In case you’re unfamiliar with doxing, it is term that describes using the internet to search for and obtain the personal information of others, and to post it publicly on the internet with the intent to threaten, intimidate, harass or incite the commission of a crime of violence against a person or a member of the immediate family of that person.
Some states consider doxing to fall under stalking laws and include an intent to cause the person doxed extreme emotional distress. In fact, in some prosecuted cases of cyberstalking, the victim’s personal information can be the personal knowledge of the perpetrator who posts it publicly on the internet for a malicious purpose.
The personal information that is publicly posted does not have to be accurate. In fact, it can be for someone totally different, which can then lead to civil lawsuits for defamation and identity theft. Doxing has become a serious problem in the United States.
There is a current federal statute for protecting individuals performing certain official duties from having their personal information and that of their families made publicly available. The statute is 18 U.S.C. § 119. It makes it a federal crime to make publicly available the Social Security number, home address, home phone number, mobile phone number, personal email, or home fax number of, and identifiable to, restricted personnel.
The federal statute defines restricted personnel as a grand or petit juror, witness, officer in or of any court of the United States, or an officer who may be, or was, serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate; an informant or witness in a Federal criminal investigation or prosecution; or a State or local officer or employee whose restricted personal information is made publicly available because of the participation in, or assistance provided to, a Federal criminal investigation by that officer or employee. Family members are also protected under the statute.
I’ve often wondered why our federal government does not seem to believe that all citizens want the same protection and the right to be let alone. Maybe that will change soon. Read the rest of this entry
On January 19, 2016, California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris and Placer County District Attorney R. Scott Owens, announced the arraignment of Riley Bangerter, 36, of Roseville. Bangerter has been charged with 11 counts of identity theft in a case of cyber harassment. Bangerter was arrested on December 3, 2015 and was arraigned on January 11, 2016. Bangerter has pled not guilty.
In 2011, Attorney General Harris created the eCrime Unit within the California Department of Justice to identify and prosecute for crimes including identity theft, cybercrimes and other crimes involving the use of technology.
An investigation by Attorney General Harris’ eCrime Unit found that Bangerter superimposed images of his ex-wife onto pornographic images and posted them online, accompanied by her personal identifying information.
When announcing charges against Bangerter, AG Harris stated,
“Bangerter’s heinous actions sought to humiliate, belittle and destroy the personal and professional life of his victim. This prosecution sends a clear message to all who dare to perpetrate the crimes of cyber harassment and cyber exploitation, that these cowardly acts will not be tolerated in California. I thank the Placer County District Attorney’s office for their partnership and commitment to holding Bangerter accountable for these deplorable acts.”
Most of you who read this will know the experiences I am about to share with you as some of you reading have also been victimized by this individual. I am not sure exactly when the subject person started harassing others, but my point of reference starts with the George Zimmerman Trial.
I’m referring to the individual as my accuser. It never occurred to me that by exercising my right to freedom of speech, that a series of events would lead to being threatened, stalked, harassed, defamed, and eventually led to court. But, this is what happened and it happened as a result of my advocacy for Trayvon Martin.
During the Zimmerman trial, I became familiar with an individual over social media. I had blocked several of his twitter and Facebook accounts due to the racist comments, racist memes and threats of violence. As time went on and the verdict was announced, and in protesting the verdict, the subject harasser stepped up the memes. They were more disturbing as if this was his method of a victory parade essentially rubbing salt in the wounds.
But that was expected. I mean when you look at the blatant racism in his memes, in his tweets and on his Facebook pages, who would not expect anything different. His postings make it that he a person who believes in white supremacy ideology. Read the rest of this entry