Identity Stealing

As if there weren't already enough marks against it, ABC reported recently, after an interview with a Senior Project Manager from Symantec, that identity thieves have set their sights on MySpace as their new hunting ground.

According to Jody Gibney of Symantec, research shows that over 91% of phishing attacks in the last year have been through one of the two top social networking sites--MySpace and Facebook. As banks and other financial institutions, over recent years, have cracked down on their online security, hackers have found it increasingly difficult to access the information that they need in order to commandeer other's identities and borrow or steal money in their name.

So they've turned to everyone's favorite networking sites. What do they expect to find there? You'd be surprised.

First, the open, trusting environment found there in the world that is "MySpace" precipitates "loose lips". That is, for some reason, as MySpacers chat or talk or email, they develop some measure of trust amongst each other. They sometimes talk about things that they should probably not talk about, send information they probably shouldn't send, and store information they probably shouldn't store. It all becomes fair game.

Sometimes it's information as simple as birthdates, birth city, gender, age, physical attributes, place of employment, etc... This data opens doors of information throughout the financial world. Additionally, many users are too stupid or naive to realize that using a single password for every site you visit on the net is dangerous business. Hackers somehow have ways of determining your password. The odds are, if they can determine your MySpace password, they'll enter it into a computer somewhere and use it try to access ALL of your banking and personal financing.

Finally, MySpace is nothing more than an elaborate network of people conversing with each other. The sheer number of connections from user to user is enormous; the opportunities to spread the "data mining" and "shield gathering" bug about are countless.

I have to ask myself, again, what GOOD can come of MySpace?

A Sad Travesty

Lori Drew was indicted yesterday by a federal grand jury in Los Angeles for her part in the tragic 2006 suicide of 13 year-old Megan Meier in O'Fallon, Missouri.

Ms. Drew is alleged to have created a false MySpace account, in the name of Josh Evans, a 16 year-old who, over a number of weeks forged a virtual relationship with Meier using the popular social networking site. Josh then, suddenly, dumped Megan one fateful October day, posting messages on the MySpace site disparaging Megan's friendship and even stating in one that "the world would be a better place" without Megan.

Megan, her heart broken by this boy whom she had never set eyes on, and whose voice she'd never heard, went to her bedroom and hung herself in her closet.

Some time later it was discovered that Ms. Drew, who lived just down the street from the Meier family, had created Josh's profile, and communicated with Megan as Josh in order to "get her back" for her having mistreated Ms. Drew's daughter (one of Megan's classmates).

Missouri officials investigated the matter and, while they found Ms. Drew's actions reprehensible and morally repugnant, could not find that she'd broken any laws. The Los Angeles based federal grand jury felt otherwise. According to the indictment (handed down in Los Angeles since MySpace happens to be based in California which makes any crime committed in Missouri a crime committed while engaged in interstate commerce), Ms. Meier is charged with one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing a computer without authorization and via interstate commerce to obtain information to inflict emotional distress. Each count carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

The indictment is based, loosely, on Ms. Drew's alleged breach of the MySpace Terms of Service (which you agree to abide by when you check that little box below all the boring verbiage that nobody reads). Apparently their Terms of Service (TOS) state, in part, that the following uses are strictly prohibited:

impersonating or attempting to impersonate another Member, person or entity;

using any information obtained from the MySpace Services in order to harass, abuse, or harm another person or entity, or attempting to do the same;

using any information obtained from the MySpace Services in order to harass, abuse, or harm another person or entity, or attempting to do the same;

Ms. Drew, in creating a false profile, impersonating Josh Evans and harassing Lori using Josh's profile, breached an implicit contract with MySpace. In more normal times, and under less emotionally charged circumstances, Ms. Drew would, at best, be banned from using MySpace (in that she breached their terms of service). Instead, in this case, she's indicted for conspiracy and for using a computer (without permission, and during interstate commerce) to inflict emotional distress on another. And she faces up to twenty years in prison for it.

What does that mean--using a computer during interstate commerce to inflict emotional distress on others?

The truth of the matter is, her "crime" is only really a crime because Megan committed suicide. As I've said before, had Megan simply shrugged it off, and went on with life, Lori Drew would never have seen the inside of a courtroom; you and I wouldn't be having heated discussions about "cyberbullying"; MySpace likely wouldn't have even cared. Because the truth is, this same story has probably happened hundreds of times all over the nation, just with a slightly different ending. And those stories never get told, for no other reason than that the outcome is far less tragic (hurt feelings and a sense of betrayal instead of dead, heartbroken thirteen year-olds). Lori Drew is only on trial because of Megan's REACTION to Lori's mean spirited actions on MySpace.

Which is interesting because, as I've said before, It's just as possible that I'd gone home and done something drastic as a young boy in response to some kids who called me Picker because I picked my nose in class, and made fun of me for wearing flyless, elastic waisted camouflage pants to junior high. And, had I done something drastic, would those boys have faced indictment? Not likely. They would have been lightly chastised. But no more; because they aren't responsible for my reaction to their bullying and pestering, no matter how cruel or mean spirited. Neither is Lori Drew responsible for Megan Meier's suicide.

My PARENTS, on the other hand, would have, I hope, faced some severe scrutiny had I gone home from school and hung myself because of my cruel classmate's taunts. Because (as unpopular as this opinion might be), far more blame rests at their feet than at Ms. Drew's. What must be missing from a thirteen year-old's life that would cause her to place such extreme value in a virtual relationship (a relationship of no real substance whatsoever)?

Imagine with me, for a moment, feeling so unfulfilled in your relationships with family and friends that you reach out so strongly to some invisible, intangible boy out in cyberspace, and you place so much of your self-worth in his opinion of you that, when it degrades, you feel life is no longer worth living. Does that speak of a wholesome home life? I don't mean to blame Megan's suicide on her parents; she made choice all on her own. But I do say that if we're looking for places to cast blame, let's evaluate instead what must have been broken in Megan to cause her to act so irrationally.

Those broken pieces certainly were most assuredly not caused by Lori Drew. And to indict her for "crimes" as far fetched and as grossly unrelated as these serves no real purpose other than to assuage guilty consciences.

It's a sad travesty of justice.

Non-Virtual Suicide

How many teen aged suicides is too many? Is seventeen in one year enough, especially if they're all from one small village?

How many does it take before we're willing to acknowledge that there might be a problem?

Switched.com reported yesterday that, with the discovery of young Jenna Parry's body hanging from a tree in the woods just outside of Bridgend, South Wales last week, the teenage suicide toll in that small town has hit 17 in the last year.

The string of suicides was started by Dale Crole, an 18 who hanged himself in an abandoned warehouse last January. A few weeks after his suicide, a memorial page dedicated to Dale popped up on Bebo, a British social-networking site (similar to MySpace). In the months following, sixteen teenagers from the same small town have followed suit--many believe in an effort to have their OWN memorial page on Bebo.

The only common thread tying the teens to each other was their usage of Bebo. They didn't all know each other (although many might have been passing acquaintances). They weren't victims of the same circumstances or life situations. They were merely looking to gain a measure of "virtual notoriety" in their "other" world--the world of Bebo.

I've written about MySpace, and Lori Drew and Megan Meier enough so that you know that I personally feel that MySpace-- and online social networking in general--is pretty dangerous. It lulls it's participants minds into thinking that this virtual network of friends is the ultimate reality, and their "standing" in their Social Networking world is FAR more important than their real standing in real life.

But it's reached new depths when it's grip on teens is so great that they yearn for the stardom that comes with a suicide. How twisted must a mind to be to be willing to takes ones own life, in order to gain some measure of virtual post-mortem notoriety--not for anything substantive they've done.

Imagine killing yourself--taking your life--simply so that you might have a page on a website dedicated you. A page that will only be looked at by virtual acquaintances-those acquaintances who only know you as a postage stamp sized photograph and a few generic blurbs ("my favorite music is opera; I'm a Virgo; I like to lobster fish in my spare time...").

Will we ever learn? Why do we still allow our young teenagers to spend time in this dangerous world? I'm rarely in favor of legislating effective change (because that's a bit of any oxymoron), but I am in favor of us, as good citizens, taking some measure of responsibility for ourselves and for those who depend on us, and steering clear of those venues which have proven time and again to be extraordinarily dangerous.

I'm curious; I ask you, faithful MyndFood readers: has this reality, the danger of these Virtual Social Networking sites, caused you to restrict your visiting them?

Why (or why not)?

And, please: be careful out there. dangers lurk everywhere...

Attempted...Tormenting?

I can't get past this Lori Drew story. I jumped on the Net tonight, and did a few quick searches, and it appears as though I'm not the only one.

The search popped up a whole variety of hits. Bloggers and newssites alike are working the story to death. Partially, I'm sure, because it has legs; it's a dramatic story, and it keeps readers engaged. But it's more than that, I think. Look at the enlightened comments on my prior posts about Megan Meier's suicide, and then about Lori Drew's impending indictment. People care.

A scroll through the search results begins to paint a pretty clear picture of the overall public sentiment surrounding the story.

"Lori Drew has never apologied for what she did to Megan or the Meier's family..." says one blog. "...will continiue (sic) to follow this story of the evil Lori Drew and the sad case of Megan Meier..." said another. "Megan Meier was an innocent 13 year-old, is complete scum," and "Lori Drew bullied Megan Meier to death," round out the overwhelming sentiment of the group. One blogger even went so far as to post the home address, full names, and telephone numbers, of the Drew family in a particularly angry post.

There were few dissenters. One blogger lashed out at the media, and said that "although Lori Drew has not yet been charged in the case of Megan Meier, the media has never required formal charges to be filed before running a story." Perhaps they're right. I, fortunately though, am not part of the "media" and, thus, don't operate under those same constraints. My job here is to wrap the "news" or other relevent thoughts and concepts up in a nicely packaged, logical analysis. I'm SUPPOSED to add my flavor; it's why you come here.

So allow me to.

I posted a poll up in the top right-hand corner, asking whether Lori Drew should face charges for her part in this whole saga. A few of you have voted; those who haven't, please do. The vast majority of you feel much like the Internet population that I quoted above: she deserves to be harshly punished.

The more I think about it, the less I agree. Let me ask you a question: remember a few months ago, I posted about my years in elementary school? I talked about how decidedly "uncool" I was. And I told about my utter lack of friends (except for when it came to group projects).

I wrote, in that post, about a few of the popular guys in school, and how they christened me, to my utter horror, "Picker" after seeing me pick my nose at school one day.

I cried when they first called me that--laid my head down on my desk as though I were tired and needed to rest my eyes, and cried softly. I was so ashamed.

Let me ask you then: should those pitiful guys be punished for calling me "Picker"? I can tell you, at the time, it was traumatizing. There were days when I didn't want to go to school. Yet, it's foolhardy to think we might prosecute those two for calling me "Picker."

What if, on the other hand, I'd done as Megan did and, in a fit of suicidal depression over my HORRIFIC nickname, hung myself? You'd probably be more inclined to punish those two guys, wouldn't you?

That's the rub, you see? Had I opted to go that route, would my two witty friends be responsible for my death? I think not.

Consider this analogy: assume an individual took a pistol to work, walked into the office, and shot a coworker, killing her. The shooter would be arrested, indicted and likely convicted of murder, correct? Now, assume that, as the shooter walked in, he aimed at the coworker, and began to squeeze the trigger, and just as the hammer fell, the coworker bent to tie her shoe, and the bullet sailed harmlessly over her head, as two other coworkers attacked the shooter, pinned him to the ground, and waited for the authorities. The shooter would be charged--perhaps not with murder, but with attempted murder.

Perhaps we should track down my schooldays tormentors, and try them for "attempted..." what would it be called? Not really murder.

You see my quandry? Ms. Drew did a terrible thing, no doubt about it. But it was only really made terrible because of Megan Meier's response. It would have been no more than a mean prank had Megan not comitted suicide; just as those who nicknamed me "Picker" were nothing more than mean-spirited classmates.

I can't, in good conscience, say we need to charge this woman with anything. Obviously, you disagree. I wan't to understand. Please comment on this one.

Megan Meier's Killer?

I wrote in a post a few weeks back about a teenaged girl named Megan Meier who committed suicide in October of 2006 after falling in love with a boy on MySpace who ultimately rejected her via a MySpace post. The story told how it was later revealed that the boy she was in love with was not actually a boy after all; it was the angry mother of one of Megan's spurned classmates, who lived right down the street.

The story is an interesting one; I pointed out in my prior post that it's a perfect example of the real danger associated with MySpace; users are lulled into a virtual world. Once there, MySpacers tend to glean their entire self-worth from that virtual world, even, at times, to the exclusion of REAL relationships with REAL people.

That, again, dear readers, is the real problem with MySpace.

But that's not the point of this post. Faithful (I hope) reader April sent me a link a few days ago to this video she tracked down on a web. It's a news bit that hints that Lori Drew (the mother who posed as the teenaged boy) might be facing criminal charges for her part in the whole saga.

Missouri officials (the parties all lived in Missouri) had previously opted not to charge Ms. Drew, in that, while they found her actions deplorable, they could find no law that she'd broken. But recently, a US attorney in Los Angeles CA indicated that he would be taking the case before the grand jury in Los Angeles, requesting an indictment.

The US attorney's office in Los Angeles has jurisdiction, strangely enough, because MySpace is based out of Beverly Hills.

I agree--Ms. Drew's actions were horrible; she's a low form of humanity. But where did she break a law? Perhaps we can classify this as some sort of twisted cyber-terrorism, and toss her into Guantanamo? Or maybe a charge of involuntary manslaughter (that's a stretch; she didn't kill the girl)? I can't see it.

According to the US attorney's office, if they can find nothing else to charge her with, they'll charge her with fraud, in that she impersonated an individual she was not (and she set up a phony profile via MySpace). It's a stretch, but I guess it's an argument you can make. But then, where do you draw the line? What about the 16 year-olds that say they're 18 on their profile? Or the married women who say they're single? Or the male's who say they're females, looking for "close friends"? You see? It's a broad, grey line, and if the only time we're big enough to say it's been crossed is when someone dies, then is there really any point?

And, if you think about it, at the end of the day, if we start prosecuting people for falsely representing themselves on these sites, all we're really doing is pointing our finger at MySpace; "why can't they regulate their users, and ensure they only put the truth on their site?"

Frankly, it's not MySpace's job to regulate whom you communicate with; it's YOUR job.

But then, that's neither here nor there either. I'm just torn about this whole fiasco. Does Lori Drew deserve jail time? My heart and stomach want to scream "YES!" so lound, nothing else can be heard. But my mind says that, as deplorable as this was, the girl still committed suicide, and nobody else can really take responsibility.

Your thoughts? And hop over and vote on my poll.

Megan's Story

Megan had struggled with her self-esteem for much of her adolescent life. She'd had weight issues, and felt like she didn't fit in. In fact, throughout her seventh grade year in school, she felt like an outcast.

She transferred to a new school in eighth grade. Within three months, she had a new group of friends and felt like she belonged. She lost 20 pounds and joined the volleyball team.

And she had a boyfriend.

He was the cutest boyfriend she'd ever had. He was 16 and he had a pet snake. His name was Josh.

Josh said that his family had no telephone; Megan had no idea where he lived. Their sole means of communication was through MySpace.

Their relationship was a whirlwind of MySpace chatter over a number of weeks. Megan's mother was a little concerned--what parent wouldn't worry about her daughter developing, over MySpace, such a close relationship with an unseen boy? She asked a local law enforcement agent to try to find out whether or not Josh was legitimate, but there wasn't much he could do in the way of tracking Josh down (such is the anonymity built into MySpace).

But Megan's mother didn't worry too much. The boy was, after all, unseen-he presumably lived too far away to pose a physical threat to her daughter. And Megan was happy--happier, in fact, than she'd been in quite a long time.

Until suddenly, one day in October of 2006, a few months into Megan and Josh's relationship, Josh began to send Megan critical, scathing messages-messages criticizing Megan's treatment of her friends; messages expressing some doubt, on Josh's part, as to whether or not he wanted to continue the relationship (because of her poor treatment of her friends).

And then, on October 16, 2006, Josh sent a final message to Megan-a message that said, in part, "the world would be a better place without you."

Megan, sobbing ran to her bedroom closet, and emotionally broken, hung herself with a belt. He mother found her there a few moments later.

Megan Meier was 13 when she died, broken-hearted and confused, believing that a 16 year-old boy named Josh Evans, whom she loved, now hated her, and wished her dead.

Six weeks later, Mr. and Mrs. Meier, Megan's parents, found out that Josh didn't exist. He was a virtual alter ego created by Lori Drew, a woman who lived four houses down from the Meiers' whose daughter had felt shunned by Megan.

She created the fictitious MySpace profile, she confided in other neighbors, to "mess with Megan." And mess she did.

Mrs. Drew later said that she felt that the hoax had contributed to Megan's suicide, but that she didn't feel "as guilty" because she found out that Megan had talked of suicide before.

Then, in November of 2007, over a year after the horrific events (the hoax wasn't made public until recently at the request of FBI agents who were investigating the incident), when the Meiers began to tell their story, a blog popped up on the internet. The blog, called "Megan Had It Coming" purported to be authored by Lori Drew originally contained posts (the posts have since been replaced with a single, uninformative post, calling into question the blogs authenticity) called "Set The Record Straight", "Who's Really At Fault", and "I'm Lori Drew".

As I paged through the stories about Megan on the Internet (originally sent to me by perpetual reader, April), my heart went out to Megan's family. The pain that they feel must be unimaginable. And it must be exceptionally hard to see their daughter's death cheapened by the fact that the relationship that she took her own life over wasn't a real relationship at all; it was a hoax contrived by an angry, bitter acquaintance.

And I was incensed and angry at Mrs. Drew's apparent nonchalant attitude regarding the whole affair. I could not-and still cannot-bring myself to accept her clear disregard for the devastating consequences of her actions.

But my strongest, and most lasting, reaction is that this is an admittedly tragic and troubling example of the phenomenon that I spoke of in my original MySpace post.

I said, in part:

At times I fear that we'll ultimately become a society that's incapable of
functioning unless we're behind a computer monitor in some virtual world.
Another example of progressive technology rushing us right into the dark ages.

and

But, I'll do my part. I'll not partake. And maybe-just maybe, it'll catch on.
One here and one there will get tired of living that shallow, digital life, and will
re-emerge, blinking, rubbing their eyes, into the bright sunlight of this, the
real world, amazed that there is such depth out there! That's what I hope for!

The saddest part of this story is that-real or not-Megan took her own life over a boy she'd never physically met, whom she'd never actually spoken to, whom she'd even only known VIRTUALLY for a matter of weeks!

This virtual world has become the foundation--indeed the very fabric of--far too many relationships. Megan placed her entire self-worth, and apparently her total psychological well-being, in the hands of a phantom acquaintance.

Which brings us to the real-and startling-truth: that phantom relationship, in which she'd invested the whole of her emotions, was not a relationship at all. Because a relationship is something real, something almost tangible, something largely indefinable, that exists between two individuals. It's based, largely, on real connections, some physical, some emotional, some mental-but REAL connections, grounded firmly in reality and truth. In the absence of that reality and truth, without those connections, any semblance of true relationship is no more than a sad facade.

Megan's relationship, then, with Josh was no relationship at all, in that it was built on a surreal foundation; there was no truth, no reality, and consequently-regardless Megan's perceptions-no real relationship.

The most fearsome thing, though, is that every unseen acquaintance that one meets on MySpace results in no more than a phantom relationship. Because in the absence of those real connections, those inarguable realities, one can never be sure that all is what it seems. Those unfounded relationships are as weightless as air-able to be moved by the slightest gust of whim.

I am ever more convinced that MySpace relationships have all the substance of a balloon: seemingly full, but really consisting of nothing that can't be redirected with the most minimal effort, or that won't escape given the slightest bit of real pressure.

Those aren't the relationships that I'm looking for. I prefer the weightier, well-founded relationships, based on truth and reality; relationships that are immovable and impregnable to outside forces.

This, my friends, is why I grieve over MySpace

MySpace Makes You Dumb

Those of you who've read MyndFood for any period of time know that, while MySpace fascinates me, I'm not a fan by any measure. I pointed out in a previous post that, in my opinion, MySpace is more dangerous than bubble gum, because it's socially degrading; it's a social network of superficial friendships.

But then, you've read that post already (I hope).

I came across an interesting story today though that I think adds another plank to the "MySpace is Dangerous" platform.

According to ABC, a Fresno State professor has found that there is a correlation between the use of MySpace and grades. The study found that 72% of MySpace users experienced drops in their grade point average within the last year.

What does this say about MySpace? It seems to me that, not only is MySpace socially degrading, it's a particularly effective "dumbing" agent.

Think about it: 72% of MySpace users now get lower grades than they did one year ago. That's a huge correlation-impossible to ignore. I won't pretend to understand why. I WILL say, though, that while I'm not a MySpace user, I've had (particularly through my previous post) opportunity to interact with a number of them-both personally, and via comments on MyndFood. And given those interactions, I have to say that I concur.

MySpace...Again!

My most recent poll has expired, and I have to say, I was somewhat surprised by the results. Approximately 70% of you felt that MySpace was either completely bad (nothing good about it), or largely negative, although perhaps having a few decent uses. Only 10% of you felt that it was either mostly positive, with only a few negative aspects, or completely wonderful.

Which begs the question: did I convince you? Because I just checked, and there are, currently, just over 301 million people in the United States. According to the MySpace website, as of today, there were just under 197 million MySpace profiles in the US. Meaning that approximately 2/3 of Americans are MySpace users.

So, I ask again, did I persuade you, my readers (because the averages aren't working out here! Over 2/3 of you said MySpace=Bad!)? There are, I admit, alternatives. It could be that some of you, my readers, are being hypocritical (in that you are MySpace users, but here, in my world, it didn't really make sense to vote "MySpace is all that and a bag of chips" and give me something exciting to talk about in a future blog post).

Or, it could be that you, my faithful readers, don't really represent an accurate cross-section of the American public. I tend to like that option. Here's why: if, in fact, my readership doesn't represent a comprehensive sampling of the American public, it means the makeup of that group is skewed (that is, given the broader population, my blog is attracting more of one type of person, and fewer of another; does that make sense?). Assuming that, I have to ask myself, what type of person am I attracting? I think the answer to that question is quite obvious, given my original MySpace post (if you haven't read it, do so now; it'll get your blood flowing-especially if you happen to be an "anonymous" MySpace user). I'm attracting wholesome, well-rounded, and intelligent (given many of your comments) readers; readers who know how to think logically, can form a structured, cohesive, solid argument, and participate in an informed discussion about a variety of topics. And I'm attracting very few shallow MySpace users (not-again, I repeat-NOT that ALL MySpace users are shallow; again, please read the original post. It's just apparent that very few of those who voted in the poll were so blind as to vote that the MySpace was just peachy. Almost ALL OF YOU recognized, at the VERY LEAST, that it should be used in moderation). Yes, my readership, on average, tends to trend above the mean! You're a pretty sharp group!

Which pleases me immensely! MyndFood, as proven by my readers' responses to my MySpace poll, tends to attract the more intelligent members of the human race (with minor exception, of course). Who could ask for anything more?