Political Cyber-Stalkers In Peril

2007 is a new year full of hope and promise. I wish everyone a prosperous New Year. This is my first Feature Article for 2007 and my main focus is to counsel and educate ‘victims’ of Cyber stalkers as well as to inform and warn cyber stalkers who mistakenly believe they can hide under anonymity to impersonate and post ignominious comments without legal repercussions. Cyber stalkers would only attempt to play dirty as long as they believe they can remain anonymous. Such Cyber stalkers are however out of luck. There are now severe criminal penalties awaiting them, if they hide their identities to annoy others on the internet.

For Ghana’s nascent democracy, 2007 is no doubt an important make or break year. Political figures would like to strategize for an advantage in the coming 2008 Free- for –all- General Elections since the sitting president is statutorily barred. It is also, unfortunately, the time that dirty politics would be played to the disgust of the electorate. The following Featured Article serves as background to the current article:

http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=116248

The 109th US Congress passed a law in the United States against the use of fraudulent identity for cyber stalking with severe penalties. President Bush signed that law into effect on January 5, 2006 and is known as Public Law 109-162. “VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REAUTHORIZATION ACT”. This law prohibits the posting of annoying or abusive Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing the sender’s true identity. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison. This federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language:

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Attorney Eric J. Sinrod a partner in the San Francisco office of Duane Morris whose focus includes information technology and intellectual-property disputes has written extensively on this subject matter. Credit is hereby given to Sinrod where appropriate.

Until the birth of Public Law 109-162 precisely one year ago, the first amendment right to speak freely embraces the liberty to speak anonymously on the Internet. The Communication Act had been designed to thwart telephone harassment. Then this new Public Law 109-162 significantly updated The Communication Act to prohibit annoying Web postings or e-mails that do not disclose the true identities of the authors.

While the U.S. constitution places an extremely high value on and provides protection for free speech, such speech is not completely unbridled. That is why the US has a developed body of law pertaining to defamation. In a nutshell, if someone says something false about someone else that causes harm to that person, liability and monetary damages may be awarded.

In the context of the Internet, it is common for people to communicate using pseudonyms as is the ‘religion’ on Ghana web. That allows them to speak freely and openly, without revealing who they really are. Persons or companies who feel that they have been defamed would want to find out the identities of anonymous people who have communicated on the Internet. What did one have to do?

To find out the identities of anonymous Internet commentators one need to go to the Internet service providers that are the conduits of the speech/comment at issue. To do that, a "John Doe" lawsuit usually is filed against the anonymous speaker at the heart of the matter. From that case, a subpoena is served on the ISP seeking the identity of the speaker/commentator. The anonymous speaker then has an opportunity to file what is called a "motion to quash," which seeks to bar revelation of his or her identity.

The court then is called upon to rule whether the anonymous speaker's identity should be disclosed. Because of First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech, which the cases hold includes the right to speak anonymously on the Internet, the Court, before Public Law 109-162 came into being in January 2006, normally erred on the side of protecting the identity of the speaker. That is unless the party seeking disclosure can make a "prima facie" showing upfront in the case that the speech at issue truly creates liability and that true harm and damage has ensued.

Against this backdrop of protection of anonymous Internet speech, this newly updated Public Law 109-162 has completely equalized the playing field for all. The Communications Act had prohibited the making of telephone calls or the utilization of telecommunications devices "without disclosing (one's) identity to abuse, threaten, annoy or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications." The same law also had been clear that the term "telecommunications device...does not include an interactive computer service." This meant that law had not been aimed at Internet communications, till the arrival of the huge qualifier, Public Law 109-162! Now, there is no requirement of harm to trigger the impact of the new law. Anonymous Internet stalker’s identity can now be disclosed and be opened to legal prosecution and penalties.

Public Law 109-162 otherwise known as the “Violence against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act,” now covers the Internet. There is provision therein that refers to "any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet." So one cannot now hide under the cloak of anonymity to freely dispense abuse, annoyance, threats or harassments and expect the courts to ‘protect’ them. The Law gives unfettered power to the courts now to reveal anonymous identities and to punish them, if found guilty.

Thus, where one uses the internet without disclosing his identity or fraudulently usurps the name of another person, he is liable for fines and imprisonment of up to two years for violations. A person like that Plano, Texas resident discussed here, who makes a Web posting or who sends an e-mail intended to annoy someone else while not disclosing his or her true identity could be subject to fines and jail time. Indeed, there is no requirement of harm to trigger the impact of this new law.

Now, in comments under another Feature Article by Kofi Owusu-Ansah on December 28, 2006 titled THANK YOU MR RAWLINGS, by simply clicking on “Discuss this” icon below the original article Nii Addotey uncovered the Plano Texas impostor’s trickery of using the same Government Computer to post as Ebby Koney and Ezanetor Rawlings. Nii Addotey then posted the following:

“Author: NiiAddotey (registered user)

Date: 12-28-2006 16:12

Author: Ebby Koney (68.22.219.14) Date: 12-28-2006 13:32

Author: Ezanetor Rawlings (68.22.219.14) Date: 12-28-2006 13:34

Caught like a son of a thief. I almost took you seriously until I saw you are the same fool talking to yourself. Check your IP (…) and come back again. Haba a coward like (you)ought to at least realize that they are smarter people out there.

[This is an authentic posting from NiiAddotey (Registered User)”

A contributor going by the moniker True Patriot provided useful insights that led to the discovery of the impersonator’s IP Address in Plano, Texas. What place is Plano, Texas?

Plano, Texas is not a rural outback of herds of Cows and Cowboys. Mayor Pat Evans is proud that Plano, a suburb of Dallas is dubbed An All American City and home to H. Ross Perot, Lance Armstrong and Steve Harvey, the comedian, and many others including Anousheh Ansari, businesswoman and the first female space tourist.. Plano is the corporate headquarters for some of America’s largest and most-recognized companies. The following companies have their headquarters in Plano: Electronic Data Systems; JCPenney; Cadbury Schweppes Americas Beverages (formerly Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc.); Frito Lay; Cinemark Theatres; Rent-A-Center; Perot Systems; Neiman Marcus. Plano also has a large number of semiconductor and telecommunications companies in its Research and Technology District (RT) due in part to its proximity to the Telecom Corridor. The list includes: Alcatel; Raytheon; Texas Instruments; Ericsson. All indications therefore point to a desperate attention seeker who wants to annoy and fool people using the internet under assumed names. Since the record cannot be erased at his whims and caprice, he is facing a visit to the court to answer for his crime!

Cyber stalkers as the one noted above, are waging secret war on their perceived opponents. Their favorite plan is to post comments hiding their own identities and using the names of their targets. That is a criminal conduct punishable in the USA. It does not appear that these cyber stalkers understand their predicament. So the question to ask is this:

Do (anonymous) cyber stalkers on Ghana web who hide their identities and assume the names of other people to post annoying and derogatory threads know the legal consequences of their criminal conduct?

Beware anonymous Cyber stalkers; Ignorance of the law is no excuse! You are in jeopardy.