Category: Stalking

Technology facilitated sexual violence (TFSV) defines a range of behaviours where digital technologies are used to facilitate various sexually based offences, both virtually and face-to-face (Henry & Powell, 2016). A form of this is ‘Cyberstalking’. The phenomenon of cyberstalking has emerged from the predatory nature of conventional stalking delivered through the use of electronic communication methods. The increasing integration of technology-driven communications into everyday personal, work and social life provides an additional, more accessible and seemingly anonymous approach for perpetrators to target and pursue their victims (Alexy, Burgess, Baker & Smoyak, 2005). Despite not being the most recent of cyber-related crimes to prevail, the breadth of research into the widespread behaviour is of a minimum, with researchers displaying a tendency to overlook the behaviour, regarding physical and cyberstalking to be interrelated rather than distinct entities (Sheridan & Grant, 2007). Issues have arisen from this, with the inclination to disregard the signs of an incident of cyberstalking, with perhaps the passive attitude to wait for a more ‘serious’ action to take place e.g. physical violence (Ariyadasa, 2019). This prevents the matter being reported and the necessary response being taken to inhibit further events taking place.

The issue with failing to recognise situations of cyberstalking due to the perceived similarities of that with conventional stalking has seldomly been the focus of previous literature, and the possible factors underlying why such poor perceptions of cyberstalking occur in comparison to easily identifiable situations of physical stalking has not been understood (Alexy et al, 2005). Further exploration of this concept, that perceptions of cyberstalking behaviours differ to that of conventional stalking perceptions due to a difference of location knowledge, and how this can be educated upon to increase awareness and enhance legislations, is investigated further in this study.

Research has predominantly focused on the criminal act of stalking, with researchers identifying how little scientific research had been published on cyberstalking (Spitzberg & Hoobler, 2002), with minimal development since.

With no strict definition having been provided for either act, legislations typically report and prosecute the behaviour of stalking by focusing on the conventional behaviours associated with it. These behaviours are identified under section 2A (3) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which include but are not exhaustive of: ‘following a person’; ‘contacting or attempting to contact a person’; ‘watching or spying on a person’; ‘interfering with any property in the possession of a person’, or ‘publishing any statement or other material relating or purporting to relate to a person’ (‘Protection from Harassment Act 1997’, 1997). Fundamentally, these contribute to persistent and unwanted attention and inducing fear within the victim.

When defining cyberstalking, similar to conventional stalking, there is no set definition. Previously the term has emerged to describe the “repeated use” of electronic communication methods, including e-mail, the internet or related digital devices, as tools to harass, alarm or threaten “a specific individual or group” (D’Ovidio and Doyle, 2003). This can present in different ways including threats, slander, defamation and harassment (DeMatteo, Wagage & Fairfax-Columbo, 2017). Potential motives behind this may be for control, possession or intimidation purposes, or to accumulate other personal information for initiation of other cyber-crimes such as identity theft and fraud (McFarlane and Bocij, 2003). These methods have been identified to typically elicit further unwanted physical interaction, as the element of anonymity within cyber-driven behaviours allows perpetrators to gather considerable amounts of personal information about their victim whilst maintaining their undisclosed identity (Nobles, Reyns, Fox & Fisher, 2012).

When considering the demographic statistics of common perpetrators and victims of cyberstalking it must be retained that due to the unreliable and infrequent reporting of the offence any figures that have been recorded may not represent the true reality of cyberstalking incidences. However, of the documentation that does exist, literature findings vary. Research typically identifies perpetrators of cyberstalking to be male with victims being female, as the ECHO Survey (2011) reported twice as many females to experience cyberstalking than men whereas Smoker and March (2017) report females to more likely engage in cyberstalking behaviour, often in retaliation of romantic suffering. The manipulation of gender and perceptions of common perpetrators of stalking behaviours have often been a focus point within the literature, as researchers have commonly found participants to identify a guilty verdict when the perpetrator is male, rather than female (Dunlap, Hodell, Golding & Wasarhaley, 2012; Spitzberg, Cupach & Ciceraro, 2010). However this assumption has been challenged by Yanowitz (2006), whom found American women to be significantly more likely to perceive undesired courting behaviours as stalking, suggesting victimisation levels to be considerably higher amongst females due to the increased likelihood to perceive themselves as victims, in comparison to men who would not. With no restrictions on age, ages ranging between 30-39 have been found to be most common in becoming victim to cyberstalking, however cases have been identified amongst teenage and pensioner age populations. The most commonly identified environments for cyberstalking to manifest from are social networking platforms, blogging forums and internet chat-rooms (ECHO Survey, 2011).

Substantial damage can arise on emotional, physical and mental wellbeing becoming a victim of cyberstalking, with victims previously reporting significant increases in anxiety and changes to their lifestyle. Previous research has noted the emotional and physical impacts on victims associated with cyberstalking incidences, including; feeling fearful of potential injury, damage to reputation, and betrayal; elevated anger and paranoia levels; weight changes and increased tiredness and phobic manifestations (agoraphobia), (Maran & Begotti, 2019; Jansen van Rensburg, 2017).

Research has also shown a significant correlation between perpetrators of cyberstalking and Dark Tetrad personality traits, with offenders typically exhibiting higher levels of psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism and sadism (Smoker & March, 2017). Paulhus (2014) suggests cyberstalking behaviours to be characterised through a sense of superiority and entitlement which is often reflected in the possessive nature of perpetrators of the offence. These factors can be considered as crucial aspects when developing cyberstalking interventions (Smoker & March, 2017).

The exact prevalence of cyberstalking, much like other cyber-driven crimes is unknown. The criminal act of stalking was first prosecuted in California in 1990 as a result of an increased celebrity appeal and desire for requited love and intimacy with such high-profile figures, however had not been introduced in all American states until 1999 (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). The offence was first addressed in the UK by the Protection of Harassment Act 1997, however with little direction for legal professionals on how best to help victims the offence was addressed and amended by The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, specifying a method of dealing with stalking encompassing cyberstalking. The number of harassment and cyberstalking offences was reported to have risen considerably between 2013-2015 (Maran & Begotti, 2019). This timeline cross-culturally reflects the inadequate attention given to both occurrences and victims of this grievous offence.

However, given the generally low and frequently unreliable level of reporting cyberstalking amongst other crimes committed online, any police figures that are available do not reflect an accurate representation of the true prevalence of the offence (Budd, Mattinson & Myhill, 2000; Finn, 2004). The Electronic Communication Harassment Observation (ECHO) pilot survey in 2011 was devised in aim of raising awareness of cyberstalking behaviours, the impacts on victims following this experience and trauma-related beliefs they have reported. The survey was designed to capture the true essence of cyberstalking and to highlight the need for greater attention. The report detailed figures from the Crown Prosecution Service showing during 2010 33% of stalking incidences were perpetrated through e-mail, 32% by text message and 8% via social media platforms. Police figures as of December 2018 recorded 15% of harassment and stalking offences to possess an online element, however a further breakdown of offences was not reported, as statistics of stalking offences are often published collectively rather than independent behaviours (Office for National Statistics, 2019).

The issue with considering these statistics in light of stalking offences is that often a report is made following another, perhaps more violent offence such as physical assault. This does not reflect the true reality of stalking and the effects it can have on victims, exacerbating the risks associated with inaccurate perceptions of stalking and cyberstalking behaviours. An increase in research surrounding the importance of successful identification of cyberstalking behaviours would expectantly encourage a more precise approach to documenting this.

A possible reason for a lack of accurate reporting and police statistics is the perception of and attitude towards victims of cyberstalking by police officers and legal professionals (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998; Morris, Anderson & Murray, 2002). Considering most of this research may represent out-dated views from previous times, a recent study investigating police officers perceptions of and attitudes towards cyber-harassment from Millman, Winder and Griffiths (2017), highlights the importance of accurate perceptions and identification of cyberstalking behaviours and other electronically-driven crimes amongst legal professionals. The study addressed police officers’ perceptions towards cyberstalking and harassment offences via semi-structured interviews, focusing on three central themes; online accessibility, threat, and the unhelpful victim. Online accessibility revealed perceptions of victim-blame, whereby police officers perceive a higher level of self-disclosure and use of the internet presents a greater vulnerability to becoming a cyber-victim. Participants conveyed their frustration at victims lack of awareness of this and the unwillingness to change their online pattern of behaviour, expressing some responsibility should be taken by the victim as a result. Extracts of interviews focusing on the threat element of cyber-stalking highlighted the officers perceived credibility of threats reported by victims, due to the considerable geographical distance between victim and perpetrator, emphasising legal action would only be enforced when the threats prove to be credible. Participants commented on their difficulty when dealing with “unhelpful” victims, claiming they are often “barriers” to their investigations, as similar to their views towards online accessibility, they perceive victims to “not help themselves” when preventing becoming a victim of cyber-harassment.

Facebook stalking is defined as where one individual (user) use facebook to follow the online activities of another user on facebook. It is defined when a singles or a person causes the emotionally distress, unnecessary fear for safety of others life or other individual. A stalker can be any past (girlfriend or boyfriend) or any other stranger. The legal definition of stalking varies in different states.

What stalkers do? Stalkers do many abnormal activities on the social media to stalk to other person for example, send unnecessary messages, pictures in inbox, use social technology to stalk, investigate other people life by checking their profile at a regular interval, unnecessary likes and comments on others every photograph and looking at your facebook page through someone else’s page or befriending your friends in order to get more information about you.

Stalking can be of two types or the combination of both, either physical or visual or both. In physical stalking the stalker follows the other individual and watches them, it is also known as surveillance stalking. On the other hand, visual stalking in which one individual uses the electronic medium such as internet, mobile to stalk victims it is also known as cyber stalking. In cyber stalking, stalker uses technology and electronic means to stalk victims. The stalker has no physical contact with the victim like in facebook stalking.

Types of Stalkers

The action defines the types of stalking but when personalities combined with the action that defines the stalker, there are following types of stalker:

1. Rejected Stalker: In this type, stalker becomes sad/distress when his/her any romantic relationship or friendship ended. That types of stalkers are self-centres, jealous, over-dependent and persistent also.
2. Resentful Stalker: In this stalker is humiliated because the relationship has ended and they seek revenge from the victim. These stalkers are known to verbally humiliate their victims.
3. Predatory Stalker: They seek power and sexual gratification. They do not make any physical appearance but uses surveillance to enquire the victim.
4. Intimacy Seeker: These types of stalker seek romantic relationship with the victim. When the stalker is rejected by the victim, they continually phone the victim, write letters and become jealous if the victim enters into a new relationship.
5. Incompetent Suitor: The incompetent suitor stalker usually has inadequate social skills.

Indentify you are Being Stalked

How would someone know that they are getting stalked by another person on facebook? When users get a friend request from any other facebook user whom they don’t know? When a user check his/her profile there is the list of selection of friends that facebook displays is not random but it is the part of the facebook’s algorithm which can gives the user insight that who has recently viewed or visited his/her profile. Also this algorithm brings the friends up in the list with whom you are connected frequently so, it is quite easy for the user to know that among them who you have not talked recently and that will be sign that user is stalked by someone on facebook.

Sometimes when a user get a friend request that they did not accept that or may be someone the user had blocked but these types of request or that person reappears with a new profile then again and again trying to connect the user then it is definitely a warning sign that they are paying so much attention to the user.

Another useful feature is the active sessions on which one should be keep an eye on it, that feature let the user to see the comprehensive list that where and when the users account is signed in.

This also allows user to know that what device was used by which user can become extra sure.

It can be hard to tell at first if someone is stalking you on facebook or is just exceptionally interested in your life. Here are some signs:

• They comment on all your new posts of facebook: These types of people want attention, and there is only one way to get it is to tell other person.
• Stalkers comment on posts from the past: These actions of stalkers indicate that they are coming through your all facebook past history.
• They like all your photos: This indicates that they are extremely interested in you.
• They send you private messages in inbox: Those messages may be frequent or they could have gained some knowledge only by taking a deep dive into your profile.
• They show up at the top of your friend list: Facebook’s algorithm puts those people who interact with you the most (or whom you interact with the most) at the top of your friend list. If someone is not a close friend and appears at the top of friend list, this is a red flag for facebook stalking.
• They request to follow you on other social media sites: If any user is suddenly getting invites or requests on all your social media accounts from any unknown person, it is a sign that they want to know even more about you.

How to Prevent Facebook Stalking?

To prevent the facebook stalking user actions are listed below in order of least to most severe:

• The best way to prevent stalking is keeping the profile private and avoid accepting the unnecessary friend request (DON’T ACCEPT FRIEND REQUESTS FROM STRANGERS).
• Don’t post any clue of your facebook passwords; don’t list your birthday, contact information anything about family members, especially children’s or parents’, names or maiden names, post photos of your kids, don’t attach their names to these photos, anything in advance about vacation plans, and wait until you return home to post vacation photos and anything related to your financial accounts, including where you bank (BE MINDFUL OF WHAT YOU POST).
• Don’t let strangers see your Facebook profile. The more invisible the users make themselves on Facebook; there are fewer chances that a potential stalker will access to users’ personal information (TURN OFF ACTIVE STATUS).
• Add a Facebook friend who’s making you uncomfortable to your restricted list. This prevents them from seeing anything you post on Facebook unless it’s public. To do so, navigate to their profile. Select the Friends drop-down box near their cover photo (Select the option Edit Friend List, and then select Restricted).
• To Unfriend someone on Facebook means that a person can no longer see your posts that aren’t public. To do this, go to that person’s profile (Select the Friends drop-down box and then select Unfriend).
• The person you unfriend will not get any notification, but they’ll able see your profile unless you block them. Blocking goes beyond unfriending. The person won’t be able to see your posts or profile. If they do not find you even after searching for your name, you won’t come up in the search results and importantly the person you blocked will not be notified.
• If someone’s stalking is extreme, consider reporting them to Facebook. There is a remedy to this problem — filing a complaint online? Women who are being stalked can complain to the NCW (National Commission for Women) and the Commission will take the matter up with the police. But some women choose to ignore their stalker because they have a thought in their mind that approaching to police or feels that the police will not help.

This blog focuses on a proposal for gender neutralising section 354(d) that is stalking law. This section under IPC can’t qualify the test of intelligible differentia test laid down by Justice PN Bhagwati in Maneka gandhi case as a gender cannot be a basis of differentiation and article 14 also ensures equal protection of right when it comes to protection of right to privacy which was defined under article 21 as metaphorically similar to dignity of an individual.

What Is Privacy And How Stalking Is Considered As An Intrusion In Privacy?

Article 17 of International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (to which India is a party) states “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home and correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation”

Which means any interference without reasonable cause or under any state official duty in a person’s life or without his consent is breach of privacy. An important case law dealing with Right to Privacy in India is​ K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India which declared it to be a fundamental right. Privacy of the individual is an important aspect of dignity. Dignity has both an intrinsic and instrumental value. As an intrinsic value human dignity is an entitlement or a constitutionally protected interest in itself.

Stalking as a separate offence did not exist in the Indian Penal Code till 2013 after the report by Justice JS Verma.

“354C (1) – Stalking: Whoever follows a person and contacts, or attempts to contact such person to foster personal interaction repeatedly, despite a clear indication of disinterest by such person, or whoever monitors the use by a person of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, or watches or spies on a person in a manner that results in a fear of violence or serious alarm or distress in the mind of such person, or interferes with the mental peace of such person, commits the offence of stalking. “

While The Original Legislation Went Like This

Any Man who follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication,commits the offence of stalking;

The legislation is in Prima Facie violation of the celebrated Maneka Gandhi case where Bhagwati J concurring with the majority in a 6:1 decision observed:“ Article 14 of the constitution of India strikes, at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment.”in this judgement Bhagwati J clearly define arbitrariness as the decision that no prudent men with reasonable intelligence will ever take. And indeed after going through justice Verma committee report on sexual assault both the rape section and sexual assault section which include stalking is mentioned in gender neutral way and no reasonable man after going through that report would take such biased decision. The decision taken during 2013 would now stand more against the reasonability of the decision because of the introduction of the right to privacy as a fundamental right in 2019. A private members bill in the Rajya Sabha has sought to make stalking a gender-neutral crime and a non-bailable offence. The decision taken to amend IPC through Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013 decision was not only a biased decision for not including every gender but also that decision became obsolete after the introduction of the right to privacy as a fundamental right in 2019. After this decision the criminal law amendment act bars citizens other than indian women from ensuring their access to a fundamental right of privacy hence this law should be amended in a gender neutral way.

Congress MP Husain Dalwai suggested in the bill that men who face such instances live in ‘fear and distress’ and do not have legal recourse. He also suggested that the offence should be non-bailable as the accused get bail.

Justice verma in his report also stated that “Rape, sexual assault, eve-teasing and stalking are matters of serious concern – not only because of the physical, emotional and psychological trauma which they engender in the victim, but also because these are practices which are being tolerated by a society ostensibly wedded to the rule of law.”

These all statements point to how painful this problem is and to ensure a better understanding have a glance at the following example a man is walking down alone in the woods at night, a man keeps following him and goes near him and say ,”you should not be going all alone in the night because Indian Laws does not consider you could be a victim of sexual assault , because for the laws which are listed in Indian Penal Code only considers women as a victim , and Men as the perpetrator.”

This is the modern era where LGBTQ intercourse has become legal and privacy rights have been identified, but mere acceptance of the right is not enough unless there is an enforcement mechanism like penal provision or tortious remedy available that is Injuria Sine Damnum which means where there is right there is a remedy.

William Lloyd Prosser in his article ​Privacy, expanded upon the views of Justice Brandeis and Mr. Warren towards the recognition of this right to. In his article, Prosser created the following three categories of torts related to privacy:

1. Intrusion upon the plaintiff’s seclusion or solitude, or into private affairs;
2. Public disclosure of embarrassing private facts about the plaintiff;
3. Publicity which places the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye.

A man can follow another man with the intention of sexually assaulting him which is all legal . A man can outrage modesty of another man , can take his pics and post it wherever he likes , can make any sexually coloured remark on him and this is all legal.

This example categorically explains that not a single interpretation of privacy right can be breached if it were not against the women . which demonstrates the gender biasness section 354.

These all things will keep affecting genders other than women if we went on without identifying them as a victim

Solution To The Above Problems Posed

Adhere to the legislation laid down by Justice JS verma and amend IPC and CRPC with literal interpretation as discussed in the report by Justice JS verma because the current interpretation is gender biased. Amend stalking legislation that is section 354D with replacing man and woman with the word ‘ person’ which would provide a sense of recognition to LGBTQ people and hence would cater to the need of equal protection of laws in article 14.

Enact some statutes and legislation under which breach of privacy rights can be brought to courts as mere providing right without remedy is just like DPSP which only carries the value of advisory in nature. Remedy may include punishing crimes like stalking , wiretapping, intruding to converse where there is lack of interest with compensation , fine or even imprisonment depending upon the severity of crime.

Conclusion

This blog is written to make realise the problem posed against the gender other than women. People of every gender are being getting stalked or sexually assaulted but they are not being brought to record because there is no section available to the police under which he can write down the complaint , the legislative solution to the problem discussed above was provided by Justice JS Verma committee in his report but that solution was ignored while making the amendment. The author is suggesting to neutralise the stalking laws gender wise as the current stalking legislation does not qualify the test of arbitrariness and no prudent person with a reasonable mind would ever make the above legislation. Hence the current stalking legislation should be amended as it violates the test of arbitrariness and the right to privacy . The author also suggests that legislation should also be enacted enforcing the right to privacy which discusses the breach at length in both civil as well as criminal law.

Cyberstalking is harassment or stalking that happens through online channels. Social media, yemail and forums are a few of the online channels. It must be stopped for good. People will sometimes cyberstalk people so they can get information to blackmail them. Cyber stalking doesn’t just stop at that. On social media if you make multiple accounts to be harassing somebody that counts too. They won’t know it’s multiple people. What is sad is for the most part cyber stalkers personally know the victims.

Cyberstalking has become a serious problem in today’s day and age. It is a problem that is progressively getting worse. It is important to know how to avoid it because it can lead to many other problems such as identity fraud, theft, and means to actually find the person. With social media comes many opportunities to harass and stalk someone online. This is why it is important to spread awareness and shut cyber stalkers down for good. There are different things that one can do to avoid this.

Cyberstalking can be terribly frightening. Cyberstalking can also have a major psychosocial impact on people being cyberstalked. People who have been cyberstalked have reported to have an increase of a number of serious consequences of victimization liked increased suicidal ideation, fear, anger, depression, and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptomatology. Women are more likely to be stalked in an everyday life, but they make up only smaller percentage of online victims. People who have been cyberstalked have reported to have an emotional changes. Cyberstalking has a huge negative impact on the victim’s health, and behaviour to others. Stalking does not affect physical to cause harm.

Cyberstalking is an unnecessary topic to this world. We don’t need cyberstalking in this world. But it’s necessary to talk about what is cyberstalking and what impact it gives on the society. It could involve incidients like:threats, libel, defamation, sexual harassment, others actions in which to control, influence, or intimidate their target.

In many states and countries it is illegal. This could result in criminal charges as a named offence, under harassment or under stalking laws. In Canada it is an offence under Canada’s Criminal Code. This offence came into action on March 10, 2015. This law applies to everyone, not just people under 18. There is a very serious consequence to cyberbullying. The purpose of this offence is to protect someone’s privacy.

Technology facilitated sexual violence (TFSV) defines a range of behaviours where digital technologies are used to facilitate various sexually based offences, both virtually and face-to-face (Henry & Powell, 2016). A form of this is ‘Cyberstalking’. The phenomenon of cyberstalking has emerged from the predatory nature of conventional stalking delivered through the use of electronic communication methods. The increasing integration of technology-driven communications into everyday personal, work and social life provides an additional, more accessible and seemingly anonymous approach for perpetrators to target and pursue their victims (Alexy, Burgess, Baker & Smoyak, 2005). Despite not being the most recent of cyber-related crimes to prevail, the breadth of research into the widespread behaviour is of a minimum, with researchers displaying a tendency to overlook the behaviour, regarding physical and cyberstalking to be interrelated rather than distinct entities (Sheridan & Grant, 2007). Issues have arisen from this, with the inclination to disregard the signs of an incident of cyberstalking, with perhaps the passive attitude to wait for a more ‘serious’ action to take place e.g. physical violence (Ariyadasa, 2019). This prevents the matter being reported and the necessary response being taken to inhibit further events taking place.

The issue with failing to recognise situations of cyberstalking due to the perceived similarities of that with conventional stalking has seldomly been the focus of previous literature, and the possible factors underlying why such poor perceptions of cyberstalking occur in comparison to easily identifiable situations of physical stalking has not been understood (Alexy et al, 2005). Further exploration of this concept, that perceptions of cyberstalking behaviours differ to that of conventional stalking perceptions due to a difference of location knowledge, and how this can be educated upon to increase awareness and enhance legislations, is investigated further in this study.

Research has predominantly focused on the criminal act of stalking, with researchers identifying how little scientific research had been published on cyberstalking (Spitzberg & Hoobler, 2002), with minimal development since.

With no strict definition having been provided for either act, legislations typically report and prosecute the behaviour of stalking by focusing on the conventional behaviours associated with it. These behaviours are identified under section 2A (3) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which include but are not exhaustive of: ‘following a person’; ‘contacting or attempting to contact a person’; ‘watching or spying on a person’; ‘interfering with any property in the possession of a person’, or ‘publishing any statement or other material relating or purporting to relate to a person’ (‘Protection from Harassment Act 1997’, 1997). Fundamentally, these contribute to persistent and unwanted attention and inducing fear within the victim.

When defining cyberstalking, similar to conventional stalking, there is no set definition. Previously the term has emerged to describe the “repeated use” of electronic communication methods, including e-mail, the internet or related digital devices, as tools to harass, alarm or threaten “a specific individual or group” (D’Ovidio and Doyle, 2003). This can present in different ways including threats, slander, defamation and harassment (DeMatteo, Wagage & Fairfax-Columbo, 2017). Potential motives behind this may be for control, possession or intimidation purposes, or to accumulate other personal information for initiation of other cyber-crimes such as identity theft and fraud (McFarlane and Bocij, 2003). These methods have been identified to typically elicit further unwanted physical interaction, as the element of anonymity within cyber-driven behaviours allows perpetrators to gather considerable amounts of personal information about their victim whilst maintaining their undisclosed identity (Nobles, Reyns, Fox & Fisher, 2012).

When considering the demographic statistics of common perpetrators and victims of cyberstalking it must be retained that due to the unreliable and infrequent reporting of the offence any figures that have been recorded may not represent the true reality of cyberstalking incidences. However, of the documentation that does exist, literature findings vary. Research typically identifies perpetrators of cyberstalking to be male with victims being female, as the ECHO Survey (2011) reported twice as many females to experience cyberstalking than men whereas Smoker and March (2017) report females to more likely engage in cyberstalking behaviour, often in retaliation of romantic suffering. The manipulation of gender and perceptions of common perpetrators of stalking behaviours have often been a focus point within the literature, as researchers have commonly found participants to identify a guilty verdict when the perpetrator is male, rather than female (Dunlap, Hodell, Golding & Wasarhaley, 2012; Spitzberg, Cupach & Ciceraro, 2010). However this assumption has been challenged by Yanowitz (2006), whom found American women to be significantly more likely to perceive undesired courting behaviours as stalking, suggesting victimisation levels to be considerably higher amongst females due to the increased likelihood to perceive themselves as victims, in comparison to men who would not. With no restrictions on age, ages ranging between 30-39 have been found to be most common in becoming victim to cyberstalking, however cases have been identified amongst teenage and pensioner age populations. The most commonly identified environments for cyberstalking to manifest from are social networking platforms, blogging forums and internet chat-rooms (ECHO Survey, 2011).

Substantial damage can arise on emotional, physical and mental wellbeing becoming a victim of cyberstalking, with victims previously reporting significant increases in anxiety and changes to their lifestyle. Previous research has noted the emotional and physical impacts on victims associated with cyberstalking incidences, including; feeling fearful of potential injury, damage to reputation, and betrayal; elevated anger and paranoia levels; weight changes and increased tiredness and phobic manifestations (agoraphobia), (Maran & Begotti, 2019; Jansen van Rensburg, 2017).

Research has also shown a significant correlation between perpetrators of cyberstalking and Dark Tetrad personality traits, with offenders typically exhibiting higher levels of psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism and sadism (Smoker & March, 2017). Paulhus (2014) suggests cyberstalking behaviours to be characterised through a sense of superiority and entitlement which is often reflected in the possessive nature of perpetrators of the offence. These factors can be considered as crucial aspects when developing cyberstalking interventions (Smoker & March, 2017).

The exact prevalence of cyberstalking, much like other cyber-driven crimes is unknown. The criminal act of stalking was first prosecuted in California in 1990 as a result of an increased celebrity appeal and desire for requited love and intimacy with such high-profile figures, however had not been introduced in all American states until 1999 (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). The offence was first addressed in the UK by the Protection of Harassment Act 1997, however with little direction for legal professionals on how best to help victims the offence was addressed and amended by The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, specifying a method of dealing with stalking encompassing cyberstalking. The number of harassment and cyberstalking offences was reported to have risen considerably between 2013-2015 (Maran & Begotti, 2019). This timeline cross-culturally reflects the inadequate attention given to both occurrences and victims of this grievous offence.

However, given the generally low and frequently unreliable level of reporting cyberstalking amongst other crimes committed online, any police figures that are available do not reflect an accurate representation of the true prevalence of the offence (Budd, Mattinson & Myhill, 2000; Finn, 2004). The Electronic Communication Harassment Observation (ECHO) pilot survey in 2011 was devised in aim of raising awareness of cyberstalking behaviours, the impacts on victims following this experience and trauma-related beliefs they have reported. The survey was designed to capture the true essence of cyberstalking and to highlight the need for greater attention. The report detailed figures from the Crown Prosecution Service showing during 2010 33% of stalking incidences were perpetrated through e-mail, 32% by text message and 8% via social media platforms. Police figures as of December 2018 recorded 15% of harassment and stalking offences to possess an online element, however a further breakdown of offences was not reported, as statistics of stalking offences are often published collectively rather than independent behaviours (Office for National Statistics, 2019).

The issue with considering these statistics in light of stalking offences is that often a report is made following another, perhaps more violent offence such as physical assault. This does not reflect the true reality of stalking and the effects it can have on victims, exacerbating the risks associated with inaccurate perceptions of stalking and cyberstalking behaviours. An increase in research surrounding the importance of successful identification of cyberstalking behaviours would expectantly encourage a more precise approach to documenting this.

A possible reason for a lack of accurate reporting and police statistics is the perception of and attitude towards victims of cyberstalking by police officers and legal professionals (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998; Morris, Anderson & Murray, 2002). Considering most of this research may represent out-dated views from previous times, a recent study investigating police officers perceptions of and attitudes towards cyber-harassment from Millman, Winder and Griffiths (2017), highlights the importance of accurate perceptions and identification of cyberstalking behaviours and other electronically-driven crimes amongst legal professionals. The study addressed police officers’ perceptions towards cyberstalking and harassment offences via semi-structured interviews, focusing on three central themes; online accessibility, threat, and the unhelpful victim. Online accessibility revealed perceptions of victim-blame, whereby police officers perceive a higher level of self-disclosure and use of the internet presents a greater vulnerability to becoming a cyber-victim. Participants conveyed their frustration at victims lack of awareness of this and the unwillingness to change their online pattern of behaviour, expressing some responsibility should be taken by the victim as a result. Extracts of interviews focusing on the threat element of cyber-stalking highlighted the officers perceived credibility of threats reported by victims, due to the considerable geographical distance between victim and perpetrator, emphasising legal action would only be enforced when the threats prove to be credible. Participants commented on their difficulty when dealing with “unhelpful” victims, claiming they are often “barriers” to their investigations, as similar to their views towards online accessibility, they perceive victims to “not help themselves” when preventing becoming a victim of cyber-harassment.

Facebook stalking is defined as where one individual (user) use facebook to follow the online activities of another user on facebook. It is defined when a singles or a person causes the emotionally distress, unnecessary fear for safety of others life or other individual. A stalker can be any past (girlfriend or boyfriend) or any other stranger. The legal definition of stalking varies in different states.

What stalkers do? Stalkers do many abnormal activities on the social media to stalk to other person for example, send unnecessary messages, pictures in inbox, use social technology to stalk, investigate other people life by checking their profile at a regular interval, unnecessary likes and comments on others every photograph and looking at your facebook page through someone else’s page or befriending your friends in order to get more information about you.

Stalking can be of two types or the combination of both, either physical or visual or both. In physical stalking the stalker follows the other individual and watches them, it is also known as surveillance stalking. On the other hand, visual stalking in which one individual uses the electronic medium such as internet, mobile to stalk victims it is also known as cyber stalking. In cyber stalking, stalker uses technology and electronic means to stalk victims. The stalker has no physical contact with the victim like in facebook stalking.

Types of Stalkers

The action defines the types of stalking but when personalities combined with the action that defines the stalker, there are following types of stalker:

1. Rejected Stalker: In this type, stalker becomes sad/distress when his/her any romantic relationship or friendship ended. That types of stalkers are self-centres, jealous, over-dependent and persistent also.
2. Resentful Stalker: In this stalker is humiliated because the relationship has ended and they seek revenge from the victim. These stalkers are known to verbally humiliate their victims.
3. Predatory Stalker: They seek power and sexual gratification. They do not make any physical appearance but uses surveillance to enquire the victim.
4. Intimacy Seeker: These types of stalker seek romantic relationship with the victim. When the stalker is rejected by the victim, they continually phone the victim, write letters and become jealous if the victim enters into a new relationship.
5. Incompetent Suitor: The incompetent suitor stalker usually has inadequate social skills.

Indentify you are Being Stalked

How would someone know that they are getting stalked by another person on facebook? When users get a friend request from any other facebook user whom they don’t know? When a user check his/her profile there is the list of selection of friends that facebook displays is not random but it is the part of the facebook’s algorithm which can gives the user insight that who has recently viewed or visited his/her profile. Also this algorithm brings the friends up in the list with whom you are connected frequently so, it is quite easy for the user to know that among them who you have not talked recently and that will be sign that user is stalked by someone on facebook.

Sometimes when a user get a friend request that they did not accept that or may be someone the user had blocked but these types of request or that person reappears with a new profile then again and again trying to connect the user then it is definitely a warning sign that they are paying so much attention to the user.

Another useful feature is the active sessions on which one should be keep an eye on it, that feature let the user to see the comprehensive list that where and when the users account is signed in.

This also allows user to know that what device was used by which user can become extra sure.

It can be hard to tell at first if someone is stalking you on facebook or is just exceptionally interested in your life. Here are some signs:

• They comment on all your new posts of facebook: These types of people want attention, and there is only one way to get it is to tell other person.
• Stalkers comment on posts from the past: These actions of stalkers indicate that they are coming through your all facebook past history.
• They like all your photos: This indicates that they are extremely interested in you.
• They send you private messages in inbox: Those messages may be frequent or they could have gained some knowledge only by taking a deep dive into your profile.
• They show up at the top of your friend list: Facebook’s algorithm puts those people who interact with you the most (or whom you interact with the most) at the top of your friend list. If someone is not a close friend and appears at the top of friend list, this is a red flag for facebook stalking.
• They request to follow you on other social media sites: If any user is suddenly getting invites or requests on all your social media accounts from any unknown person, it is a sign that they want to know even more about you.

How to Prevent Facebook Stalking?

To prevent the facebook stalking user actions are listed below in order of least to most severe:

• The best way to prevent stalking is keeping the profile private and avoid accepting the unnecessary friend request (DON’T ACCEPT FRIEND REQUESTS FROM STRANGERS).
• Don’t post any clue of your facebook passwords; don’t list your birthday, contact information anything about family members, especially children’s or parents’, names or maiden names, post photos of your kids, don’t attach their names to these photos, anything in advance about vacation plans, and wait until you return home to post vacation photos and anything related to your financial accounts, including where you bank (BE MINDFUL OF WHAT YOU POST).
• Don’t let strangers see your Facebook profile. The more invisible the users make themselves on Facebook; there are fewer chances that a potential stalker will access to users’ personal information (TURN OFF ACTIVE STATUS).
• Add a Facebook friend who’s making you uncomfortable to your restricted list. This prevents them from seeing anything you post on Facebook unless it’s public. To do so, navigate to their profile. Select the Friends drop-down box near their cover photo (Select the option Edit Friend List, and then select Restricted).
• To Unfriend someone on Facebook means that a person can no longer see your posts that aren’t public. To do this, go to that person’s profile (Select the Friends drop-down box and then select Unfriend).
• The person you unfriend will not get any notification, but they’ll able see your profile unless you block them. Blocking goes beyond unfriending. The person won’t be able to see your posts or profile. If they do not find you even after searching for your name, you won’t come up in the search results and importantly the person you blocked will not be notified.
• If someone’s stalking is extreme, consider reporting them to Facebook. There is a remedy to this problem — filing a complaint online? Women who are being stalked can complain to the NCW (National Commission for Women) and the Commission will take the matter up with the police. But some women choose to ignore their stalker because they have a thought in their mind that approaching to police or feels that the police will not help.

This blog focuses on a proposal for gender neutralising section 354(d) that is stalking law. This section under IPC can’t qualify the test of intelligible differentia test laid down by Justice PN Bhagwati in Maneka gandhi case as a gender cannot be a basis of differentiation and article 14 also ensures equal protection of right when it comes to protection of right to privacy which was defined under article 21 as metaphorically similar to dignity of an individual.

What Is Privacy And How Stalking Is Considered As An Intrusion In Privacy?

Article 17 of International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (to which India is a party) states “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home and correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation”

Which means any interference without reasonable cause or under any state official duty in a person’s life or without his consent is breach of privacy. An important case law dealing with Right to Privacy in India is​ K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India which declared it to be a fundamental right. Privacy of the individual is an important aspect of dignity. Dignity has both an intrinsic and instrumental value. As an intrinsic value human dignity is an entitlement or a constitutionally protected interest in itself.

Stalking as a separate offence did not exist in the Indian Penal Code till 2013 after the report by Justice JS Verma.

“354C (1) – Stalking: Whoever follows a person and contacts, or attempts to contact such person to foster personal interaction repeatedly, despite a clear indication of disinterest by such person, or whoever monitors the use by a person of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, or watches or spies on a person in a manner that results in a fear of violence or serious alarm or distress in the mind of such person, or interferes with the mental peace of such person, commits the offence of stalking. “

While The Original Legislation Went Like This

Any Man who follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication,commits the offence of stalking;

The legislation is in Prima Facie violation of the celebrated Maneka Gandhi case where Bhagwati J concurring with the majority in a 6:1 decision observed:“ Article 14 of the constitution of India strikes, at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment.”in this judgement Bhagwati J clearly define arbitrariness as the decision that no prudent men with reasonable intelligence will ever take. And indeed after going through justice Verma committee report on sexual assault both the rape section and sexual assault section which include stalking is mentioned in gender neutral way and no reasonable man after going through that report would take such biased decision. The decision taken during 2013 would now stand more against the reasonability of the decision because of the introduction of the right to privacy as a fundamental right in 2019. A private members bill in the Rajya Sabha has sought to make stalking a gender-neutral crime and a non-bailable offence. The decision taken to amend IPC through Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013 decision was not only a biased decision for not including every gender but also that decision became obsolete after the introduction of the right to privacy as a fundamental right in 2019. After this decision the criminal law amendment act bars citizens other than indian women from ensuring their access to a fundamental right of privacy hence this law should be amended in a gender neutral way.

Congress MP Husain Dalwai suggested in the bill that men who face such instances live in ‘fear and distress’ and do not have legal recourse. He also suggested that the offence should be non-bailable as the accused get bail.

Justice verma in his report also stated that “Rape, sexual assault, eve-teasing and stalking are matters of serious concern – not only because of the physical, emotional and psychological trauma which they engender in the victim, but also because these are practices which are being tolerated by a society ostensibly wedded to the rule of law.”

These all statements point to how painful this problem is and to ensure a better understanding have a glance at the following example a man is walking down alone in the woods at night, a man keeps following him and goes near him and say ,”you should not be going all alone in the night because Indian Laws does not consider you could be a victim of sexual assault , because for the laws which are listed in Indian Penal Code only considers women as a victim , and Men as the perpetrator.”

This is the modern era where LGBTQ intercourse has become legal and privacy rights have been identified, but mere acceptance of the right is not enough unless there is an enforcement mechanism like penal provision or tortious remedy available that is Injuria Sine Damnum which means where there is right there is a remedy.

William Lloyd Prosser in his article ​Privacy, expanded upon the views of Justice Brandeis and Mr. Warren towards the recognition of this right to. In his article, Prosser created the following three categories of torts related to privacy:

1. Intrusion upon the plaintiff’s seclusion or solitude, or into private affairs;
2. Public disclosure of embarrassing private facts about the plaintiff;
3. Publicity which places the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye.

A man can follow another man with the intention of sexually assaulting him which is all legal . A man can outrage modesty of another man , can take his pics and post it wherever he likes , can make any sexually coloured remark on him and this is all legal.

This example categorically explains that not a single interpretation of privacy right can be breached if it were not against the women . which demonstrates the gender biasness section 354.

These all things will keep affecting genders other than women if we went on without identifying them as a victim

Solution To The Above Problems Posed

Adhere to the legislation laid down by Justice JS verma and amend IPC and CRPC with literal interpretation as discussed in the report by Justice JS verma because the current interpretation is gender biased. Amend stalking legislation that is section 354D with replacing man and woman with the word ‘ person’ which would provide a sense of recognition to LGBTQ people and hence would cater to the need of equal protection of laws in article 14.

Enact some statutes and legislation under which breach of privacy rights can be brought to courts as mere providing right without remedy is just like DPSP which only carries the value of advisory in nature. Remedy may include punishing crimes like stalking , wiretapping, intruding to converse where there is lack of interest with compensation , fine or even imprisonment depending upon the severity of crime.

Conclusion

This blog is written to make realise the problem posed against the gender other than women. People of every gender are being getting stalked or sexually assaulted but they are not being brought to record because there is no section available to the police under which he can write down the complaint , the legislative solution to the problem discussed above was provided by Justice JS Verma committee in his report but that solution was ignored while making the amendment. The author is suggesting to neutralise the stalking laws gender wise as the current stalking legislation does not qualify the test of arbitrariness and no prudent person with a reasonable mind would ever make the above legislation. Hence the current stalking legislation should be amended as it violates the test of arbitrariness and the right to privacy . The author also suggests that legislation should also be enacted enforcing the right to privacy which discusses the breach at length in both civil as well as criminal law.

Cyberstalking is harassment or stalking that happens through online channels. Social media, yemail and forums are a few of the online channels. It must be stopped for good. People will sometimes cyberstalk people so they can get information to blackmail them. Cyber stalking doesn’t just stop at that. On social media if you make multiple accounts to be harassing somebody that counts too. They won’t know it’s multiple people. What is sad is for the most part cyber stalkers personally know the victims.

Cyberstalking has become a serious problem in today’s day and age. It is a problem that is progressively getting worse. It is important to know how to avoid it because it can lead to many other problems such as identity fraud, theft, and means to actually find the person. With social media comes many opportunities to harass and stalk someone online. This is why it is important to spread awareness and shut cyber stalkers down for good. There are different things that one can do to avoid this.

Cyberstalking can be terribly frightening. Cyberstalking can also have a major psychosocial impact on people being cyberstalked. People who have been cyberstalked have reported to have an increase of a number of serious consequences of victimization liked increased suicidal ideation, fear, anger, depression, and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptomatology. Women are more likely to be stalked in an everyday life, but they make up only smaller percentage of online victims. People who have been cyberstalked have reported to have an emotional changes. Cyberstalking has a huge negative impact on the victim’s health, and behaviour to others. Stalking does not affect physical to cause harm.

Cyberstalking is an unnecessary topic to this world. We don’t need cyberstalking in this world. But it’s necessary to talk about what is cyberstalking and what impact it gives on the society. It could involve incidients like:threats, libel, defamation, sexual harassment, others actions in which to control, influence, or intimidate their target.

In many states and countries it is illegal. This could result in criminal charges as a named offence, under harassment or under stalking laws. In Canada it is an offence under Canada’s Criminal Code. This offence came into action on March 10, 2015. This law applies to everyone, not just people under 18. There is a very serious consequence to cyberbullying. The purpose of this offence is to protect someone’s privacy.