the three identifiable classes of victims of copyright piracy or trafficking in counterfeit goods and services-purchasers or end users of the pirated or counterfeit goods or services, foreseeable third parties in society at large, and legitimate owners of the copyrighted goods or authentic marks only the third group might ever find civil sanctions under the Copyright Act or Lanham Act a possible remedy, must less a realistic one.9 Finally, under a modern law and economics analysis of criminal law, the essential role, for example, of trademarks and service marks in facilitating commerce makes counterfeiting an excellent candidate for criminal protection.10 More specifically, copyright piracy and trafficking in counterfeit goods is tantamount to fraud in that the purchase of the counterfeit product is often not getting what they expected. Prohibitions against fraud have long been codified by federal as well as state law, either as a separate crime or as part of a comprehensive theft statute. In comparison to many traditional forms of fraud such as check kiting, copyright pirates or trademark counterfeiters can perpetrate their fraud on a much larger scale. Counterfeit goods can be widely disseminated without requiring the presence or active involvement of the defrauder. With the digitalization of consumer products and the Internet, counterfeit goods may be quickly and cheaply disseminated throughout the world.11 

Further, because of the ease with which pirated digital copyrighted works and misappropriated trade secrets can be reproduced and distributed, once the proverbial “cat is out of the bag” with respect to that material, there is very little that the victim can do to prevent further harm. While the criminal prosecution of that particular defendant for that particular crime does not make that particular victim whole, it may serve to deter future criminal violations of intellectual property rights. 

In addition, end users may be widely dispersed and thus their losses are dispersed. Many consumers of mass market products may be deceived, with one suffering only a minor monetary loss. Moreover, they are often not in direct contact with the copyright pirate or counterfeiter. Since end users may not know who deceived them, or even that they were deceived, and in many cases has suffered only minimal damage, an individual end user may have insufficient information or incentive to bring a civil action against the copyright pirate or counterfeiter. Thus, a copyright pirate or counterfeiter who has defrauded thousands of end users and profited greatly, but caused minimal damage to each individual, may avoid paying any damages. A criminal prosecution can be crucial for providing any measure of justice under such circumstances and for deterring potential violators.12 Intellectual property is increasingly treated like other forms of property. Consequently, its theft might be similarly criminalized. Indeed, a company's intangible assets such as its trade secrets may be worth far more than its tangible assets and the damage caused by the theft of a company's trade secrets may be far greater than the theft of any of its tangible assets. Since the harms caused to victims of intellectual property violations are as real as those caused by the theft of tangible property, the need for criminal sanctions is the same.13 

While the victim of conventional theft can sometimes deter crime through self-help security measures such as by hiring additional security guards or attaching anti-theft tags to the merchandise, it is very difficult to do so in the case of intellectual property violations.14 Government prosecution can play a uniquely critical role in deterring such crime and providing meaningful protections, such as investigation, to victims of intellectual property violations.15 

1 See Goldstone and Toren, “The Criminalization of Trademark Counterfeiting,” 31 Conn. L. Rev. 1, 8 (Fall 1998) (hereinafter “Trademark Counterfeiting”). See also, Mann, Punitive Civil Sanctions: The Middle Ground Between Civil and Criminal Law, 101 Yale L.J. 1795, 1802 (1992) (“This, I advocate the shrinking of the criminal law  in order to fit it into its proper role in the law of sanctions, next to an expanding arena of punitive civil sanctions”). 

2 See Goldstone and Toren, N. 1 supra, 31 Conn. L. Rev. at 9. 

3 For example, according to the legislative history of the Anti-counterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-153, 110 Stat. 1386: 

“American companies spend millions of dollars to research, develop, test, and market their products. Developing high-quality goods requires substantial investment before profits can be recouped. The theft of the value of intellectual property is devastating, regardless of whether the product is a shoe, a software program, or a motion picture.” S. Rep. No. 104-177, 104th Cong., 1st Sess., at 8, (Nov. 28, 1995). 

4 Congress enacted the first criminal law protecting intellectual property in 1909.  See Act of March 4, 1909, Ch. 28, 35 Stat. 1082. The law covered only copyright violations and only at a minimal level. Since then, Congress has gradually and consistently expanded the role of federal law enforcement in this area, by imposing  felony penalties for unlawfully reproducing or distributing motion pictures or sound recordings in 1982, see Pub. L. No. 97-180, 96 Stat. 92 (May 24, 1982), by broadening the protection to all types of copyrighted works in 1992, see  Pub. L. No. 102-561, 106 Stat. 4233 (Oct. 28, 1992), by making a copyright violation a “specified unlawful activity” for money laundering in 1994, see Pub. L. No. 103-325, 108 Stat. 2111 (Sept. 23, 1994), by including copyright violations as predicate offenses under RICO in 1996, see Pub. L. No. 104-253, 110 Stat. 1386 (Oct. 9, 1996), and in 1997, by passing the No Electronic Theft Act (NET) Act, which criminalizes copyright infringement even in certain circumstances where the infringer does not act for commercial purpose or private financial gain. See 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b)(1). 

5 In addition to criminalizing trademark infringement in 1984, see Pub. L. No. 98473, 98 Stat. 2178 (1984), Congress in 1996 criminalized the theft of trade secrets by passing the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. Pub. L. No. 104-294, 110. Stat. 3488 (1996). 

6 See Goldstone and Toren, N. 1 supra, 31 Conn. L. Rev. at 11. 
7 Id. See also, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 3:8, 3-15 (4th ed. 2003): 

“Trademark infringement between competitors is infringement in the same sense as if someone goes to your bank and passes himself off as you, using copied identification. That person cashes a check, drawing funds from your account because the bank teller has been confused by the similarity of the identification.” 

8   Goldstone and Toren, N. 1 supra, 31 Conn. L. Rev. at 11.
9   Goldstone and Toren, N. 1 supra, 31 Conn. L. Rev. at 11. 
10  Goldstone and Toren, N. 1 supra, 31 Conn. L. Rev. at 17-20. 
11  Goldstone and Toren, N. 1 supra, 31 Conn. L. Rev. at 13. 
12 Goldstone and Toren, N. 1 supra, 31 Conn. L. Rev. at 11. 
13 Goldstone and Toren, N. 1 supra, 31 Conn. L. Rev. at 16. 
14 Goldstone and Toren, N. 1 supra, 31 Conn. L. Rev. at 17. 
15 Goldstone and Toren, N. 1 supra, 31 Conn. L. Rev. at 17.

The use of computers to commit crimes began as far back as the 1960s, but because of the limited numbers of computers and the lack of inter-connectivity, computers were generally a tool used by criminals to commit a traditional offense such as fraud. Use of computers in this manner was similar to other technological advances that benefited society but could also be used for criminal purposes, such as automobiles that could be used to escape from a bank robbery or telephones that could be used by scam artists to contact potential victims. In response to such technological advancements, the federal government and states amended their existing substantive criminal law or enacted new laws  to  cover such  activity.1  While  the  changes  in  technology prior to computers did provide individuals with opportunities to commit new crimes or made it easier to commit traditional crimes, the threats posed to society by the use of technology remained 

acceptable and could generally be managed by local or state law enforcement. 

However, with the proliferation of the personal computer and the worldwide interconnection of such computers through the Internet, modern computer crime presents risks to society and unique challenges to law enforcement than in the past. The criminal threats posed by the Internet is based on a vastly more complex technology than the automobile, for example, computers allow criminals to commit more crimes in less time than ever before, giving law enforcement less time to react to any potential criminal threat. In addition, because of the anonymity provided by the Internet, a criminal can engage in criminal activity with very little risk of apprehension. 

Moreover, the worldwide reach of the Internet allows a cyber-criminal to cause harm to thousands, if not millions, of victims that may not,

1 For example, the Supreme Court in United States v. Turley, 352 U.S. 407, 413-414, 77 S. Ct. 397, 1 L.Ed.2d 430 (1957), explained the necessity of a federal criminal statute prohibiting the theft of motor vehicles: 

“By 1919, the law of most States against local theft had developed so as to include not only common-law larceny but embezzlement, false pretenses, larceny by trick, and other types of wrongful taking. The advent of the automobile, however, created a new problem with which the States found it difficult to deal. The automobile was uniquely suited to felonious taking whether by larceny, embezzlement or false pretenses. It was a valuable, salable article which itself supplied the means for speedy escape. ‘The automobile 
[became] the perfect chattel for modern  large - scale  theft.’  This  challenge  could  be  best  met through use of the Federal Government's jurisdiction over interstate commerce. The need for federal action increased with the number, distribution and speed of the motor vehicles until, by 1919, it became a necessity. The result was the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act.” 

even be located in the same geographic area. In the case of computer crime, national borders lose all significance. To make matters worse, such acts may not even be a crime in the originating jurisdiction. For example, the individual who created and distributed the “Love Bug” virus that caused an estimated $15 billion in damages worldwide, could not be prosecuted in the Philippines where he lived because such conduct was not a crime in that country at that time.2 

In response to how computers can be used to facilitate traditional crimes and to the rise of cyber-crimes for which there is no analogous traditional crime, Congress has pursued a dual approach. First, Congress has updated existing laws to ensure that such statutes could be used to prosecute those types of crimes committed with the aid of a computer, although, not all of these attempts have been successful.3 Second, in 1984 Congress enacted the first statute that was expressly  designed to cover computer crime in which there is no analogous traditional crime.4 Since then, Congress has repeatedly amended and revised this statute to be a more effective weapon in fighting computer crime.5 In general, the existing version of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, like its predecessors, seeks to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of data and systems.6 The Act contains seven major provisions that create liability for crimes against “protected computers”—those used in interstate or foreign commerce or communications, and any computer connected to the Internet.7 

2 The virus infected tens of thousands of computers worldwide including computers  at the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency, Congress, and private companies such as Microsoft, and Dow Jones & Co. 

3 See, e.g., Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 122 S.Ct. 1389, 152 L.Ed.2d 403 (2002) (portions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act which criminalizes the production, distribution, and reception of computer generated, sexual images of children were unconstitutionally over-broad because they proscribed  speech which was neither child pornography nor obscene and thus abridged the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech.).  

 4 Ashcroft, 535 U.S. 234, at 236.
5 Ashcroft, 535 U.S. 234, at 239.
6 Ashcroft,  535 U.S. 234, at 341.
7 See generally, 18 U.S.C. § 1030. 

~~~~ Thomas "Birdy" McKee  aka: Birdymckee

With online networks steering our social lives these days, deciding exactly how to represent ourselves on the web can be tricky. This episode of Upgrade Your Life addresses 5 kinds of photos you should avoid putting online — and why.



1. Don't post pictures showing personal data
Even if your Twitter account is private and you closely monitor who sees what on your Facebook profile, personal data revealed in photos isn't necessarily safe. Strangers and hackers aren't the only threat; people you know can steal your identity, too. And according to a study conducted by the Javelin Strategy and Research group, they are with increasing frequency, thanks to social media. According to Javelin's 2010 Identity Fraud Survey, people between the ages of 18 to 24 were especially prone to this kind of identity theft, likely due to their high level of engagement with social networking websites.



By 2011, this demographic had shifted to the 25- to 34 age group who are now the most likely victims of so-called "friendly fraud. Older Americans are the least likely to secure their social media accounts, which also puts them at high risk for identity theft at the hands of friends and acquaintances.



* Don't post any images with any identifying information whatsoever. No driver's licenses, marriage certificates, leases, or passports. You may think that's obvious, but do an image search and you'll see plenty of newly married couples, proud teen drivers, and world travelers posting high resolution pics of their documents.

* Even if you think your photos are private, more people might be able to see them than you think. On Facebook, friends of friends might be able to see photos tagged of you, if the photo's owner has the setting enabled. Facebook's photo settings are notoriously complex, so err on the side of caution and untag photos when necessary.



2. Disable location services and geotagging
Cameras are increasingly sophisticated — even the ones built into our phones. As you snap pictures, many cameras record information called EXIF data or metadata, including the camera's make & model, settings like speed and aperture, and the time the photo was taken.

While much of this is helpful, it's just good for you to know you may be posting this info with a photo. Probably the biggest issue with embedded photo data is geotagging: when a GPS-enabled camera, memory card, or cell phone camera pinpoints your exact location in the metadata — even without your knowledge. Some social networking services strip that data out, but others include it — which mean you've essentially posted your home address online for anyone who knows how to view the geotagging data.

If your device includes this geodata as the default option, you'll need to disable it in your settings. If you're working with a point-and-shoot camera or a DSLR, you can find this through the settings menu on your camera — just look for a menu mentioning "geotagging," "location" or "geodata" and to be sure the feature isn't enabled.

Turn off geotagging on Android and iPhone
To disable geotagging on an Android device, open the camera app and be sure the "geo-tag photos" box in the settings menu is unchecked. On an iPhone, hit the settings icon, click on "location services" from the menu, find "Camera" and move the slider from On to Off.



3. Incriminating photos
As social networks skyrocket in popularity, employers are increasingly hopping on the web to research potential new hires. Many businesses search the web for information about their prospective or current employees. Now, background checking companies like Social Intelligence Corp. have capitalized on this kind of job vetting. The FTC recently ruled that such companies can store your long-deleted online indiscretions for up to 7 years. And since 47% of Facebook walls contain content that could be deemed profane, that fact is relevant to a lot of us.

* Resist the urge to post "party photos" on social networks. And yes that means no pics with the red keg cup in hand, even if you were only drinking water.

* Keep the way you'd like to be perceived professionally in mind when choosing a profile picture.

* If friends tag you in an incriminating Facebook photo, a recent privacy overhaul means you can approve or disapprove the tag, which will keep it from showing up on your profile page. Keep in mind this new feature is limited, so those photos can still pop up elsewhere on Facebook.

4. Cut out poorly cropped photos
While it's no security risk, there's little reason to choose Facebook profile photo with a stray arm or shoulder in it. If you're looking to meet people online on a dating site or social network, make the effort to choose a profile that features you, without the distraction of half of someone else in the picture. That someone else could distract anyone who looks at your profile — who is it? Where was it taken? Is that your ex? But keeping the focus on you is easy, thanks to free apps.

Improve your photos with these free tools
Photos editing services like Picnik, and DrPic, can make cropping a snap. There's no need to use Microsoft Paint to edit a photo — if you need to tinker around with a shot, use one of these free services.

And pick an interesting one — according to stats from OKCupid, one of the web's most popular dating sites, you'll be far more likely to strike up a conversation with a potential match if your photo shows you doing something interesting, like playing the guitar or scuba diving.



5. Avoid webcam profile photos
There are a range of great, cheap, easy-to-use cameras out there, which means something better than your computer's built-in or external webcam is often at hand. Even cameraphones often boast 5 megapixels or more, which can easily eclipse the photo quality of a webcam, even on new computers. Since many webcams are optimized for video, the photo quality deteriorates when it comes to still images. Apple's new FaceTime cameras, found on the iPad 2, the MacBook Air, and other devices are one example of this. These cameras make moving pictures look great, but your still shot may be grainy and blurred.



How to improve your self-portraits
To get a good shot of yourself, you're better off using any kind of point-and-shoot camera, a DSLR for the best image quality, or even your phone. Since you can potentially find a tripod for each of these devices (check out GorillaMobile for your phone), set up your shot in advance so it will be well-framed and well-lit.

For a flattering outdoor photo, avoid the high-noon sun. Instead either take your own photo — or better yet, recruit a friend's help — during the early morning and late afternoon hours, when photographers are known to capture the best kind of light for portraits.



-Birdy

When Stalking Goes Online Now You Don't Have to Own a Computer to Be a Victim

Most of us know what stalking is; what we don’t know is how pervasive it is. And with the advent of advanced technology and communications stalking just went cyber:

• In 2003 a US woman sought protection after claiming that someone had provided her personal information (including her description and location) to men via an online dating service. The victim discovered the identity theft when she was contacted by a man who said they had arranged a casual encounter through the Lavalife.com dating service. Shortly thereafter she was contacted by a second man following chat with 'her' about arranging a separate encounter. She commented "You don't even have to own a computer to be the victim of an Internet crime any more."
  
  
• A 44 year old publishing executive named Claire Miller was harassed by strangers who were responding to verging-on-pornographic promises someone had made in her name online. These postings included her home address and telephone number. 
  
  
• A Glendale businessman stalked his ex-girlfriend using the GPS tracking device on a cell phone. He purchased a Nextel phone device that has a motion switch on it that turns itself on when it moves. As long as the device was on, it transmitted a signal every minute to the GPS satellite, which in turn sent the location information to a computer. The ex planted the phone underneath her car, paid for a service to send him the information and would log on to a website to monitor her location. The victim would suddenly ‘bump’ into him at the coffee shop, LAX, even the cemetery. She knew something was up — it wasn’t hard to realize as he was also phoning her 200 times a day — but police couldn’t help her. It was only when she called police after seeing him under her car that she got action (he was trying to change the cell phone battery). 
  
  
• Amy Lynn Boyer was found by her stalker using online technology. Liam Youens was able to get Boyer’s place of employment and SSN by paying an online investigations agency a mere $154.00. They easily obtained her relevant information from a credit agency report and gave it to Youens. None of the people giving out Boyer’s personal information took responsibility to find out why Youens needed it. This is why: Youens went to Amy Boyer’s workplace, shot and killed her.

These are just some of the few documented cases of cyberstalking, when someone uses technology to maliciously target a specific victim with the intention harass, threat and intimidate.

It’s just like “traditional” stalking, but it's totally anonymous, thanks to the sophisticated technology we rely on everyday.

Cyberstalking - Spyware and Privacy Protection

Know the Tools Cybercriminals Use to Access Your Information

There are so few people who understand how to stop a cyberstalker and repair the damage. Thousands become victims every year, and each of us is vulnerable. I know this firsthand because I was once a victim of cyberstalking. It took me years to recover my life and get my credit in order. Ever since then, my goal has been to shake people up and instill enough awareness of cyberstalking to get everyone to take protective and preventative steps both on and offline.

Cyberstalking CAN Happen To You

Think again. It can happen to you and here are some of the reasons:

• Our global society's over reliance on technology
• The increasing affordability of technology and its ease of use (virus software that used to be in the thousands is now less than a hundred dollars to purchase)
• The remote distance and anonymity technology provides to give cover to those who would hesitate to do something more traceable
• Not to mention the lack of enforceable laws – or even laws that address the problem period - to protect people

For all these reasons there has been a rapid rise in cyberstalking incidents.

We are all vulnerable.

The New Wild West Is Online

Here are some other famous people who have been hacked and harassed in the last few years: Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly, Miley Cyrus. While it isn't surprising that a celebrity might draw more ire or attention, they represent our collective vulnerability. Despite the familiarity and ease we feel while using the Internet, it is still a technological frontier town. The internet is only just coming out of its infancy and in many ways as unprotected as the Western one of our past. Lawmakers and consumers can't keep up with the swift leaps in accessible technology to know what is truly possible and what isn't.

Privacy protection programs for consumers including victims of crime are inadequate. Often police can't make an arrest because there is no evidence of a crime being committed. Over and over I've heard about victims being treated like idiots by law enforcement. I've been there, trying to explain what happened on my computer and why it's important, and meanwhile the cop taking my report pats me on the head and tells me to go home. With no smoking gun, it's only your word that a crime happened at all.

Cyberstalkers don't have to be super-hackers or have superior intelligence to achieve their goals. A quick search on the internet can reveal various cyberstalker tool kits making it easy for cyberstalkers to wreak havoc with little or no effort.

The Tools of the Trade

Take keylogging spyware for example. Keylogging spyware can be purchased online which provides a cyberstalker with detailed instructions explaining how to disguise the spyware as an innocuous file, such as a photo, attached to an email to send out to an unsuspecting victim. When you click on the disguised file thinking you're going to see a photograph of kittens in a basket, the keylogger spyware is silently installed in the background without your knowledge. This spyware records every keystroke typed on the victim's computer.

Think about that…your passwords, captured images on your computer screen and tracking all the websites you visit (including your credit card information if you log it in anywhere). To access the information, RemoteSpy clients would log into a website maintained by the online keylogging spyware company.

Sounds far-fetched, but millions of people have been victimized by this spyware and probably don't even know it. At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a U.S. District Court has issued a temporary restraining order halting the sale of keylogger spyware. According to the FTC's complaint, the Florida-based CyberSpy Software, LLC marketed and sold RemoteSpy keylogger spyware to clients who would then secretly monitor unsuspecting consumers' computers.

And yet in law terms a "complaint" is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. Another website selling key logging spyware will surely (if not already) pop up and continue to sell the keylogging spyware under another name.

Cyberstalking and Your Credit Rating Falsely Damaging Credit Is Another Way To Cause Significant Harm

A cyberstalker out to get you can easily hit you where it hurts the most -- in the wallet -- by deliberately destroying your credit rating. As the story below illustrates, it's a very simple process with a number of surprising loopholes that make us all vulnerable.

Messing With Credit - A Cautionary Tale

Margret was applying for a car loan. It was going to be her first brand new car and her first major debt. With building excitement she chose the perfect car within her budget and the salesperson took her to see the finance manager to complete the deal. But after a few minutes at the computer, the finance manager told Jenna that her car loan was denied.

"But that's not possible!" Jenna cried. After pressing the finance manager for a reason, she finally told Jenna that her rating showed an excessive number of credit inquiries, a big no-no that brings the credit rating down and gives an unfavorable impression.

Jenna was shocked — she had not applied for any new credit.

Turns out what she had done was move out of the apartment that she shared with a college friend. That "friend" was not very happy with Jenna because when Jenna left, the roommate had to find another roommate fast to make rent. Instead of working it out with Jenna in person, she'd pulled a cheap vengeful trick and put in several credit inquires on Jenna's behalf. No one asks for ID when you fill out a credit card application online or when one is completed and dropped in the mail.

Simple Tricks Have Huge Impact

Your credit report is the key to your financial health in our society, and yet it is one of the most vulnerable areas in your online portfolio. Very simple tricks like sending in multiple credit card applications with wrong addresses or spelling can start taking points off your credit rating and are nearly impossible to clean up – and take endless hours to handle.

The major credit institutions (Equifax, Trans Union and Experian) aren't in the least bit customer service oriented. You will rarely if ever get an actual person on the phone. The only method for repairing falsely damaged credit is a long, arduous letter-writing campaign which has unpredictable results. It's damaging to your safety and future and eats up huge amounts of time.

Worse, you have no way of finding out if any third party checks your credit report without your knowledge.

Remember that a 'cyberstalker' can obtain almost any information needed about you by his/her willingness to Google Search you nanme and or pay money to a company that specializes in furnishing data to the public . These companies are called "data furnishers" and they have the right to tap into your credit information without telling you – or who, exactly, was asking for it.