Kirk Sigmon

A cornucopia of “victim’s organizations” in the UK are coming out swinging regarding online stalking, claiming — I kid you not — that ISPs (Internet Service Providers) should take “moral and ethical and corporate responsibility” regarding online stalking/bullying.

Online stalking is a big deal, if you would believe the overblown news reports on TV. Many people claim that they have been stalked and harassed via websites like Facebook by users who made disparaging remarks via private message or posted insulting information about them. This harassment is usually done by someone with a chip on their shoulder (meaning online bullying ends up becoming a conduit for real life bullying), but it often can be done by wholly anonymous bullies looking for a laugh. The “victims” of this online stalking usually assert that the police will/should help them by arresting the bully or otherwise monitoring the internet for their protection.

First off, let’s get something straight: most “cyber bullying” is something the so-called “victims” can avoid. Don’t like what someone tells you on a forum? Delete your account, or get a new one. Don’t want people finding you on Facebook and copying your photos? Don’t use the website. Angry about e-mails you get from someone? Block their e-mail address or get a new one. Irritated random people are messaging you? Lock down your profile privacy settings. Other than minor inconvenience, there is very little prohibiting you from simply avoiding being the target of online harassment. Furthermore, there is no reason why government resources should go to policing the 100% voluntary internet simply because it offends you — it is a method that would be prohibitively expensive, both in terms of actual money and in terms of the potential loss of free speech.

There are instances when the police can and should police the internet. These instances can include trying to cull the availability of child pornography, acting on legitimate threats (like death threats communicated via Facebook), and the like. These all share a single common thread: they involve real crime off the internet simply displaced on the internet. Making fun of someone’s haircut, in real life or online, is not a justifiable reason to phone the cops.

It’s absolutely ludicrous to expect ISPs to play internet police. ISPs are not in the business of policing or controlling the internet — they are providers of a service, companies that merely allow you access to a portal to information outside of their control. They do not have a “moral”, “ethical”, or “corporate” responsibility to ensure what you do online makes you feel good. I’ve argued this before regarding ISP desires to control information on the internet — they have, and should have, no control over what I do online.

To prove my point, let me address one of the stories put forth in the BBC article:

One victim, who did not want to be named, told the BBC she was subjected to abuse, insults and death threats from a stranger online over a five-year period. She described receiving up to 30 messages every day. Her work meant she had to be contactable online but she never replied to the messages and continually blocked the sender. However, her stalker simply changed their profile and continued to track, abuse and threaten the woman and her family.

Describing her experience, she told the BBC: “There were messages that they were going to hire a hit man to come and get me [and] they were going to cut my throat – really obscene messages. “I constantly reported it to the police. I didn’t feel I had the same support that someone would have if they were stalked offline. It was very much ‘turn the computer off, change your name online’. I felt the support wasn’t there and that was what was more upsetting because I felt very trapped and nobody could help me at all.”

This sounds like a pretty rough scenario. Too bad it could have been easily and quickly remedied by doing two things:

1. Changing her online contact information and controlling it better. She may have had to have been “contactable”, but how available did she make herself? Why did her work require it? The fact that the stalker changed their “profile” (as opposed to e-mail) indicates to me she was using a website, like a freelancer site or something of that nature. She could have simply avoided that website. There is no such thing as a “right” to use a website. At minimum, she could have updated her security settings on the website she was using to reject contact from unknown users, new users, etc.
2. Not contacting the person back. I know this sounds silly to mention, but a stalker does not continue e-mailing for five years unless they are getting responses. What this article likely overlooks is that the woman in question likely complained and sent back argumentative e-mails, which encouraged further stalking/harassment. When I have advised people on how to manage online problems with their reputation (which I have done for both politicians and whiny 18 year old girls who put naked pictures of themselves online, two groups who behave in strikingly similar ways), this was always my focus: people only find something amusing and actionable for a long time if you respond and keep the proverbial ball rolling.

Regardless of ways in which this woman could have avoided the problem herself, the fact of the matter is that ISPs could not have done a damn thing to stop the harassment. They sell data access — they do not control websites with user profiles on them or anything close to it. They can not (and should definitely not) monitor the actions of their customers to determine who-is-stalking-who. ISPs are like electric companies — they sell access to a product. I don’t call my cable company and demand they monitor and protect me from women’s hygeine product advertisements because I find them offensive (and a shade disgusting), and similarly, I don’t call up my ISP and whine if someone makes fun of me online. In both instances, it is my responsibility to “change the channel”, literally or figuratively.