INTRODUCTION:

With the day to day evolution of human mind , the modes of committing crime are also drastically changing . Criminals are getting smarter day by day and are applying there minds in this context to commit crime and escape without getting caught. With the advent of computers no one thought that it will become a mode or source of committing crime . Charles Babbage who is well known as the father of computer would not have dreamt that the machine he is giving the world may become a source of crime and would ever influence the society in a negative way.

Whenever we talk about cyber crime we can make out that its something related to a wrong done were a computer system is involved .

The term ‘cyber crime’ is a wrongly applied name. This term has nowhere been defined in any statute /Act passed or enacted by the Indian Parliament. The concept of cyber crime is not radically different from the concept of conventional crime. Both include conduct whether act or omission, which cause breach of rules of law and counterbalanced by the sanction of the state. Though cyber crimes is a new breed of crimes which came into being just after the advent of the computers and the scenario has become more worse with the influence of internet in our day to day life.

CONVENTIONAL CRIME-

Crime is a social and economic phenomenon and is as old as the human society. Crime is a legal concept and has the sanction of the law. Crime is defined as “a legal wrong that can be followed by criminal proceedings which may result into punishment.”. A crime may be said to be any conduct accompanied by act or omission prohibited by law and consequential breach of which is visited by penal consequences.

CYBER CRIME:

Cyber crime is the latest and perhaps the most complicated problem in the cyber world. “Cyber crime may be said to be those species, of which, genus is the conventional crime, and where either the computer is an object or subject of the conduct constituting crime. In general cyber crime may be defined as “ unlawful acts wherein the computer is either a tool or target or both”.

The computer may be used as a tool in the following kinds of activity- financial crimes, sale of illegal articles, pornography, online gambling, intellectual property crime, e-mail spoofing, forgery, cyber defamation, cyber stalking. The computer may however be a target for unlawful acts in the following cases- unauthorized access to computer/ computer system/ computer networks, theft of information contained in the ,electronic form,

e-mail bombing, salami attacks, logic bombs, Trojan attacks, internet time thefts, web jacking, theft of computer system, physically damaging the computer system.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONVENTIONAL AND CYBER CRIME-

There is apparently no distinction between cyber and conventional crime as both the crimes results into some sort of loss to one of the parties. However on a deep introspection we may say that there exists a fine line of demarcation between the conventional and cyber crime, which is appreciable. The demarcation lies in the involvement of the medium in cases of cyber crime.

MODE AND MANNER OF COMMITING CYBER CRIME:

1. HACKING:

This kind of offence is normally referred as hacking in the generic sense. However the framers of the information technology Act 2000 have no where used this term so to avoid any confusion we would not interchangeably use the word hacking for ‘unauthorized access’ as the latter has wide connotation.

2. THEFT OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN ELECTRONIC FORM:

This includes information stored in computer hard disks, removable storage media etc. Theft may be either by appropriating the data physically or by tampering them through the virtual medium.

3. EMAIL BOMBARDING:

This kind of activity refers to sending large numbers of mail to the victim, which may be an individual or a company or even mail servers there by ultimately resulting into crashing of the entire system.

4. DATA DIDDLING:

This kind of an attack involves altering raw data just before a computer processes it and then changing it back after the processing is completed.

5. SALAMI ATTACKS:

This kind of crime is normally prevalent in the financial institutions or for the purpose of committing financial crimes. An important feature of this type of offence is that the alteration is so small that it would normally go unnoticed.

6. DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACK:

The computer of the victim is flooded with more requests than it can handle which cause it to crash. Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack is also a type of denial of service attack, in which the offenders are wide in number and widespread.

7. VIRUS OR WORM ATTACKS:

Viruses are programs that attach themselves to a computer or a file and then circulate themselves to other files and to other computers on a network. They usually affect the data on a computer, either by altering or deleting it. Worms, unlike viruses do not need the host to attach themselves to. They merely make functional copies of themselves and do this repeatedly till they eat up all the available space on a computer’s memory. E.g. love bug virus, which affected at least 5 % of the computers of the globe. The losses were accounted to be $ 10 million. The world’s most famous worm was the Internet worm let loose on the Internet by Robert Morris sometime in 1988. Almost brought development of Internet to a complete halt.

8. LOGIC BOMBS:

These are event dependent programs. This implies that these programs are created to do something only when a certain event (known as a trigger event) occurs. E.g. even some viruses may be termed logic bombs because they lie dormant all through the year and become active only on a particular date (like the Chernobyl virus).

9. TROJAN ATTACKS:

This term has its origin in the word ‘Trojan horse’. In software field this means an unauthorized programme, which passively gains control over another’s system by representing itself as an authorised programme. The most common form of installing a Trojan is through e-mail. E.g. a Trojan was installed in the computer of a lady film director in the U.S. while chatting. The cyber criminal through the web cam installed in the computer obtained her nude photographs. He further harassed this lady.

10. INTERNET TIME THEFT:

Normally in these kinds of thefts the Internet surfing hours of the victim are used up by another person. This is done by gaining access to the login ID and the password. E.g. Colonel Bajwa’s case- the Internet hours were used up by any other person. This was perhaps one of the first reported cases related to cyber crime in India. However this case made the police infamous as to their lack of understanding of the nature of cyber crime.

11. WEB JACKING:

This term is derived from the term hi jacking. In these kinds of offences the hacker gains access and control over the web site of another. He may even mutilate or change the information on the site. This may be done for fulfilling political objectives or for money. E.g. recently the site of MIT (Ministry of Information Technology) was hacked by the Pakistani hackers and some obscene matter was placed therein. Further the site of Bombay crime branch was also web jacked. Another case of web jacking is that of the ‘gold fish’ case. In this case the site was hacked and the information pertaining to gold fish was changed. Further a ransom of US $ 1 million was demanded as ransom. Thus web jacking is a process where by control over the site of another is made backed by some consideration for it.

CLASSIFICATION OF CYBER CRIMES:

The subject of cyber crime may be broadly classified under the following three groups. They are-

1. Against Individuals :

a. against person
b. their property of an individual

2. Against Organization :

a. Government
c. Firm, Company, Group of Individuals.

3. Against Society at large

Against Individuals: –

They can be:
i. Harassment via e-mails.
ii. Cyber-stalking.
iii. Dissemination of obscene material.
iv. Defamation.
v. Unauthorized control/access over computer system.
vi. Fraud and cheating

Against Individual Property: -

i. Computer vandalism.
ii. Transmitting virus.
iii. Netrespass
iv. Unauthorized control/access over computer system.
v. Intellectual Property crimes
vi. Internet time thefts

Against Organization: -

i. Unauthorized control/access over computer system
ii. Possession of unauthorized information.
iii. Cyber terrorism against the government organization.
iv. Distribution of pirated software etc.

Against Society at large: -

i. Pornography (basically child pornography).
ii. Polluting the youth through indecent exposure.
iii. Trafficking
iv. Financial crimes
v. Sale of illegal articles
vi. Online gambling
vii. Forgery

Some of the above mentioned offences may discussed in brief as follows:

1. Harassment via e-mails-

Harassment through e-mails is not a new concept. It is very similar to harassing through letters.

2. Cyber-stalking-

The Oxford dictionary defines stalking as “pursuing stealthily”. Cyber stalking involves following a person’s movements across the Internet by posting messages (sometimes threatening) on the bulletin boards frequented by the victim, entering the chat-rooms frequented by the victim, constantly bombarding the victim with emails etc.

3. Dissemination of obscene material-

Pornography on the net may take various forms. It may include the hosting of web site containing these prohibited materials. Use of computers for producing these obscene materials. Downloading through the Internet, obscene materials. These obscene matters may cause harm to the mind of the adolescent and tend to deprave or corrupt their mind. Two known cases of pornography are the Delhi Bal Bharati case and the Bombay case wherein two Swiss couple used to force the slum children for obscene photographs. The Mumbai police later arrested them.

4. Defamation

It is an act of imputing any person with intent to lower the person in the estimation of the right-thinking members of society generally or to cause him to be shunned or avoided or to expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule. Cyber defamation is not different from conventional defamation except the involvement of a virtual medium. E.g. the mail account of Rohit was hacked and some mails were sent from his account to some of his batch mates regarding his affair with a girl with intent to defame him.

5. Unauthorized control/access over computer system-

This activity is commonly referred to as hacking. The Indian law has however given a different connotation to the term hacking, so we will not use the term “unauthorized access” interchangeably with the term “hacking” to prevent confusion as the term used in the Act of 2000 is much wider than hacking.

6. Computer vandalism-

Vandalism means deliberately destroying or damaging property of another. Thus computer vandalism may include within its purview any kind of physical harm done to the computer of any person. These acts may take the form of the theft of a computer, some part of a computer or a peripheral attached to the computer or by physically damaging a computer or its peripherals.

8. Intellectual Property crimes / Distribution of pirated software-

Intellectual property consists of a bundle of rights. Any unlawful act by which the owner is deprived completely or partially of his rights is an offence. The common form of IPR violation may be said to be software piracy, copyright infringement, trademark and service mark violation, theft of computer source code, etc.

9. Cyber terrorism against the government organization

At this juncture a necessity may be felt that what is the need to distinguish between cyber terrorism and cyber crime. Both are criminal acts. However there is a compelling need to distinguish between both these crimes. A cyber crime is generally a domestic issue, which may have international consequences, however cyber terrorism is a global concern, which has domestic as well as international consequences.

The common form of these terrorist attacks on the Internet is by distributed denial of service attacks, hate websites and hate emails, attacks on sensitive computer networks, etc. Cyber terrorism may be defined to be “ the premeditated use of disruptive activities, or the threat thereof, in cyber space, with the intention to further social, ideological, religious, political or similar objectives, or to intimidate any person in furtherance of such objectives”

Another definition may be attempted to cover within its ambit every act of cyber terrorism.

A terrorist means a person who indulges in wanton killing of persons or in violence or in disruption of services or means of communications essential to the community or in damaging property with the view to –

(1) putting the public or any section of the public in fear; or

(2) affecting adversely the harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities; or

(3) coercing or overawing the government established by law; or

(4) endangering the sovereignty and integrity of the nation

and a cyber terrorist is the person who uses the computer system as a means or ends to achieve the above objectives. Every act done in pursuance thereof is an act of cyber terrorism.

10. Trafficking

Trafficking may assume different forms. It may be trafficking in drugs, human beings, arms weapons etc. These forms of trafficking are going unchecked because they are carried on under pseudonyms. A racket was busted in Chennai where drugs were being sold under the pseudonym of honey.

11. Fraud & Cheating

Online fraud and cheating is one of the most lucrative businesses that are growing today in the cyber space. It may assume different forms. Some of the cases of online fraud and cheating that have come to light are those pertaining to credit card crimes, contractual crimes, offering jobs, etc.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS:

The Indian parliament considered it necessary to give effect to the resolution by which the General Assembly adopted Model Law on Electronic Commerce adopted by the United Nations Commission on Trade Law. As a consequence of which the Information Technology Act 2000 was passed and enforced on 17th May 2000.the preamble of this Act states its objective to legalise e-commerce and further amend the Indian Penal Code 1860, the Indian Evidence Act 1872, the Banker’s Book Evidence Act1891 and the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934. The basic purpose to incorporate the changes in these Acts is to make them compatible with the Act of 2000. So that they may regulate and control the affairs of the cyber world in an effective manner.

CONCLUSION:

Capacity of human mind is unfathomable. It is not possible to eliminate cyber crime from the cyber space. It is quite possible to check them. History is the witness that no legislation has succeeded in totally eliminating crime from the globe. The only possible step is to make people aware of their rights and duties (to report crime as a collective duty towards the society) and further making the application of the laws more stringent to check crime. Undoubtedly the Act is a historical step in the cyber world. Further I all together do not deny that there is a need to bring changes in the Information Technology Act to make it more effective to combat cyber crime. I would conclude with a word of caution for the pro-legislation school that it should be kept in mind that the provisions of the cyber law are not made so stringent that it may retard the growth of the industry and prove to be counter-productive.

Sidhartha Roy

Introduction

Some groups refer to it as the Matthew Shepard Act while others like to call it the Local Law enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (LLEHCPA). Both titles refer to a piece of legislation that was designed to protect members of certain communities that may be targets of hate based crime. The paper will look into the details of the Act, the motivations for passing the Act and other details surrounding its implementation.

What is entailed in the Act

This Act was passed in order to give the Department of Justice the mandate to deal with cases involving violence that is motivated by certain biases. Usually, these are the types of crimes that are committed on the basis of disability, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, color, perceived or actual race. The Justice Department is given the mandate to either work hand in hand with local jurisdictions in cases where that respective group does not display that they actually have the ability to deal with this or in order to assist state jurisdictions. This Department is supposed to have an upper hand in the process prosecuting and investigating cases caused by such biases. (Anti Defamation League, 2008)

Through this Act, local governments are also empowered to deal with the latter category of crimes if they have been committed by juveniles. This is possible through grants that are meant to assist in the process of training law enforcement officers here or during the process of prosecuting such officers.

Reasons behind the LLEHCPA

The reason behind the passage of this Act was that violent crimes generally demand special attention. However, because of the overall effect of hate crimes, then there I a need for special legislation in this area. Not only do hate crimes cause physical injury, but they also create scenarios in which different groups in society are divided. It breaks down the fabric of society by making certain communities full of fear. Such types of violence are not just motivated by financial needs; they are usually done in order to tell members of that chosen community that they will not be accepted by that society. Additionally, when a person is a victim of bias motivated crime, then chances are that they will feel unprotected by their society, they may also fell sidelined and particularly vulnerable. (ADL, 2007)

This Act came against the backdrop of crime Statistics released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In the year before the passage of this Act, it was found that the greatest percentage of hate based crimes were against the individuals with different races. The second highest category was those crimes motivated by religious differences and the third category was against people with different sexual orientations. Overly, these statistics revealed that there was still much that had to be done to combat hate crimes thus propelling legislators to act against such biases.

The importance of the Local law enforcement hate crimes prevention act

This Act is important in ascertaining that state and local authorities have been given the power to deal with these bias motivated crimes. Federal groups are incorporated in dealing with these crimes in order to reinforce justice and effectiveness through greater expertise in investigative processes. Additionally, federal authorities’ involvement is meant to relieve local authorities from being overburdened by these types of cases. (Stout, 2007)

The reason behind increasing support for this legislation by certain interest groups is the capacity and the levels of hate crimes committed against certain individuals in society. This is particularly the case for certain categories of people who had not yet been included in the federal hate crimes laws. These groups included;

* Disability
* Sexual orientation
* Gender identity
* Gender

It should be noted that prior to this Act, only a narrow definition of victims of hate crimes was considered. In this case, the only groups recognized were religion, national origin, color, ethnicity or race.

The purpose of the Hate Crime prevention Act was to expand the definition or the categories of people who may qualify as victims of hate crimes in the eyes of the law. Additionally, because the legislation is also designed to assist local authorities, then chances are that it will prevent occurrence of hate crimes through the rigorous training and interventions proposed in the Act. (Human Rights Campaign, 2007)

It should be noted that a high percentage of people were motivated to consider hate crimes as a likely issue owing to the fact that this category of crimes are usually quite severe. In fact no single person should ever tolerate being harmed, brutalized, beaten, attacked or hurt in any way just because of what or who they are. This is one of the reasons why the legislations stirred up a lot of reactions from various interest groups.

Besides these, it should be noted that the prevention of hate crimes dates back to as far back as the nineteen sixties. At that time, the issue of race was particularly sensitive and many violence based crimes were committed against racial minorities. Consequently, it became necessary for civil rights groups to rise to the occasion by speaking out against these forms of violence. This was the reason why there were certain movements that occurred in that era. In the year 1968, legislation was passed to prevent such hate based crimes. Ever since that time, the definitions of violence based crimes began increasing to a point where a substantial majority of individuals who were commonly affected by such crimes were included in the definition.

However, with the passage of time, violence against people with different sexual orientations, gender identities and gender have become increasingly common. This has caused wide concerns from a series of stakeholders thus necessitating the Matthew Sheppard Act. This also means that there is a need to create a situation in which most of the people who may be future victims are protected by the legislation.

The public’s reaction to the legislation

Numerous individuals have demonstrated their support for the legislation. Some of them emanate from political groups, civic rights organizations, religious group and many others. President George Bush was one of the many supporters of this Bill. The Episcopal Church and Presbyterian Churches were also some of the religious groups that demonstrated their support for this legislation. Additionally, the International Association of chiefs of Police also showed their support for this piece of legislation. Additionally, many groups such as the National Disability Rights Network, The Interfaith Alliance, The National District Attorney’s Association and well known attorney General Dick Thornburgh have demonstrated their support of this Act. (US Department of Justice, 2008)

Besides individual endorsements by numerous groups, one cannot ignore the fact that the overall public usually supports legislations designed to combat hate crimes. This is something that was ascertained through opinion polls. In 2007, the Hart Group; a research based company found that almost all subgroups within the electorate supported legislations designed to combat hate crimes. These subgroups included certain categories that were normally considered as very conservative. For instance, fifty six percent of all republicans support this legislation. Also, sixty three percent of evangelical Christians threw their weight behind laws that would allow inclusion of persons with transgender identity and differing sexual orientation.

In terms of racial support, it appears as though almost all races support this legislation. For instance, the same research group found that in that year, close to seventy four percent of the entire white respondents demonstrated their support for the bill. Additionally, a similar percentage of African Americans threw their weight behind the Bill while seventy two percent of Latinos supported this Act. (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 2007)

A Gallup Poll conducted in the same year also wanted to find out what people thought about the expansion of this legislation to include other categories of individuals who had not been considered as serious victims of hate crimes. It was found that a substantial percentage of people felt that including persons with differing sexual orientation and transgender identities in this category was supported by close to sixty eight percent of all Americans within the country.

The Kaiser family Foundation also conducted its own research and found that about seventy three percent of the public supports this Bill. The latter research was conducted during the month of November 2007. Additionally, the Lake Snell Perry & Associates group found that sixty eight percent of the public believe that persons with transgender identities should be included in prevention of hate crime laws. Given this overwhelming support, then one can see just how serious this problem of hate crimes is in the public arena.

The Status of the LLEHCPA

In the third month of the year 2007, the local law enforcement hate crimes prevention act was introduced into the house by two major legislators i.e. Republican Mark Kirk while the Democrat legislator was John Conyers. The House decided to approve this Act by an overwhelming vote of two hundred and thirty seven votes against the neighs who were one hundred and eighty votes. Twenty five percent of the yes votes were Republicans with the rest falling to the democrat group.

In the Senate, the bill was introduced during the next month i.e. the month of April. At that time, Democrat Edward Kennedy and Republican Gordon Smith were the ones who introduced this Bill into the Senate. Also, there were forty bipartisan co sponsors. Additionally, this was an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that now became known as the Matthew Sheppard Act.

In the month of September during 2007, it was found that sixty against thirty nine members of the Senate voted for closure of this debate on the legislation. In accordance with this, the LLEHCPA was added into the Department of Defense Act. (Arams, 2007)

In the final version of the Bill, the issue of the hate crimes provision was not included. This was as a result of the opponents in the house who did not support this provision. There was a veto threat made by the white house that caused this kind of reaction. Additionally, there were many Republicans who opposed the passage of the legislation and they were highly responsible for causing this poor turnout in the voting system. Additionally, the provision was also affected by certain Iraq related interests. Consequently, most of the assertions made with regard to the latter group caused dwindling support for the legislation. Additionally, certain representatives felt that military personnel would be adversely affected in terms of their pay if they did not pay any attention to the veto threat that had been issued by President Bush. Consequently, all these factors resulted in poor performance of the Bill thus causing it not to be passed by members of the House.

Through this legislation, all legitimate human beings will be accorded the same rights as those who may not belong to their group. They also have the right to be heard and to be protected by the law just like all other individuals.

As of 2005, the Federal Bureau of Investigation asserted that there are approximately seven thousand, one hundred and sixty three hate crimes committed at that time. Besides that, they also claimed that fourteen percent of these crimes were all based on sexual orientation. It is also a worrying trend that the Federal Bureau of Investigation does not collect statistics based on crimes committed against persons with differing gender identity. Consequently, one cannot assert the extent to which these crimes are prevalent in society. (The Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2007)

It is should also be noted that there are many hate crimes that may not be reported to law enforcement authorities. Part of the reason for this is that victims may not be very sure about state support when it comes to protection of their rights. Consequently, most of them see no point in reporting those cases. Additionally, others may fear judgment from the people around them. These are all reasons that propelled the discussion, debate and support of the Matthew Shippard Bill.

It is also important to note that hate crimes have certain peculiar characteristics that make them particularly sensitive. This also forces various groups to give them particular attention. First of all, hate crimes are normally committed randomly. It is normally difficult for law enforcement
officials to look for patterns of hate crimes or areas where they will occur in the future. This kind of trend is not prevalent in other types of legislation. Also, the potential perpetrators of hate crimes do not fit the typical criminal profile. Most of them maybe emanating from other categories. Consequently, society should look for ways in which they can minimize this through institution of better laws. However, one should not conclude that hate crimes cannot be prevented at all; they simply take differing approaches form the typical methods.

Opposition against the LLEHCPA/ Matthew Shepard Act

While a substantial number of people support the latter Act, there are still many more who oppose it. Most of the people who fight it are conservative groups that refuse to accept the fact that society is changing. These are mostly religious groups that may be interested in maintaining the status quo. Such groups usually believe that persons with unconventional sexual orientation or gender identity are not behaving morally. Consequently, by protecting their rights, the state will be legitimizing their actions.

In fact, the New York Blade reported that the Traditional Values Coalition chairman Reverend Louis Sheldon asserted that the hate crimes bill would a platform against which people who acted in accordance with strict religious teachings were investigated and persecuted. He believed that business owners, pastors and business persons would be turned into criminals because they are likely to depict signs of supporting such values.

The sentiments carried forward by these religious groups have also been held by other political groups. These are usually the house of representatives that are emanating from the conservative side. (US Department of Justice, 2008)

In responses to these sentiments, many gay rights movements have asserted that the law is treating them unfairly. They have claimed that the law protects pastors and other religious leaders to preach hatred in the pulpit yet the same law does not recognize the rights of those people who are targeted by such moral ideals.

One can assert that these two sides gave very radical sentiments. However, there are still certain things that have to be tackled with regard to these issues. The people who oppose this piece of legislation are those ones who are founded on the issue of fear. They need to realize that there is indeed nothing to be afraid of. Additionally, there is a need for the gay rights participants to consider the fact that religious groups are not their enemies. Instead, they need to look for more sober methods of voicing their issues rather than confrontational politics.

Details about the legislation

In the month of May 2007, the Senate in its first session debated on the Local law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The major objective of the Act was stated as “provision of assistance to local jurisdictions, stage jurisdictions and natives by the Federal government in the prosecution to hate crime”

Section 2 of the Act classifies hate crime as a definition that is contained in section sixteen and title eighteen of the US Code. Hate crime in this Act also refers to a similar term that is contained in the Violent Crime and law Enforcement Act of 1994; this is in number 280003 (a) of that Act. Additionally, this section of the Act defines the term ‘local’ as used on the title of the legislation as any parish, village, township, city, county or town. (Arams, 2007)

Section 3 of the legislation defines the intricate issues surrounding the Act. In other words, it looks into the assistance to be provided to state, local and tribal enforcement officials. Part (a) of section three examines one form of assistance which considers non-financial assistance. In this case, there is reference to the general assistance that local, state or tribal law enforcement agencies are entitled to upon request from the Attorney General. Here, the latter group can either be aided in the technical, prosecutorial or forensic aspects of the law only when the crime under consideration is a crime of violence, it is a crime under the local, tribal or state law or it is motivated by biases on religion, place of origin, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, color or race of the victim.

This latter section also gives priority to certain areas. For instance, it is clearly stated that priority will be given to rural areas that lack adequate finances to tackle this issue. Besides this, crimes that have been committed by perpetrators in two States or more will have greater priority.

Part (b) of section three considers the financial aspect of the Act i.e. the issuance of Grants, in this regard, persons who are entitled to grants are those ones who are having difficulties investigating or prosecuting these cases. Usually, the category considered for this grants may either be tribal, local or state law enforcement agencies. (Arams, 2007)

Additionally, the process of implementing this part of the legislation relates to the office of justice programs as specified in the subsection. The latter office ought to cooperate with grantees in order to ascertain that the following groups affected by these concerns are attended to.

* Schools
* Colleges
* Community groups
* Universities
* Particular groups
* Etc

All this will go a long way in ensuring that the local infrastructure is made so as to create better ways of handling the issue.

Section three subsection (b) also looks at some of the details surrounding applications for these grants in paragraph 3. All the law enforcement agencies mentioned above are supposed to adhere to all the requirements made by the Attorney General during the application process. Besides the latter, they are also supposed to submit their application within a period of sixty days from the time which the attorney general chooses to describe in the law stated above.

Some of the requirements of the grants as specified in this subsection include; the existence of extra ordinary circumstances that would really necessitate the grant. Secondly, applicants need to show that they lack the resources to either investigate or prosecute those crimes on their own. Also, law enforcement agencies must show that they have engaged in intense consultation with non profit or non-governmental organizations that specialize in the issue of hate crime. (US Department of Justice, 2008)

Another stringent requirement during the process of application of this grant is the non existence or inadequacy of other nongovernmental organizations’ grants in handling hate crimes. The reason behind this is to ascertain that the grants supplement and not supplant one another. Lastly, the deadline for approval or rejection of these grants is outlined at thirty business days after reception of the application. All single jurisdictions cannot receive more than one hundred thousand dollars within the period of one year. The appropriations of these grants are supposed to be five million US dollars within any fiscal year.

Section four of the Act specifies the Grant program. In other words, it looks at some of the groups that have the power to authorize these grants. The Office of Justice Programs is the one given this mandate and it operates under the Department of Justice Programs. Additionally, care should be taken to ascertain that there are indeed adequate reforms available to deal with these.

Section size of the Legislation looks at the prohibition of hate crimes. Here, the Act describes some of the punishments that an individual will face in case they are found guilty of such offences. In Subsection one of the Act, anyone who may be found guilty of causing body harm to another individual willfully will be prosecuted and charged for their crime. In other words, when someone uses an incendiary device, a firearm, fire or actual harm to another owing to their color, race or any of the latter mentioned categories, then they are liable to imprisonment for a period of not greater than ten years or they are required to pay up a fine.

In this section of the Act, directions are given on what to do in case a victim dies as a result of these crimes. It is stated that the criminal may be susceptible to severing a life sentence. Additionally, the latter punishment is also plausible in the event that the crime constitutes kidnapping or it entails certain forms of sexual abuse or attempts to do the latter.

Section six of the Act also defines some of the terms used in the Act, in other words, an incendiary device carries the same meaning as that asserted in sections 232 of this Act. The word firearm refers to the meaning created in section nine hundred and twenty one of the constitution. Gender identity in this section of the constitution refers to the perceived or actual gender characteristics of a certain individual. (US Department of Justice, 2008)

It should also be noted that in section six, there are specifications of the circumstances under which evidence may be expressed. Evidence in hate crime can only be admissible in court if it found that that evidence relates specifically to the case under consideration. However, when a witness has to be impeached, then these rules do not necessarily apply to him or her.

Section seven of the Act looks at the severability of its application. If it has been found that the person to who the latter amendment has been applied is not treated constitutionally, then all these requirements will not be deemed relevant with reference to that person.

Conclusion

The Matthews Sheppard Act 2007 was proposed in order to amend certain sections of previous hate crime laws. The most notable amongst them is the incorporation
of persons with disability, gender identity or sexual orientation into the ACT. The second aspect is with regard to assistance offered to local law enforcement agencies by the attorney general.

Reference

ADL (2007): Hate Crime Sentencing Act, retrieved from http://www.adl.org accessed on 5th November 2008

Stout, D. (2007): House Votes To Expand Hate Crime protections, The New York Times, 3rd May 2008

Human Rights Campaign (2007): The local Law Enforcement hate Crimes Prevention Act, Free Press

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (2007): Hate Crimes protections Timeline, retrieved from http://www.thetaskforce.org accessed on 5th November 2008

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (2007): Hate Crime Statistics, retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov accessed on 5th November 2008

Arams, J. (2007): House Passes Extended Hate Crimes Bill, Guardian Unlimited, 3rd March

Anti Defamation League (2008): Hate Crime statutes by State, associate Press

US Department of Justice (2008): Hate Crime Legislation, retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov accessed on 5th November 2008

About the Author:

Author Carolyn Smith is associated with ResearchPapers247.Com

DMCA Takedown Notice Sample

December 21, 2012

Sender Information:
Joe Plumber
Boring, OR, 85012, USA

Recipient Information:
User Support
Google, Inc.
Mountain View, CA, 94043, USA

Sent via: REGISTERED MAIL
Re: www.complaint-website-bs.com

Dear User Support:

I represent Joe Plumber, in connection with the protection of its intellectual property. The above-referenced website/s are infringing the copyright of Joe Plumber.

This following statement is made in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. §512(c)(3)(A):

1. There are two copyrighted works which have been infringed:

a. A drawing owned by Joe Plumber; and,

b. A quote from Mr. I. B. Bad that begins with “blah, blah, blah” owned by Joe Plumber.

The infringing material is located at www.complaint-website-bs.com and at www.I-ruined-your-life-haha.com

3. Use of this material by the operator of the above-referenced website is not authorized by Joe Plumber.

4. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are accurate and that I am authorized to act on behalf of Joe Plumber, the owner of the exclusive right to the copyrights.

Pursuant to the DMCA, please remove links to the infringing website upon receipt of this notice.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Joe Plumber [signature]

cc:
Mr. Dimitri Shyster, Lawsuit Attorney

Disclaimer: This reputation management information is not the same as legal advice — the application of law to an individual’s specific circumstances. We recommend you consult a lawyer for a form that would be appropriate to your particular situation.

Yahoo DMCA Notifications
Daniel Dougherty
c/o Yahoo! Inc.
701 First Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Phone: (408) 349-5080
Fax: (408) 349-7821
Email: copyright@yahoo-inc.com

Google DMCA Notifications
Google, Inc.
Attn: User Support, DMCA Complaints
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
Fax Number: (650) 618-2649

AskJeeves/Teoma DMCA
Ask Jeeves, Inc.
Attention: General Counsel
5858 Horton Street, Suite 350
Emeryville, CA 94608 USA
Fax: (510) 985-7507
Email: CopyrightAgent@askjeeves.com

Bing DMCA Notifications
Microsoft Corporation c/o M. Skelton
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
Fax: (425) 936-7329
Email: dmcaagnt@microsoft.com

Provided by Kelly Sonora at http://www.mastersincriminaljustice.com

With the advent of online tools that make it easy to share information, meet new people and keep in touch faster than ever, Reputation Management has taken on a twofold dimension. Individuals and businesses no longer have to worry about their brand in real life but in the virtual world as well, making it twice as hard to keep up with what’s being said. There are some ways that you can work to manage your brand, however, whether you’re doing it for yourself or for your business. These resources provide tips and tools to make it easier to track, control and manage your brand so you stay on top and in control of your personal and professional image.

Reputation Management Tips

Here are some general tips to consider when managing your Reputation.

1. Create official online profiles. Don’t let just anyone talk about you online. Create your own profiles and websites complete with the kind of information you actually want to be available about you.
2. Check what people are saying about you online. Whether good or bad you can do yourself a favor by finding out just what is being said about you online. Use some of the tools mentioned later in this article to keep yourself in the loop.
3. Stay on the ball. Don’t get lazy about monitoring your Reputation. If necessary, perform monthly checks to see if there’s any information about you that could be potentially harmful.
4. Google yourself. The simplest way to find out where your or your company’s Reputation stands is to Google yourself. See what kind of results pop up first. If they aren’t what they’d like them to be, you’ve got some work to do.
5. Assume everything can get on the web. Both in your personal and professional life, what you say online and off can come back to bite you. Be safe and assume any emails, conversations or photos out there can eventually end up on the Web.
6. Choose your words carefully. If you are blogging, running a website or just have a social media profile, be careful what you post. Unless you’re looking for controversy what you say may cause you problems in the future.
7. Know your weaknesses. If you know your business has a particular weakness or are just familiar with your propensity for getting wild on the weekend, keep this in mind and have it as your top priority for checking on your Reputation.
8. Protect yourself from hackers. This may seem like it goes without saying, but many people fail to adequately secure their online information. Make sure yours is as safe as it possibly can be.
9. Keep social networks private. One way to deter prying eyes is to keep your social networking profiles private to all except those you approve. This will keep casual viewers from seeing your information, good or bad.
10. Consider pseudonyms.If you do want to keep a blog or engage in hijinks on internet message boards, create a name for yourself to hide behind so you can’t be easily tracked.
11. Be proactive. Instead of waiting until you have an issue with your online Reputation, stay ahead of the game. Search for what’s being said about you regularly so you’ll stay up-to-date.
12. Act fast. If you do find something said or posted about you online that you feel could be particularly damaging to you, take action immediately. Whether its your friend posting photos from your Vegas trip or someone you don’t know slandering your business, taking care of it sooner rather than later is best.
13. Keep your cool. You may be incensed at what someone has said about you online, but don’t let it show. Keep your anger to yourself and off the internet where it can do more harm than good.

Reputation Management Articles

These articles provide some useful and informative reading material for anyone wanting to know more about Reputation both for businesses and individuals.

1. Protect Your Reputation: This article from SEO Chat lays out some basics for monitoring and protecting your online Reputation.
2. Ten Tactics That Could Save Your Reputation: The CEO of Trakur gives some great advice in this Mashable article on how your company can avoid Reputation meltdown.
3. How to Manage Your Reputation: This article goes through a number of tools and how to use them to keep your Reputation intact.
4. Social Networks Become Powerful Tool in Reputation Management: Find out how social networks are playing a bigger role than ever in online reputation from this short article.
5. How to Create SEO Tools for Your Reputation: Worried about the online component of your company’s Reputation? This article gives some advice on creating custom tools to monitor and control your online rep.
6. Manage Your Reputation: Lifehacker gives some great tips and pointers, as well as links to tools that can help you get control of your Reputation.
7. How To Protect, Fix Your Reputation: From keeping problems from arising to fixing them when they do, this article is full of helpful advice.
8. Using Social Media to Manage Reputation: Find out how social media can be a help, not just a hindrance, to online Reputation.
9. Basics of Online Reputation Management: Here you’ll learn the basics of getting your online Reputation in order.
10. Managing Your Reputation: Technology Review provides this informative article that can help you understand and take action when it comes to your virtual Reputation.
11. Reputation Management for Individuals: Online Reputation management isn’t just a concern for businesses, and this article explains how individuals can keep their name in good standing as well.

Personal Identity Reputation Management

These tools can help you manage your numerous online profiles, monitor your Reputation and more.

1. ClaimID: Check out this program that uses OpenID to manage your personal identity over several sites, meaning you only have to remember the password for one, not numerous ones.
2. FindMeOn: Want to connect your identity over several sites? FindMeOn lets you do that while keeping your information private and secure.
3. FreeYourID: Make maintaining your online identity easy, with this tool that bases it directly on your name.
4. Garlik: If you’re worried that your identity may be more than marred and straight out stolen, give this tool a try. You’ll be able to search for mentions of you on the web that might involve identity theft.
5. myOpenID: Don’t worry about having multiple logins with this OpenID site.
6. Realmee: Here you can create a personal profile that will allow you to more easily control what others can see of you online.
7. LookUpPage: Want to control what people find when they search for you? This site helps out, by giving you a central page that comes up at the top when your name is searched for.

Professional Identity Reputation Management

Keep your business’ name out of the mud by protecting it with these helpful tools.

1. Trust-Index: Find out how well your business is trusted with this tool.
2. Google Alerts: With Google Alerts you can get email updates of the latest google results based on your name or other topic of your choosing.
3. BoardTracker: Whether you post on boards yourself or want to see if anyone else is talking about you, this tool makes it easy to filter to threads.
4. Omgili: Search through the numerous forums out there to find out what people are saying about you using this helpful tool.
5. BoardReader: This tool is especially useful, allowing users to search through forums, videos, Twitter conversations, IMDB and more.
6. Joongel: Zoom in on the type of media you’d like to search with this online tool. Choose from videos, photos, shopping sites, and more.
7. Techrigy: This company makes it easier and simpler to monitor your business’ Reputation online.
8. Keotag: Match blogs with tags that reflect talk about your business or related topics using this tool.
9. UpdatePatrol: This tool makes it easy to watch websites for updates and changes, which can sometimes be useful when you want to know what a particular site is saying about you.

Blog Tools for Reputation Management

With the great proliferation of blogs out there, it’s worth your time to keep track of what’s being said about you on them. These tools make it easy and convenient to do just that.

1. Zuula: If you want to get posts just from blogs, try out this search engine. Users can also limit results to photos or videos.
2. Technorati: Whether you’re blogging personally or professionally, listing your blog with Technorati can be a big help in managing your online Reputation. You’ll get updates whenever someone links to your blog so you can keep tabs on what people are saying about you or your business.
3. BackType: BackType is a service that lets you find, follow, and share comments from across the Web, allowing you to keep track of where you’ve been and what you’ve said on blogs.
4. TweetBeep: TweetBeep will let you keep track of conversations on Twitter than mention you or your business or anything else you’d like to track.
5. monitter: This tool lets you do much the same as Twist, but you can monitor topics in real-time or by geographic region.
6. Buzzlogic: Track buzz in the blogging world with this site, and find out just who’s word matters when it comes to blogs.

Reputation Profile Management

These tools make it easier to keep track of your social networking profiles and your Reputation in turn.

1. Zoolit: Check out this landing page service that makes it super easy to manage all the social networks you’ve been using.
2. ProfileMat: Pull all your existing online profiles together into a “mat” and allow users to comment on this new singular profile instead.

Reputation Management Tools

These tools allow you to hunt down what’s being said about you and find out just what others think of you or your business.

1. Naymz: Give this site a try to get feedback from people you’ve worked with, customers and friends.
2. Rapleaf: Here you can look up your personal or professional Reputation, rate other people and businesses and get your own ratings.
3. Keotag: Manage the blogsphere with this site that allows users to find tagged blog posts over several blog search engines.
4. FriendFeed: Whether you want to keep up with what your friends are looking at or keep up with what’s being said about you personally, this site is a useful tool.
5. Social Media Fire Hose: This helpful tool tracks your name, brand or product across sites like Digg, FriendFeed and others that specialize in social media.
6. Cision: For a fee, this tool can help you monitor “100 million blogs, tens of thousands of online forums, and over 450 leading rich media sites.”
7. Web of Trust: Ensure your website is considered trusted by joining up with this site. After all, no one wants to be associated with a dangerous site– it’s just bad for business.

General Reputation Management Tools

If you haven’t already, bookmark these sites which can be a big help in maintaining your brand positively online.

1. Digg: Check out Digg regularly to see if anyone has submitted stories about your or your business.
2. Reddit: Similar to Digg, this site will allow you to see how much interest there is you on the Web.
3. delicious: This social bookmarking site is a good place to see if your webpage or information about you or your business is being passed around by others.
4. Flickr: Think there may be some less-than-impressive photos of you out there? Trying searching this photo site to see if you come up.
5. Facebook: Facebook can be a great place to network, just make sure you keep your profile free from things you wouldn’t want spread about you.
6. MySpace: With millions of visitors, this popular social networking site can be a great place to get your and your business’ name out there.
7. LinkedIn: Here you can create a professional profile that will allow you to interact with others in your profession in a safe and positive manner.
8. Google: There’s no easier way to find out what your online reputation is than to do a simple Google search.
9. Furl: Another social bookmarking site, here you can track who’s interested in your sites.
10. Twitter: Whether you want to communicate with others or track the buzz about you on the net, Twitter is an essential tool.
11. WordPress: If you’re going to start a blog to be the face of you or your company, this site makes it easy to do so.

]]> http://gadook.com/reputationmanagement/tips-tools-and-reputation-management-resources/feed/ 0 http://gadook.com/reputationmanagement/free-social-media-monitoring/ http://gadook.com/reputationmanagement/free-social-media-monitoring/#comments Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:01:05 +0000 David Daniels http://fairwindsweb.com/?p=67 Monitor what is being said about you or your company and protect yourself.

Free Social Media Monitoring
While paying for monitoring can be very effective, individuals can use free tools to monitor their brand online. Below is a number of free, quick, easy and effective approaches to monitor results for your name.

Google Alerts for Free Brand Monitoring – You can configure Google Alerts by different areas: News; Blogs; Web search results; Google Groups.

RSS  for Free Social Media Monitoring – Create a folder in your RSS reader for brand monitoring feeds. Create custom RSS feeds based on keywords: Technorati.com, Feedster.com, Google.com/blogsearch, Google News, Blogpulse.com, MSN Spaces, MSN News Yahoo! News, MSN News. Filter the feeds into one RSS Reader for easy monitoring options using Newsgator, Google Reader or Bloglines.

Create your own Free Social Media Monitoring Search Engine -Rollyo.com can track sites that do not offer RSS feeds for keywords such as Consumerist, Complaints.com, Better Business Bureau, RipOffReport, PlanetFeedback and ComplaintCenter.

Monitor This – Monitor This allows you to monitor keywords across dozens of search engine feeds at the same time.

Free Social Media Monitoring Key Words and Phrases – Not sure what keywords to track? Use Google Keywords Tool for ideas.

Technorati - One of the great search systems for bloggers is Technorati, which has a Watchlist feature. *Temporarily unavailable.

Free Social Media Monitoring URL Monitoring – WatchThatPage, UpdatePatrol, and WebSite-Watcher monitor URLs.

Whois - Research the background of bloggers and web site owners using domain name search tools such as Whois.sc.

TinEye - TinEye is a reverse image search engine. You can submit an image to TinEye to find out where it came from, how it is being used,or if modified versions of the image exist. TinEye is the first image search engine on the web to use image identification technology rather than keywords, metadata.

Yahoo Alerts – Similar to Google Alerts, Yahoo Alerts sends you an alert whenever your keyword pops up in a search.  It gives you’re the option of receiving alerts by Yahoo Messenger or even via SMS.

Rapleaf.com – By creating an account with Rapleaf you can discover information about yourself that is available on the internet and manage your internet footprint.

Social Mention – Social Mention is a free tracking tool that allows you to easily track what people are saying about you across the web and social media landscape in real-time. It monitors 80+ social media properties including Twitter, Facebook, FriendFeed, YouTube, Digg, Google and sends you a daily update.

Yacktrack Chatter - YackTrack Chatter is a keyword search for social media sites. This allows you to see “chatter” on various sites that talk about your keyword.

Filtrbox – Filtrbox allows you to see what others are saying about you on Twitter, social networks, blogs and online news outlets.

Forums and message boards can host conversations about your company. Sites such as Boardtracker.com will keep an eye on popular forums and alert you by RSS if you are mentioned in a thread.

BackTweets.com – A search engine for Twitter. See who is tweeting your links and more. Sign up for email alerts of new findings.

Addictomatic.com - Different than the others, you type in a keyword, topic or phrase and it searches the top blogs, news sites, Google, Technorati, Ask, YouTube, Flickr, Digg, Topix and others. Personalized results page to bookmark with everything related to your topic.

AlertRank.com – A better way to organize and sort Google alerts. Get a daily report emailed to you in a spreadsheet format of what it finds.

Twazzup.com – Another Twitter search engine.

SiteMention.com – Type in your url and find out what’s being said about you. The results returned are gathered from Google Blog Search, Twitter, FriendFeed, YouTube, MySpace, Digg, Delicious and many more.

Brandwatch.net – This service tracks your brands, companies, even the competition. Sign up for free weekly updates on any brand. Their detailed reports break down what sites like you, your most talked about features, weekly summary of all blogs and forum activity.

SocialMention.com/alerts – Just like Google Alerts but for social media. Enter your phrase to be notified of new findings. Searches blogs, microblogs like Twitter, bookmarks, comments, events, images, news, videos and more.

BlogPulse.com – A search engine that searches just for data posted to blogs. Enter your keyword, hit submit and off it goes to gather results.

BackType.com – They index millions of conversations from social networks, blogs and other social media.

There’s likely an abundance of information about you available on the Internet. Online directories and databases offer this data either free or for a fee. Fortunately, you can remove your personal details from some of these online databases.

You might be wondering how your name, address, telephone number and, often, date of birth ended up on the net? Information is obtained from public records and marketing databases. This includes court documents, county and state records, voter registration, marriage licenses, subscriptions and many other public record sources.

The following are five of the biggest online databases with instructions on how to remove your private data for Brand Management purposes.

US Search (www.ussearch.com) often shows up in internet searches. Many online phone directories also link to it. US Search sells background reports to anyone for a fee.

You can remove your records from most of its search results by sending your request through postal mail.

US Search requires your name, date of birth and Social Security number. Additionally, it wants your addresses going back several years. You should supply any aliases, including your maiden name.

Intelius

Intelius (www.intelius.com) sells background reports for a fee. Reports include your birth date, court records and previous address history.

You must fax a copy of a state ID card or your drivers license and cross out your photo and license number. It only requires your name, address and date of birth. Otherwise, you can send a notarized form confirming your identity.

Acxiom

Acxiom (www.acxiom.com) provides data to websites, businesses and law enforcement officials. Its products fall into the category of marketing and reference.

Reference data is retrieved from public records. Also included is financial information and Social Security numbers. This information is only provided to businesses and law enforcement where you can’t opt out.

But, you can opt out of its marketing database. The marketing database does not include credit information or Social Security numbers. Request an opt-out form via telephone or e-mail. Since other businesses use Acxiom’s data, this also removes data from some other sites.

555-1212.com

Marketers use 555-1212.com to find addresses and phone numbers of potential leads. You can remove your information from its database using an online form.

Removal requires minimal information. You must provide your name as it appears in the site’s listing. This may be difficult, as you can’t view your listing. You must also provide a phone number and an email address.

WhitePages.com

WhitePages.com is an online directory available to anyone. It lists your name and address in its search results.

You can remove your information using an online form. Your name, city and state are required, along with a reason for removal. You can select General Privacy Concerns.

Others

Many marketers use the Direct Marketing Associations (DMA) preferences. You can submit removal requests for mailing, telemarketing and email lists.

You’ll find removal forms on the DMA’s site (www.the-dma.org). Some of the forms carry a fee ranging from $1 and up.

This won’t remove your information from all marketing databases. But DMA members are required to adhere to the lists.

Also, you can opt out of pre-approved credit card and insurance offers. One request covers four major credit-reporting agencies.

Unfortunately, it often isn’t easy to remove public records from databases. Some services only remove sealed records which may require a court order.

The internet has radically changed the nature of defamation law.  While it was once a specialized subject left to media lawyers it is now a topic on which most internet lawyers have to advise.  Internet defamation is, however, dramatically different from more traditional defamation cases.

Comments made on the internet can be instantly and indefinitely accessible to millions of people around the world. Even if the original site where the comment was posted has disappeared the comments may remain cached in a search engine or have been repeated on other websites or blogs.  On the other hand comments made in a newspaper or magazine have a more limited readership and more likely to be forgotten in a few days.
As there is so much content on the internet much of which has questionable veracity, there is the question whether readers of the defamatory post actually believe it.  Whereas if defamatory comments are carried in print newspapers they are far more significant as print media is regulated and publication requirements are more rigorous. So all these differences between online and offline defamation makes it difficult to calculate the actual damage caused by on online comments.

Change in the role of publisher

One main difference between internet defamation cases and more traditional forms is that the identity of the “publisher” has changed. In the past it was often members of the press or large publications. On the internet the publisher could be virtually anybody anywhere around the world. Publication can occur in a variety of places as well on blogs, websites, emails, social networking sites and message boards. Courts have found that posting in all of these places meets the requirement of broadcasting of a defamatory comment.

Defamation on the internet has become a huge problem for both companies and individuals alike. One new problem that several companies have had to face includes internet hate campaigns.  Affected companies have found it extremely difficult and expensive to stop these.  Another difficulty on the web is that it can be difficult to determine who is behind a particular website or forum or blog comment on the internet.

The other issue is that the individual making the defamatory comment may have no assets and therefore not be worth suing. And if the defamer is located in another country the plaintiff would have the very expensive task of litigating in a foreign country which may have very different laws regarding defamation and the internet.

Non contentious approaches

Increasingly defamation on the web calls for non contentious legal skills, such as an understanding of the internet and what is or is not possible in terms of removing objectionable posts.  The Usmanov matter is a salutary lesson as to what NOT to do on the web.

Alsher Usmanov is the well-known Ukrainian billionaire owner of the Arsenal Football Club. The ex-ambassador from the United Kingdom to the Ukraine, Craig Murray, had written a book as well as a blog on the alleged criminal activities of Usmanov in his rise to power. Usmanov hired the well know libel firm Shillings to try to stop Murray. Since 2007 repeated attempts have been made by the firm to get Mr. Murray’s blog taken down permanently.

A particularly noteworthy attempt came in September 2007 after one blog post in particular was picked up by several Arsenal and political websites. Shillings sent cease and desist letters to Murray and the host of his website, Fasthost. Fasthost contacted the site administrator of Murray’s blog who refused to take the site down. Due to this refusal Fasthost pulled the plug on all of the administrator’s sites which included the website of Boris Johnson and the website of the London Bach Society even though neither website had any content on this matter.

The problem with this approach is it failed to get Murray’s site down for good and actually made things worse since their actions ensured the matter received even more press attention than the original post. So, defamation and protecting reputations online goes much further than engaging in defamation, privacy or copyright proceedings on behalf of famous brands and personalities.  As has been indicated in this article, the approach rarely involves litigious means, although it is useful to have an understanding of when a cease and desist letter will work and when it won’t.  Despite the difficulties with online defamation there are still some success stories out there which we will discuss in part 2.

Defamation Law I Author Shireen Smith is an intellectual property solicitor and technology lawyer at Azrights Solicitors providing advice on trademark registration, patents and domains and domain disputes. View the original article along with others on trademarks, domains and other legal matters at http://www.ip-brands.com/content/news/articles.aspx

To go to Defamation Law II click HERE

You might be wondering how your name, address, telephone number and, often, date of birth ended up on the net?   More…

Free Search Engine Removal Letter

How To Stop Online Copyright Infringement With A DMCA Complaint.   More…

Free Search Engine Monitoring

Monitor what is being said about you or your company and protect yourself.   More…

Defamation Law I

Defamation on the internet has become a huge problem for both companies and individuals alike.   More…

100 Free Reputation Management Tools

Here are some general tips to consider when managing your reputation.  More…

Free Reputation Management DIY Ideas

Here are some general tips to consider when managing your reputation.  More…

More coming soon. Check back often.

Although it is difficult to get a successful result in an online defamation issue, it can be done by carefully establishing who is making the comment, and where they are based.  Other important considerations are how damaging the comments are and whether threats might drive the defamer to make further comments. Litigation and threats of litigation are not always the best way forwards but they can be a useful tool. The Facebook case illustrates one such instance where litigation was used to stop defamation on a social networking site.

The Facebook case: A modern take on defamation

Many web users have a false belief that they can say anything they want on the internet and not be held responsible. The courts are finding otherwise. In the most recent English case, Applause Store Productions Ltd v Raphael [2008] EWHC 1781 (QB) (QBD), a man was held liable for comments made on Facebook. Although the limits of defamation law were hardly stretched in this case, it is interesting to see how the court responded.

The case involved Mathew Firsht, the owner of Applause productions, a well known company which provides audiences for television shows. He did not have a Facebook account. In June 2007 a fake profile was placed up on Facebook in an account using Mr. Firsht’s name.  This featured extensive personal information about him including his sexual orientation, political views, religious beliefs and a picture – supposedly of Mr. Firsht – but which was actually a copy of the profile picture from his twin brother’s Facebook page. The profile also included a link to a Facebook Group called ‘Has Mathew Firsht lied to you?’ In this case there was no dispute about whether the material was defamatory but only over whom had put up the profile and the group.

The defendant, a Mr. Raphael who had been a friend of Mr. Firsht and also knew him professionally, had his identity revealed after Firsht’s lawyers sent a takedown notice to Facebook and obtained a Norwich Pharmacal order against Facebook.  The order required Facebook to disclose not only the registration data but also details of the IP addresses and email addresses which created the profile.

The profile had in fact been created by someone at Mr. Raphael’s IP address. After the profile was created all relevant activity which occurred on the fake account continued to come from Mr. Raphael’s IP address. The same IP address was also used during this time to login into two other Facebook accounts: Mr. Raphael’s account and Mr. Raphael’s girlfriend’s account. The fake account had only been signed into from two different computers at the IP address which included Mr. Raphael’s computer and his girlfriend’s laptop which he admitted he often used. The facts about the IP address and login details were not refuted by Mr. Raphael.

The case gets even stranger. Mr. Raphael’s defence was that he did not create the profile and that the evening the profile was created he and his girlfriend had met a group of strangers at a bar who then returned home with them and spent the night. He said that one of them must have created the profile from his computer. He did not give an explanation of how someone else had been logging into the account from his IP address on the subsequent times the account had been accessed which would have been after the fake profile creating stranger left his home.  He instead choose to defend himself by relying on alibi evidence that he had not been at home on the other occasions when the Facebook profile had been accessed so it had to have been someone else.

The judge did not believe his story at all (rightly so) and decided that Mr. Raphael had in fact been the one to put up the false profile as well as the defamatory group.  Although the profile was not visible for a considerable length of time, 16-17 days, the judge ruled that due to the popularity and nature of Facebook, which targeted the material towards people who knew Mr. Firsht, the materials were particularly damaging. The Judge also ruled that the allegations of dishonesty were serious enough to harm Mr. Firsht’s business so allocated the award with £15,000 to Mr. Firsht personally, £5,000 to his business and an extra £2,000 for breach of his privacy. In this case, Mr. Raphael learned to his chagrin that comments made online can be costly and that lawyers can often get around the anonymity problem with IP addresses identifying computers not users.

Liability of Internet Service Providers

The other point to bear in mind when discussing defamation on the internet is that in some jurisdictions, including England, Internet Service Providers can have liability for content on the sites they host. They can be liable even if they were merely passively hosting the site unless they take down the objectionable material when they receive notice of it. The famous case on this point in England is Godfrey v. Demon.  In that case, an unknown person purporting to be Godfrey put up a comment on Demon’s server. The statement was defamatory.  The real Mr. Godfrey asked to have it removed telling Demon that it was fraudulent.  When Demon failed to remove the post Godfrey sued for defamation and won. This case established the importance of  ISPs treating complaints seriously and investigating and taking down any content that can be considered defamatory.

Since this case, the E-commerce directive has come into effect which also has ramifications for when a host can be liable in defamation (or for other acts).  ISPs are in a difficult position. On the one hand if they remove any content posted by their customers they could be in breach of their customers’ contractual rights (unless their contracts expressly absolve them from liability in certain circumstances) On the other hand if they don’t remove the content they could become personally liable for it to third parties.

Under the E-commerce Directive  most ISPs will be viewed by the courts as a mere conduit and therefore not liable for the content, as long as they do not initiate the transmission, select the receiver of the transmission and do not select or modify the information in the transmission.  Nevertheless, ISPs will still have liability if they are notified of infringing material and then refuse to take it down, and there are those who believe their responsibilities should be broadened further.

The position in the USA

In the United States, ISPs are not liable for defamatory information but they are often joined as co-defendants in lawsuits with John Doe.?  There is a purely practical reason for doing this. ISPs are becoming increasingly wary of divulging information about their users since it could be an invasion of privacy.

By joining the ISPs as defendants, once the lawsuit is initiated lawyers can make discovery demands of the ISP to get all of the relevant data which could help them trace the unidentified user who posted the comment.  Once the user is identified the ISP is usually dropped from the lawsuit and the user remains the sole defendant.

These laws not only have ramifications for ISPs but for any company which has a forum or allows user generated content on their website. Many companies are not aware that they themselves can be found liable for defamation due to actions of employees or other third parties on these websites.  In-house lawyers are becoming increasingly aware of the laws on defamation and privacy in order to take adequate steps to protect their employers.

What to do

If you find that you are the subject of a defamatory comment online there are a number of things that can be done.  Clearly balance the seriousness of the comment with the costs associated with getting it taken down.  The last resort option would involve going to court to get disclosure orders. Unless the comments are particularly grievous or widespread other avenues should be explored first.

If you are dealing with a hate site that uses a domain name similar to your company name there may be the possibility of trying to retrieve the domain name through a UDRP or other dispute resolution policy. However, this can be risky since at the moment it has not been decided whether these types of sites constitute fair use under the rules.  The other problem with this method is that you may inflame the situation further.  Also your efforts could be wasted if the site simply reappears on another non-infringing domain name.

Another option is to address the comment in the press or on your own website. Recently, in Israel, an anonymous internet user began a hate campaign against Israel’s best known maker of dairy products.  Defamatory comments were posted on a variety of websites and also sent around through emails. The company responded to the situation by posting comments on the website and also sending out their own emails via employees which defended their business.  This approach has been successful as content is no longer being posted and the record has been set straight for anyone doing future web searches.

It should always be kept in mind that attacks are often short lived. Surprisingly the best option sometimes can be to deal with the situation by ignoring it, and possibly using SEO strategies to keep the site or the comment low down in the search results.  The comment or website will often disappear since it takes a lot of energy to keep the site sufficiently prominent.

Brand Management Defamation Law 2 author Shireen Smith is an intellectual property solicitor and technology lawyer at Azrights Solicitors providing advice on trademark registration, patents and domains and domain disputes.

To go to Defamation Law I click HERE

Brand Management is the practice of monitoring professional data about the business and industry reputation across all types of online media through consistent research and analysis over the Internet. Brand Management is a relatively new sector in Internet Marketing. This sector solely depends upon the varying and unpredictable critical, journalistic, and user reviews about anything and everything relating to the business. The reviews range from strongly positive to strongly negative opinions, with all the variations in between about the business/product/person.

In the Brand Management process the enterprise or the managing professional collects information from consumer-generated media through feedbacks, blog posts, comments, and other user-generated content alike. Brand Management grows with the advent of social networking media, as this where the user-generated content about the brand spreads like wild fire. Internet Brand Management is to keep in check the complaints of irritated customers and keep them satisfied and smiling by taking steps to put the complaints to rest.

Some suggestions to do Brand Management are:

· Create official online profiles. This will help in checking the just anybodies by talking about you online and publishing the information that you actually want to be available about you.

· Check what people are saying about you online. Finding what people say about you, your business, and products across the Internet goes without saying.

· Stay consistent and constant. Checking your reputation once in a month or even lesser times could prove harmful as you don’t know what is being said around you all the time.

· Assume everything can get on the web. Stay safe and try to be a diplomat, as anything you say or do online and off it can and will end up on the Internet. Choose your words carefully while blogging or posting any comments.

· Correct your weaknesses. Everyone has some weakness. It’s just the matter of knowing them. Once they are known they can be rectified, if not then certainly hidden.

· Secure your online information. Hackers are on a constant prowl, be sure to avoid them by securing your sensitive information.

· Privatize your social networks. Maintain moderation of your social network as you will know who’s in and who is coming in.

· Be proactive and act fast. Prevention is always better than cure. So before the game goes out of hand, stay up-to-date with what is going on. So, once you see the destructive wave starting you can prepare yourselves against it.