Monday, December 01, 2014

John Derringer's 13 Days Of Christmas

Well, the 13 Days Of Christmas Campaign Against Child Abuse and Domestic Violence has started again.

John Derringer, morning radio talk show host at Q107FM in Toronto, raises funds every year which are used to ensure that children who have been the victims of abuse and adults who have been the victims of domestic violence as well as their families can enjoy a better Christmas.

Derringer is a philanthropist here in Toronto and is on the Board of Directors of the Canadian Center for Abuse Awareness.

This fund raising campaign is on behalf of both CCAA and the Martin Kruze Memorial Foundation.

Child Abuse of all kinds, Bullying and Domestic Violence are terrible crimes.

It's up to us as a society to help, to be aware that there are other children out there suffering, and make these children, as well as adult survivors of Child Abuse and victims of Domestic Violence a priority.

Preventing Child Abuse, Bullying and Domestic Violence is everyone's responsibility.

Please note that Domestic Violence is not a gender issue. Both men and women can be and are victims. We don't have good statistics on the number of men who are abused because men don't report this crime out of embarrassment and a lack of social support.

His Campaign will continue from December 1 to 13.

Support his campaign by:

1. calling 1-800-379-8858 (Canada) and contribute! 

2. go directly to their web site at Q107, listen to the show on streaming audio. John's show, Derringer in the Morning, airs from 5:30AM to 10:00AM EST Monday to Friday. John provides details on how to contribute by texting and regular updates, etc.

3. contribute directly and/or participate in the Online Auction  or by going directly to the CCAA site.

Note that the Online Auction features some pretty cool Canadiana, sports and rock memorabilia like: "Paul McCartney & Ringo Starr Hand Signed Beatles Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band Record Album With Letter of Authenticity"

4. Or contribute to your own charity in your own country which is helping the victims of child abuse and/or domestic violence!

5. You can also sign Stephen Shellen's Petition to Stop Child Trafficking

Thanks and Merry Christmas/Yuletide Greetings/Happy Solstice/Happy Holidays!

Saturday, August 09, 2014

Stephen Shellen's personal experiences with the darkside of Hollywood

Interview with Scott of Truth Sentinel

starts at 58:00m

Friday, May 30, 2014

Internet Loons Declare Me An #Anonymous #Hacker LOL!

Well I guess that settles that question.

If Heather Martin, a registered nurse at St. Pauls Hospital in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and other Internet Loons declare me an Anonymous Hacker then it must be true. Lol.

After all, they allege:

  1. that they are all 'thorough' researchers 
  2. have a veritable treasure trove of links, and documents that they and other Internet Loons produced 
  3. which they share amongst each other

which say so.

Of course, according to their circular logic, that is 'evidence' and makes their allegations true because, after all, they can reference each others bullshit.

This argument is based on the logical fallacy, Argumentum Ad Populum which simply states: "If many believe so, it is so.

Of course, the flaw in that statement should be obvious here. Everyone used to believe the world was flat and we know that isn't true. In fact, a lot of people believe in a lot of stupid things. If we assumed they were all true just because a lot of people believed them, we'd still be living in caves.

And people wonder why I call them irrational Internet Loons. Lol.


Why is their demonstrated looniness even a question? Is it that human beings are lacking in a general ability to engage in rational thought processes by default?

I think so and I think this is a serious failing in our educational system.

EVERYONE should be taught logical argumentation skills from the time they can speak. It can be done and it should be done or I see very little hope for the survival of the human race.


The kind and quantity of sheer ignorance that gets flogged on the Internet daily and that some people eagerly lap up and spew everywhere is absolutely astounding.

Maybe we should consider licensing people before they're allowed to have blogs? A required Pass in a course on logical argumentation could be the ticket in. Lol.

Anyway, according to their loony logic, given that,

  1. I am in IT (I'm a web and software application developer)
  2. I support the Anonymous concept

therefore I am an Anonymous Hacker. Lol.

This is like saying (Example 1):
  1. All toasters are items made of gold.
  2. All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
  3. Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.
Or to be more specific (Example 2):
  1. All people in IT are Hackers
  2. All Hackers are Anonymous
  3. Therefore, all people in IT are Anonymous Hackers
BOTH of the above examples have statements that are known in logical argumentation as valid logic. That is, the conclusion (3) logically follows the premises (1 and 2).

So, as you can see by example 1, logic can be valid, even if it is based on statements that are untrue.
"It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid. An argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to each other in the right way so that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well." --IEP. Validity and Soundness [in logical argumentation]
And to the idiot, the premises will be assumed to be true therefore the conclusions are presumed to be true.

Herein lies the difference between the intelligent critical thinker and the ignoramus (who can, should and might be willing to learn) or the stupid (who is incapable of or self-servingly refuses to learn).

Whether these irrational Internet Loons who are alleging that I'm an Anonymous Hacker fall into the category of ignoramus or stupid is solely in their hands. I have no control over which they demonstrate, by their own actions, to be. Only they can do that.

All I can do is provide the education and information which will help to educate those interested in learning and that is what I'm doing here.

Now, as you can see, in the demonstration above, valid logic, while it's certainly logical, isn't necessarily true if the premises aren't true. It can be false. It can even be completely nuts unless you think toasters are actually time machines. In which case I'd have to say that you were nuts.

That's why logical argumentation doesn't just require validity. It also requires soundness.

A sound logical argument is one which uses both valid logic (the conclusion follows logically from the premises) AND the premises are demonstrably true.

This is where the irrational Internet Loons fail in all their allegations. In many cases, they are sort of capable of making claims which on the surface might appear to make sense or appear to have some truth to them but as soon as you scratch the surface a little you expose the filthy inner lining of irrational looniness because the premises are false. That is, they intentionally don't or can't present sound arguments.

Their goal is just to fabricate some bullshit that sounds good and that thoughtless people might buy rather than to present truth. The purpose of that goal is defame and discredit those they target with their bullshit.

A sound logical argument about people in IT and Anonymous hackers would look like the following:

  1. Some people in IT hack
  2. Some people in IT support Anonymous
  3. Some people in IT might be Anonymous Hackers

Does this logic support the allegation that people in IT are Anonymous Hackers?

Of course it doesn't.

It supports the allegation that those people in IT who hack and who support Anonymous might be Anonymous Hackers not that they are Anonymous Hackers.

If you replace the term, 'Some people' with my name, does it support the allegation I'm an Anonymous Hacker?

Of course it doesn't.

In order for the logic to be sound, you'd have to have evidence that I hack. The fact that I publicly support Anonymous isn't enough. BOTH premises have to be demonstrably true for the conclusion to be true and argument (allegation) logic to be sound.

Since I have publicly stated that I don't hack and since there is no evidence that I'm lying (you'd need actual demonstrable proof of my alleged hacking not some paranoid unproven accusation), the statement is flagrantly obvious bullshit and most likely intentional lies.

Even if someone fabricated evidence that I hack (and that's what they would have to do since I don't), the statement is still can't be perceived as being necessarily true. The conclusion can still only be that I might be, not that I am, unless there is demonstrable evidence of me participating as a hacker in an Anonymous Op. That evidence would also have to be fabricated since I haven't participated in any Anonymous Ops as a hacker.

Given that some of these Internet loons actually have a proven and demonstrated history of fabricating evidence in order to support their false allegations this is certainly within the realm of possibility.

Of course, my specialty is to expose their lies, fabrications and frame-ups which I have done successfully and repeatedly on my Cyberharassment and the Cyberbullies blog. The loons hate this blog and claim that I'm targeting 'innocent' people on it despite the fact that it contains a great deal of evidence, much of it hard evidence and some of it irrefutable evidence. Lol. This is the real reason they hate it.

If you want to have a good laugh you can read all about their lame attempts at frame-ups and deceptions and watch how I expose their lies using forensic technology and critical reasoning applied to evidence openly available on the Internet or provided to me by others.

sound arguments both start out with true premises and have a form that guarantees that the conclusion must be true if the premises are, sound arguments always end with true conclusions. --IEP. Validity and Soundness [in logical argumentation]

In my company blog I've provided an excerpt from a very good article which defines the different groups of people in IT, what they do, and what the differences are between the groups including the difference between web and software developers like myself and hackers. There's also a link back to the full article which is interesting and worth a read.

Here's an excerpt of the excerpt. Lol.


These words might all mean the same thing to you. Perhaps you hear geek, nerd, and dweeb, but we all know these have very important differences. Knowing the differences also can give you a sense of how deep you want to go on your coding adventure.

  • Coders - Can pretty much figure out it. It'll work, but it won't be pretty.
  • Hackers - usually low level folks, skillful, with detailed understanding of some area deeply, often scarily deeply.
  • Programmer - Write code and understand algorithms. Often work alone and well.
  • Developer - Are the best generalists, can use lots of different systems and languages and get them to talk to each other. Are true and broad professionals, work with people, and communicate well.
  • Computer Scientist - Need to be able to prove how computers work, at a theoretical level. Are usually math people also.

Sunday, May 25, 2014

CyberHarassment: Exploring Solutions

Online abuse is, unfortunately, a common problem. It seems that there are some people in this world who simply get a lot of pleasure out of abusing others and the online world is a fertile ground for finding vulnerable victims. By vulnerable I’m not really referring to people who have any particular physical, emotional , or psychological vulnerabilities but rather the fact that we are all vulnerable in the online world to having our personal and professional reputations injured or destroyed. All knowledge and information about us which is out there is available to be twisted, misrepresented, distorted, exaggerated, lies invented based on it, and otherwise abused to present us in a negative light, in public, amongst those who either don’t know us or only know us casually.

We are also vulnerable to this abuse in real life but it’s harder to do and requires more structure and organization. It’s also harder to prove that it’s going on in real life. In the online world where nothing ever really gets deleted (despite the harassers attempts to remove the evidence) it can almost always be located and therefore the allegations proven.

Someone, somewhere has almost always archived it for posterity.

So, while the lies never get erased, your refutations to the lies also never get erased. If you’ve done your job properly the truth can and will overwhelm the lie and the liars even if they outnumber you.

However, going through that process is time consuming and often quite painful because those who engage in cyberharassment and stalking often have nothing else to do. They can (and do) spend hours doing this because they are dysfunctional people living dysfunctional lives whereas those of us being targeted with this abuse are trying to lead active, normal lives and this nonsense takes us away from that.

While these stalkers and harassers are usually incredibly stupid people, they do excel at lying so you will be dealing with their false allegations with the police, social media sites, friends, family, etc. sometimes for years. In the case of psychopaths, it’s pretty much guaranteed that they’ll be on your case for years or until they get themselves incarcerated in prison or a psych ward.

This is one reason why this type of harassment can’t be ignored or swept under the carpet. The lies, if left to fester can and do take on a life of their own and become ‘truth’ by virtue of the fact that there is nothing out there refuting them.

When it comes to one’s personal and professional reputation these lies can have a deep and often immeasurable impact, especially vicious ones like the current ‘call everyone you hate a pedo’ rage.

The more seriously mentally ill the cyberharasser/stalker is, the further they will go with their abuse and lies.

If you:

  1. Challenge their story by challenging the fact that they have no evidence? Voila, evidence gets fabricated in the form of fake photoshopped screenshots, fake pedo web sites set up under the targets personal name as the domain, quoting known liars or people who have an obvious bias, etc.
  2. Expose their lies and their cowardice? Voila numerous false allegations/complaints filed with police, social media sites you’re a member of, government agencies, employers (past and present), schools, social service agencies (if you receive assistance), etc.
  3. Confront their lies? Voila they recruit other stalkers to spew them for them so that they can claim ‘they aren’t the only ones that hate you’. Suddenly you’re surrounded by a goon squad wallowing in its own filth of lies, the intent being to overwhelm the truth with the lies.

So, what are the solutions?

What can we do to deal more effectively with such lunacy online. Aside from having those who engage in this abuse carted off to their local Psych Ward in strait jackets or to prison. While that will certainly help resolve the problem, it isn’t the easiest thing to do and in the mean time we all have to survive the crazies.

While we can’t change the fact that there are seriously disturbed people out there in the world, many of whom have access to the Internet and are going to be problems… there are often small things that can be done that end up having a big impact.

This recent article from Wired provided some interesting examples and insight into this issue:

According to the article, a simple process like providing a specific and detailed explanation for why someone was banned reduced the recidivism of the bad behavior dramatically whereas not providing an explanation resulted in a ‘disturbingly high’ recidivism rate.
The team also found that it’s important to enforce the rules in ways that people understand. When Riot’s team started its research, it noticed that the recidivism rate was disturbingly high; in fact, based on number of reports per day, some banned players were actually getting worse after their bans than they were before. At the time, players were informed of their suspension via emails that didn’t explain why the punishment had been meted out. So Riot decided to try a new system that specifically cited the offense. This led to a very different result: Now when banned players returned to the game, their bad behavior dropped measurably. 
–Extract from Curbing Online Abuse Isn’t Impossible

A solution like this actually accomplishes three things which are excellent for the consumer of the service.

  1. The user has a clear understanding of what the behavior that was considered negative is, and knows that if they want to stay on the site they can’t engage in that specific behavior again.  This creates a solid deterrent for that negative behavior.
  2. The support staff are required to properly examine the issue and provide a specific reason, presumably with the evidence that the person did indeed violate the rules. This has the benefit of ensuring that Support staff do their jobs properly and can actually justify the suspension (or lack of suspension based on a complaint). That is they can justify it based on actual written policy rather than just an arbitrary spur of the minute, get this off my desk fast, decision or I feel sorry for person A, I’m on their side and will help them even though the person isn’t doing what person A says they’re doing, etc.
  3. Most importantly, any sense of injustice or unfairness at the decisions is also removed because everything has been properly explained and justified. This, in and of itself, can lead to self-correcting behavior. Justice has been done.

Of course, the person might find the standard itself objectionable which is a different issue but one that should be addressed by any social media site which actually wants to be a comfortable place for their users. They could have a special forum where these types of discussions can occur directly with Support staff or Development staff. Explanations will resolve 90% of the issues and the other 10% probably need to be fixed. If they can’t be fixed, people are kept informed and things are unlikely to get out of hand. Or, at least less often, than they would without these measures in place.

The reality is that the current recidivism rate for ‘bad’ behavior is disturbingly high on sites like Twitter and Facebook, and the decisions to remove or leave items being objected to are arbitrary, inconsistent, and frequently not based on the written site rules/policy.

Frequently items which obviously violate the social media site’s policy are left while items which don’t are removed and the posters suspended, banned or otherwise punished despite the fact that they didn’t violate any policy or rule.

I’m currently in a battle with Twitter and have been for a nearly a month to get my business Twitter account unsuspended. Twitter refuses to interact with me to provide any explanation, rationalization, or justification for their arbitrary (and unjustified) actions.

I have provided a detailed refutation to Twitter (in several emails now) including the tweets that I was tweeting at the time my account was suspended based on a false complaint, and screenshots of Twitters own interface showing that at least one allegation is completely bogus and without any merit. This has, so far, been completely ignored.

Not only is this frustrating to the user who is the target of cyberbullying / harassment and being further victimized by false accusations of allegedly doing what is actually being done to them, but it enables and encourages the cyberbullies and harassers to take things further and further. After all, their scam worked.

And you can rest assured they will be smugly gloating about the fact that it worked while coming up with ways to escalate things even further. Of course, they’ll blame you for the escalations. How dare you stand up to their abuse and do so publicly. That’s cyberbullying them according to their sick and twisted thinking. Lol.

To Facebook’s credit, they have banned Michael Babcock from Facebook because of his ongoing bullying and harassing behavior, defamations, lies, etc. They closed down over 20 Facebook sites set up by him for no other purpose than to personally attack, defame and spread lies about social activists on Facebook. Particularly anti-pedophilia social activists. Babcock is just one of a group of people that are part of this current harassment campaign and instigating numerous Tard Krews into senselessly targeting innocent people who are anti-pedophilia social activists.

All this accomplishes, of course, is to protect the real pedophiles since those who are going after them, the anti-pedophilia social activists,  are being discredited and defamed by this group of people: Antonio F. Lopez (impersonating UK teen Kree Love) et al, Thomas Schroeder aka Thomas Cook aka Juliet Biehl et al, Julia Ann Larson aka Rusalka Sireen aka Javeria Laila et al, Christopher Joseph Erwin aka Jason Steele, Michael Babcock aka N2KMaster aka CoderHyguru aka Coder Hyguru.

The article proposes the following and I agree because it’s focusing entirely on the behavior that’s exhibited rather than the content of what is said. What is said only matters when it leads to negative behaviors and on those grounds free speech has always had some limitations.

You can’t shout ‘fire’ in a theatre because of the impact that will have on behavior.

CyberBullying and harassment are the same. When you falsely call someone a Pedo or Pedo enabler and post it all over the web in numerous blogs, web sites, torrents, pastes, on DarkNet with personal information in Doxbin, etc. etc. there is an impact not only to the person targeted but to others who might decide to interact in negative ways with the target because of those false allegations.

So, this isn’t about free speech. It’s about bullying and harassing behaviors.

Extracted from the article:

What would our social networks look like if their guidelines and enforcement reflected real-life community norms? If Riot’s experiments are any guide, it’s unlikely that most or even many users would deem a lot of the casual abuse, the kind that’s driving so many people out of online spaces, to be acceptable. Think about how social networks might improve if—as on the gaming sites and in real life—users had more power to reject abusive behavior. Of course, different online spaces will require different solutions, but the outlines are roughly the same:

  • involve users in the moderation process,
  • set defaults that create hurdles to abuse,
  • give clearer feedback for people who misbehave,
  • and—above all—create a norm in which harassment simply isn’t tolerated.
–Extract from Curbing Online Abuse Isn’t Impossible

Update May 27, 2014: Babcock has returned to Facebook. Whether this is with or without Facebook's knowledge is unknown at this time. His usual game is to sneak around using socks. However, his pages and sock accounts are being closely monitored by quite a few people. Any defamatory libel, abuse or pathological lies about anyone will be immediately reported. Babcock created numerous pages whose sole purpose was to harass and defame innocent people with the lies he likes to fabricate. Facebook did the right thing to remove these harassment pages. There are no constitutional protections for people to lie and defame others. If he wants to call innocent people pedophiles or peophile enablers he should provide the evidence or shut the fuck up. While he claims to have Gigabytes of evidence, it's all nothing but misinterpreted nonsense which has for the most part been taken out of context and doesn't mean what he alleges it means. He's either a pathological liar, has extremely poor reading skills (elementary school level at best), or so mentally ill that he can't even interpret the written word correctly. His technical skills are so shoddy that he can't even interpret the simplest forensics software results correctly either.

Thursday, May 15, 2014

#Anonymous: Operation Net Storm

Published on May 10, 2014



LOCATION: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th St. SW, Washington, D.C. (

E-MAILS: List of FCC commissioners and their twitters, emails, blogs, instagrams, etc: //



They have taken action:

What is Net Neutrality:

MUST WATCH: (via description)

The Monopoly:

Don't know how to contact your representative? Find out who they are and let them know:





NOTE: The description of this video will continuously be updated ONLY if necessary. Please check the description of this video daily for any updates.

Follow @TheAnonMessage on Twitter for the latest.


"What's Happening To Me (Alt 1) - Extreme Music / 2 Steps from Hell", musical composition administered by:
AdRev Publishing
Nonprofits & Activism
Standard YouTube License
Show less

Saturday, May 03, 2014

Anonymous OpJamaica

Frankly this applies to ALL of the Caribbean.

Trinidad and Tobago and other Caribbean Islands should all be included in this Op. Just saying :-)

Very well researched video.  Recommended.

Monday, April 14, 2014

Corporate Welfare Bums and Taxes

If they can afford to buy our governments, not trickle down a penny in benefits to citizens through increased employment, etc. they're hoarding money and they certainly can afford to pay taxes at the 90% rate which is what it was in the 1950s. 

Hoarding money (which is what the wealthy elite do) is one of the most destructive things a member of the wealthy elite can do to our economy. When it trickles down, we use it to buy goods and services and save small amounts (relatively speaking). When there is no trickle down and the wealthy elite hoards it to invest all of it in existing companies which are not being expanded while employee benefits downgraded, etc in order to increase profit margins and attract investors there is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to the economy.

It's a destructive cycle and it's a process that needs to be eliminated.

And this isn't even looking at the issue of mass (at the corporate level -> 60% just in Ontario) corporate tax evasions and tax frauds worth billions in lost tax revenue in Canada and trillions world-wide.

Our governments should be charged with Gross Mismanagement of Tax Payer Funds as well as Criminal Collusion in the Commission of Tax Fraud for turning a blind eye towards this and allowing this robbery to continue.

Those Corporations that are engaging in this should have their assets seized, turned over to the tax payer either to become government corporations or be sold and entire BODs should be imprisoned for this crime.

Tax evasion should not be rewarded by negotiating 50% deals, etc. Monies owed should be paid in full or assets seized and sold to compensate the tax payer.

Linda McQuaig
Are CEOs panicking over a new style of tax rage brewing?

 | APRIL 10, 2014

Extract from article:
"Nonetheless, the CBC's interview with Howlett sparked gasps of rage from the bowels of the business press, notably Terence Corcoran in the National Post -- even though a detailed description of the Cameco case and other tax avoidance schemes had just appeared in a special issue of Canadian Business under the cover headline: How to pay no taxes -- Many of Canada's largest companies pay almost no tax: What's their secret?

Of course, that report, directed towards a business audience, is seen as harmless. It's quite another matter when that information is used by the likes of Howlett to wake up the Canadian public to this wealth grab by some of our biggest corporations -- companies which pushed governments to slash taxes and then largely avoided even those lower rates by shifting their profits offshore."

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

The Day We Fight Back Against Mass Surveillance #NSA #StopSpying

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Dear Kitty,

Take Action
Big news. Today, the Internet is uniting to fight back against mass surveillance. 

The political landscape has shifted dramatically since the first Snowden leaks last June. We’re at a key moment in the battle against those who want to scoop up all your private personal information, whether it’s the NSA, or other countries’ spooks, like Britain’s GCHQ or Russia’s FSB.

Will you sign onto our global petitionopposing mass, suspicionless surveillance? 

It’s crafted by legal experts from around the world and lays out principles for restraint, oversight, and specificity for engaging in surveillance. Your signature will give weight to a new legal framework for policymakers that will lead to modern surveillance laws that will protect individual privacy rights, instead of trampling them.

You’ll be standing with over 360 activist groups from Colombia to Uganda, dozens of world experts, and thousands of your fellow Internet citizens.

Please help spread the word.

In addition to signing the global petition, you can share on social media using the hashtag #StopSpying.

You can also help us by installing this code on your website, which will install a banner urging visitors to oppose mass spying.

There are also protests, discussions, and cryptoparties being organized around the world.See if there's one in your area.

Back in the USA, we're fighting for you

Thanks to supporters like you, EFF has been fighting NSA surveillance in American courts. We're attacking Internet surveillance programs as illegal and unconstitutional under US law, and we're representing 22 organizations in challenging the phone records surveillance program on free speech grounds.

This is bigger than just the US, though. We’ve explained to states at the UN and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights the implications of the NSA’s spying on the privacy rights of everyone, at home and overseas. And we’re teaming up with our fellow activists around the world to make sure everyone is free from unchecked snooping, whether it’s from the United States’ dragnet spying, or your local surveillance state.
Stopping the NSA from collecting emails like this,

Rainey Reitman
Activism Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation

Sunday, January 26, 2014

Doxing / Snitching: What's the difference?

Doxing is a long standing Internet tradition. However, it's only been in recent years that the practice has come into the public eye.

Doxing, an abbreviation of document tracing, is the Internet-based practice of researching and publishing personally identifiable information about an individual. The methods employed in pursuit of this information range from searching publicly available databases and social media websites like Facebook to hacking and social engineering. It is closely related to cyber-vigilantism, hacktivism, and cyber-bullying. 
Doxing may be carried out to aid law enforcement, extortion, coercion, harassment, public shaming, and other forms of vigilante justice. 
While the Wiki states that it's being used for both cyber-bullying and to aid law enforcement, those are recent uses of doxing. While they might have occurred occasionally in the earlier days of the Internet they were, based on my personal observations, very uncommon uses and not considered acceptable uses by Netizens generally. In fact, if someone did use doxing for either of those purposes they were likely to end up getting doxed themselves. 

 There is certainly a very long standing tradition on the Internet of dealing firmly and sometimes quite harshly with cyber-bullies and those who aid law enforcement in identifying social activists like Internet free speech activists, human rights workers, etc. Doxing is a component part of that tradition. As the Internet developed and TOR was created, DoxBin also appeared in DarkNet and was the place to identify feds, snitches, cyberharassers and other bad elements on the Internet for the most part.

When Anonymous came into the public eye the concept of doxing also came into the public eye because Anonymous used it as a social protest vehicle in those Ops which targeted law enforcement, intelligence, and snitches in particular.

However, since then, the unethical uses of doxing have gained momentum and the vast majority of doxing today is, in fact, either snitching, revenge, or malicious harassment and persecution. Those doxes are also now appearing on DoxBin in DarkNet and various other anonymized paste sites on ClearNet.

That is, it's become the thing to do if you're mad at someone, disagree with them, want to make a name for yourself at the expense of a well-known hacktivist like the th3j35t3r, or want to earn some cash by snitching like Jennifer Emick was trying to do with BackTrace which she was fired from and is now trying to do with Asherah Research.

Doxing someone like th3j35t3r, social activists from repressive regimes, or even atheists who live in countries governed by Islamic Law could actually put their lives in danger. A fact that these idiots fail to consider or seem to be concerned about.

Those that engage in unethical doxing often attempt to place some social 'spin' on it to rationalize their attacks much in the same way that Tards try to claim that they're 'trolls'. They are trying to give their unethical acts Internet 'street cred' and nothing more.

Since it's become such a common practice, the general trend has been to let these cyberharassers run roughshod over anyone they choose as their targets.

What appears to be dying is the Internet tradition of dealing with these bad elements.

In my opinion, this was, and continues to be, an important tradition that needs to be revived by those who care about the Internet and our freedoms.

Free speech doesn't give people the right to lie, defame or libel and doxing shouldn't be allowed to be used to harass, abuse, and snitch. Not without consequences.

That will only stop if Netizens start to speak up and act against those who abuse doxing to further corrupt agendas.

And, frankly there's nothing wrong with snitching on cyberharassers, cyberbullies, cyberstalkers, real pedophiles, and the corrupt.

There is something wrong with allowing those who engage in unethical doxing to get away with it.

That is one of the purposes of my new blog, Cyberharassment and the Cyberbullies. To identify those who are engaging in these abusive activities, name and shame them, and where we can, snitch on them.

Cyberharassment, cyberbullying, and cyberstalking are criminal acts targeting innocent people. Those acts and those who engage in them should be exposed and held accountable. Especially those targeting our children who are too often committing suicide because they don't know how to deal with the abuse or adults whose lives could be put at risk.

Both the State and Law Enforcement should be acting to hold those criminals legally accountable for their crimes. Unfortunately at this time, they aren't, with the exception of some countries like the UK.

They will when enough pressure is placed on them to do so.

Thursday, January 09, 2014

Internet Trolling, Doxing and CyberBullying. What’s the difference? A primer

Every so often I recycle blog posts I've written in the past if I think they're relevant to things that are occurring currently. Given my current anti-cyberbullying activity I thought it might be good to recycle this one I wrote in August 28, 2013.

I have started a new blog where I focus on the issue of CyberHarassment and the CyberBullies themselves. The idea is to illustrate actual, active CyberHarassment situations currently happening and to educate people on the things that are done. People don't always recognize real CyberHarassment and as a result it simply gets dismissed as nothing more than normal people getting into normal fights.

It isn't. It's far more than that and it needs to be understood and addressed.

I'm also letting the CyberBullies know that they aren't going to be able to engage in their activity without people knowing who they are and what they're doing. Their names, faces, and evidence of their cyberharassment activities are being published on the blog. The CyberBullies are being exposed as the criminals that they are.

One of the things that these CyberBullies like to do is claim that they're just 'trolling' and 'having some fun (lulz)'. This is simply a ruse to give themselves some Internet 'street cred' and present a 'cool' face to their abuse of innocent people. Many of whom are families, children and vulnerable adults making their behavior even more despicable.

In this blog post I'm explaining the Internet traditions of doxing, trolling, and the Hacker tradition of Social Engineering in order to demonstrate how CyberBullying is indeed different.

Internet Trolling is a tradition and art form that has existed on the Internet since discussion groups of various kinds started whether they were on bulletin boards, irc, usenet or the newer web.

The role of a Troll is to create chaos amongst those engaged in discussions, serious or not. There are numerous creative methods applied by Trolls to accomplish this goal. Subsets of Trolls are POEs and LOKIs which offer variations to the basic concept. The Trolls goal is to disrupt discussions and groups and in the process of that they might target some individuals and troll them based on their comments in the group. 

Internet Trolls may also single out particular social segments to target all over the Internet, like atheists, feminists, social activists, etc.

For example, the atheistic community has trolls who target atheistic blogs, groups, and sites. My favorite one is a person who calls him/herself TrueChristian, joins atheist groups and then starts making WestBoro Baptist Church type claims. This, of course, is guaranteed to cause outrage and lots of drama. No matter how many times you out him/her to atheists as a POE, there are always going to be a few who fall for the Trolling and get themselves all worked up. I have never and will never ban TrueChristian from any site I moderate because he/she’s just way too intelligent and entertaining.  And when he trolls me directly I troll him back.

Another rather well known Troll who targeted atheists was one that fell into the grey area between Internet Trolling and CyberBullying.

He crossed the line from one to the other when his campaigns started including death and other threats to the well-being of the individual authors of the sites he targeted. 

However, the reason his activity fit into this grey area was that his targeting objective wasn’t personal where those individuals were concerned. He was going after anyone who was an atheist.

In addition, the fact that he crossed the line into CyberBullying was actually an indication of his mental illness. His Trolling/CyberBullying stopped when he was eventually incarcerated in a Psychiatric Hospital and received the help he so obviously needed.

Generally speaking, Internet Trolls can be pretty mean, even vicious, in the process of accomplishing their goal and while they can get personal their trolling isn’t personal.

There was one debate on an atheist group that I’m a member of where two Trolls were engaged in quite a serious debate about whether I should have been categorized as a witch or a demon (biblically speaking). Things got quite heated and my only regret was that this debate did not occur in its’ own thread but was part of another discussion. It would have been easier to save. Yes I was the target and all of it was directed at me. Was the troll personal? Not really. That discussion could have been applied to any atheist on that site.

For those looking on, who understand what’s happening, it can be quite entertaining watching an intelligent Internet Troll or two in action.
CyberBullies, on the other hand, are malicious and the attacks are very personal. They target people with the intent to do maximum harm to that individual personally, professionally, and socially both online and in real life.

They accomplish this by doxing, stalking, defaming, libeling and harassing them all over the Internet. 

Does this mean that all Doxing constitutes CyberBullying? 

No, it doesn't. All Doxing isn’t CyberBullying. 

Doxing is also an Internet tradition, but it is a tradition with a very specific purpose in mind. Its’ purpose is and historically always was to identify cyberbullies, feds and other habitual troublemakers and disrupters of Internet groups and movements. That is, it was and should continue to be done for social reasons, not personal reasons. 

The doxes that are produced should only ever be published as Doxes on the Internet if the information in them has been verified to be true and the person has been given a chance to cease and desist.

Running around and abusing this process by calling people 'feds' or 'pedos' or any other 'evil' someone can fabricate when there's no actual evidence that they are, just discredits the entire process and means that no-one is going to take it seriously.

CyberBullies abuse doxes by using them as a vehicle to spread their malicious lies, misrepresentations and other forms of disinformation and misinformation.

The fact that Doxing is abused by CyberBullies to accomplish their goals of personal malicious persecution against individuals doesn’t change its’ original intent. It just means that there are those who abuse it.

In fact, it’s standard practice for CyberBullies to:
1. Use the techniques we’ve developed to deal with their bullying against us.
2. Play the victim to deflect attention back to those they targeted in the first place.
3. Accuse the victim of doing what they are doing to the victim when the victim stands up for themselves.
Amongst other things.

Their goal is personal and it is to maliciously persecute that individual, usually based on lies, half-truths, misrepresentations or exaggerations. They will also target the friends, family, and children who associate with that individual based on morally bankrupt ‘guilt by association’ claims. Friends, family and children will be used to collect ‘dirt’ on that individual so that it can be used against them during the CyberBullying campaign. They will also then be included in the CyberBullies hitlist once he/she’s done with their ‘dirt’ collection.

Every comment one makes will be taken out of context, twisted and used against the person targeted.

There is generally a ‘no holds barred’ approach by CyberBullies because these particular individuals are usually mentally ill and suffer from obsessive, narcissistic or other personality disorders, or they are psychopaths/sociopaths. All of these disorders include pathological lying and there is no line the CyberBully will not cross to destroy those individuals they’ve targeted.

They are also very likely to be stalkers and bullies in real life as well.

The deceptive strategies used by CyberBullies run from demagogic propaganda techniques like disinformation, misinformation, deleting their history of abuse, pretending to be social activists, hacktivists, teenagers, etc.  to strategies of inciting hatred and recruiting more bullies based on the lies as well as ensuring the lies are spread everywhere in order to isolate the target. The purpose of harassing associates of the target is to isolate the target from any support. Whatever they need to do to ensure that they can keep the heat off of themselves for their bullying behavior and on the person they are targeting. 

These strategies and propaganda techniques are right out of the German Stasi and KKK training manuals.

In order to give this process credibility, these CyberBullies will often claim they are 'social engineers' and are engaging in 'social engineering'. 

What is quite obvious is that they have no clue what social engineering is, what it entails, what it's used for, or how it works.

Social engineering is a hacker term which also has a tradition on the Internet. It is used specifically to obtain information like passwords, etc. which will help a hacker perform the technical task of hacking into a system. It can also be used to collect information from family and friends for a Dox, amongst other things.

CyberBullies abuse social engineering techniques and use them as vehicles to manipulate and harass people as well as incite hatred.

Identifying CyberBullies:

They make themselves obvious in various ways. Just to provide a couple:

Hypocritical statements are a good indicator that one is dealing with a CyberBully. For example, there is one active campaign currently going on where one of the members of the CyberBully group keeps pontificating self-righteously about the evils of doxing while actively participating in a CyberBullying campaign which includes unethical doxing for personal reasons and which includes defamatory libel. 

He is doing this on behalf of another person who calls himself a 'social engineer/IT expert'. This person appears to think defamatory libel and pathological lying has something to do with social engineering and his 'IT expertise' apparently doesn't include the ability to differentiate between a wordpress site and a flash site.

Patterns of behavior are another good indicator. For example, if a person has a history of CyberBullying which includes habitual unethical doxing, defamatory libel, and other forms of harassment on the Internet, it’s generally a good indicator that any altercations that they are currently engaged in have been instigated by themselves especially if the campaign follows a similar pattern to previous campaigns.

Almost all CyberBullies will claim to be Trolls and engaging in trolling. The reasons for this are quite obvious. It sounds ‘cooler’ to say you’re a troll than admit to being a cyberbully when you get caught and confronted with your abuse. There are also no laws against trolling. 

Trolling is an accepted part of Internet culture whereas CyberBullying is included in Criminal Harassment and other related laws and is a criminal offense in many countries.

This is why it’s very important for Netizens to have a solid understanding of the difference. 

Let’s not add to the confusion. 

Those who do are only helping the CyberBullies.