I can see you: harassment and stalking on the Internet

Abstract

It is an inevitable consequence of plausible anonymity and deliberately lax regulation that the potential for ‘virtual’ harassment or ‘cyber-’stalking, with the attendant possibility of threats, alarm, distress, slander and physical danger that go hand in hand with real world harassment, will increase the more widely available access to the Internet. The (relatively) recent explosion in casual exchange of personal information following the growth of sophisticated social networking platforms, the logical successors to more basic Internet chat-rooms, opens further the possibility of acquiring an unwanted connection with an obsessive party.

The authors consider the application of current UK legislative safeguards to the Internet, looking at the suitability of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, data protection, unauthorised modification of computer software, libel law, external Internet regulation, Convention and Codes, and the potential for vicarious liability of employers where harassment is carried out by an employee, amongst other issues and conclude that there is a pressing need for primary legislation to counter the inadequacy and lacunae found in current domestic law. The authors go on to consider the extraterritorial application of such legislation and postulate the need for a re-balancing of the competing rights of freedom of speech and personal safety and wellbeing.

The authors further consider the potential liabilities of Internet Service Providers (ISPs), webhosts and Social Networking and chat-room forum sites, concluding that a shift in liability for Internet harassment from progenitor to facilitator is inevitable.

Keywords:

• Internet
• harassment
• stalking
• cyber-stalking
• reform
• ISP
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Notes

1. The authors are both practising barristers, Chris Bryden at the Chambers of Timothy Raggatt QC, 4 King's Bench Walk: http://www.4kbw.co.uk, and Michael Salter at Ely Place: http://www.elyplace.com. Any and all errors of fact or law are their own. Special thanks should be extended to Thomas Bailey, then a pupil, now a tenant at 4 King's Bench Walk for his assistance in researching this paper.

2. For example, the defamation claim brought by Gina Ford against Mumsnet: Sherriff, L, (11 May 2007). Mumsnet settles with Gina Ford over defamation claims. Retrieved September 2008, from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/11/ford_mumsnet/

3. Though it must be noted that there are some difficulties in bringing such claims, considered in further detail below.

4. Eazel, W. (28 February 2006). Online stalking on the increase. Retrieved September 2008, from http://www.scmagazineuk.com/Online-stalking-on-the-increase/article/33024/

5. According to Worldwidewebsize.com there were 27.77 billion indexed pages as at 29 September 2008 and one trillion URLs. See the official Google Blog at http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/we-knew-web-was-big.html

6. See, for example, www.michaelsalter.net

7. Cyberstalking: A New Challenge for Law Enforcement and Industry, cited in McCall, R, (5 October 2003) Online harassment and cyberstalking: Victim access to crisis, referral and support services in Canada concepts and recommendations, victim assistance online resources. Retrieved September 2008, from http://www.vaonline.org/

8. See, for example, Harris, J. (2000). The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 – An evaluation of its use and effectiveness. Retrieved September 2008, from http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/r130.pdf

9. Mr David Maclean MP, Hansard, HC, 17 December 1996, Col 827.

10. Attempts at exhaustive definitions having briefly been popular: cf the Schedule attached to the Obscenity Bill 1999.

11. Section 7(2).

12. Ellison, L., & Akdeniz, Y. (1998). Cyber-stalking: the Regulation of Harassment on the Internet. Criminal Law Review (December Special Edition). Crime, Criminal Justice and the Internet, 29–48.

13. See http://www.danenet.org/dcccrsa/saissues/stalking.html

14. Maria Eagle MP, Hansard, HC, 30 June 2008, Col 685W.

15. E.g. R v. Debnath [2005] EWCA Crim 3472.

16. E.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7033591.stm

17. [2006] UKHL 34; [2006] ICR 1199 HL.

18. Per Lord Nicholls, at 30.

19. [2007] EWCA Civ 1492, [2007] 2 All ER (D) 99.

20. Ibid.

21. [2001] UKHL 22; [2002] 1 AC 215.

22. Per Lord Steyn in Bernard v. Attorney General of Jamaica [2004] UKPC 47 at 18.

23. As in Lister itself, where the employer was held liable for the sexual abuse by the school caretaker of boys, as his employment and therefore his access to them, was so closely connected with his employment.

24. Bryden, C., & Salter, M. (2007). Third Party Harassment. New Law Journal, 157(7280), 960.

25. Halberstam, S. (2008). Defamation and the Internet. Retrieved September 2008, from http://www.weblaw.co.uk/articles/demon_defamation_and_the_internet/

26. See Housing chief's record net payout. Retrieved September 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/england/wear/7328488.stm

27. Werdinger, J. (29 March 2007). Libel lawsuit by WPP Chief is settled for $235,000. Retrieved September 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/worldbusiness/29libel.html

28. [1999] 4 All ER 342.

29. Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 2013.

30. Collins, M. (2005). The law of defamation and the Internet (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, at 17.03.

31. [2007] 1 WLR 1243.

32. Milmo P., Rogers W.V.H., Parkes R., Walker G., & Busuttil C. (2003). Gatley on libel and slander. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

33. Paragraph 6.26, cited in Bunt, at 49.

34. Ibid.

35. At 1249.

36. Law Commission (2002). Defamation and the Internet: A preliminary investigation, Study No. 2, December 2002, London, from http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/files/deformation2.pdf

37. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/27/internet_censorship/ and Giordano, P. (1998). Invoking law as a basis for identity in cyberspace. In L. Ellison & Akdeniz Y., Cyber-stalking: The regulation of harassment on the Internet. Criminal Law Review (December Special Edition), Crime, Criminal Justice and the Internet, 29–48.

38. See http://radar.oreilly.com/2007/04/draft-bloggers-code-of-conduct.html

39. See e.g. the conviction of Paul Gadd (Gary Glitter) in November 1999 for possession of child pornography.

40. Basu, S., & Jones, R. (2007). Regulating cyberstalking. Journal of Information, Law and Technology (2), 1.

41. Though the Basu & Jones paper focuses more on defining cyberspace and cyberstalking as a substantively different behavioural pattern to ‘real world’ stalking, rather than considering the application of the current legal framework in England and Wales to what the authors of this paper consider to be broadly the same behaviour, though via a modern platform.

42. Williams, M. (2004). The language of cybercrime. In D. Wall (Ed.), Crime and the Internet (p. 143). London: Routledge.

43. Wacks, R. (1998). Privacy in cyberspace: Personal information, free speech and the Internet. In L. Ellison & Y. Akdeniz, pp. 29–48.

44. Orlowski, A. (3 April 2004). Google mail is evil. Retrieved September 2008, from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/03/google_mail_is_evil_privacy/

45. See http://www.cyberslapp.org/ for a database of such cases in the USA.

46. [2008] EWHC 687 (QB).

47. See http://www.haltabuse.org

48. See http://www.haltabuse.org/resources/stats/Cumulative2000–2007.pdf

49. See e.g. Wafa, T. (2008). Internet privacy rights – Global Internet privacy rights: A pragmatic legal perspective. Available at http://works.bepress.com/tim_wafa/1

50. See e.g. http://www.wikihow.com/Trace-an-IP-Address, and http://www.abika.com/Reports/verifyemail.htm for typical websites.

51. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymizer

52. For a full report of the circumstances, see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article‐480798/How-barrister-forged-evidence-husband‐faces-jail.html

53. See e.g. http://www.eff.org/, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a not-for-profit organisation dedicated, amongst other things, to preserving free speech on the Internet.

54. See e.g. http://www.greatfirewallofchina.org/

55. 929 F Supp 824 (1996), at p. 883. In Ellison, L., & Akdeniz, Y., 29–48.

56. Nicol, A., QC, Millar, G., QC, & Sharland, A. (in press). Media Law and Human Rights, OUP.

57. A Non-Molestation Order in and of itself is not appropriate in all circumstances, as it is limited to ‘associated persons’ as defined in Section 62(3), being (in the main) partners or ex partners, relatives or persons having had an intimate personal relationship of significant duration.

58. Cal. Civil Code § 1708.7.

59. See http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/index.cfm?Mode=Bills&Submenu=1&BI_Mode=ViewBillInfo&Billnum=0479&Year=2003

60. Knaggs, T., Searle, W., & Simonsen, K. (July 2003). Talking about sentences and crime: The views of people on periodic detention. Retrieved September 2008, from http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2003/offender-attitudes/index.html

61. A term coined by Shute, S. (2004). The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (4): New Civil Preventative Orders. Criminal Law Review 2004, 417.

62. Ramsey, P. (2008). The theory of vulnerable autonomy and the legitimacy of the Civil Preventative Order. LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Paper 1/2008. Retrieved November 2008, from http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/law/wps/wps.htm

63. Simester, A., & von Hirsch, A. (2006). Regulating offensive conduct through two-step prohibitions. In A. von Hirsch & A. Simester (Eds.), Incivilities. Oxford: Hart.