(These posts are posted by other students, so when you write the response please write in the form of reaction. eg. the words like I agree, I disagree with you, etc.)
Cyberstalking is defined as the online stalking. And it generally involves the use of internet or other electronic means to frighten or harass a person or group. It may include posting derogatory statements online or false accusations. It also includes the destruction of the data or manipulating the victim’s devices by sending the virus to it and monitoring someone’s online activity or his/her location, identity theft etc.
The stalking might be through any of the means. May be through phone calls, emails or any other communication. Cyberstalking can be a serious crime with legal implications. It may also be done using the internet or social media.
Cyberstalking laws of Pennsylvania.
Cyberstalking – 18 Pa.C.S.A. S2709.1
Offense defined, Venue and Grading:
Cyberstalking is a crime in Pennsylvania. Cyberstalking refer to a Pennsylvania crime offense in which the individuals use of electronic devices to stalk an individual on the internet.
Pennsylvania law defines the crime of “ Stalking ” as repeated harassment that creates substantial emotional distress or threatening someone. It may be done by a course of conduct that includes repeated acts or communications.
The conviction of stalking is a misdemeanor of the 1st degree. And if it is found that the defendant has a prior conviction for stalking the same person, then it is considered to be a felony of the 3rd degree, its violating the section 2701(relating to simple assault), 2702(relating to aggravated assault), 2705(relating to recklessly endangering another person), 2901(relating to kidnapping)etc.
Top of Form
Cyberstalking refers to the utilization of the Internet, email, or other media transmission advancements to badger or stalk someone else. It isn’t the insignificant irritation of spontaneous email. It is precise, conscious, and industrious (Porsons, 2009, p.435). The correspondences, regardless of whether from somebody known or obscure, don’t stop even after the beneficiary has requested that the sender stop all contacts, and are frequently loaded up with improper, and some of the time irritating, content. Cyberstalking is an augmentation of the physical type of stalking.
Cyberstalkers utilize an assortment of methods. They may at first utilize the Internet to distinguish and follow their exploited people. They may then send spontaneous messages, including foul or compromising mail. Live visit badgering mishandles the injured individual legitimately or through electronic harm (for instance, flooding the Internet talk channel to upset the unfortunate casualty’s discussion). With newsgroups, the cyberstalker can make postings about the person in question or start gossipy tidbits that spread through the announcement board framework. A cyberstalker may likewise set up a website page on the unfortunate casualty with individual or invented data or sales. Another system is to expect the injured individual’s persona on-line, for example, in talk rooms, to ruin the unfortunate casualty’s notoriety, posting insights concerning the person in question, or requesting undesirable contacts from others. Cyberstalking is a course of direct that happens over some undefined time frame and includes rehashed, purposeful endeavors to make trouble the person in question
Massachusetts Laws Governing Cyber Stalking
Massachusetts Laws defines stalking as willfully and maliciously engaging in conduct that seriously alarms or annoys a specific person and would cause reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress and makes a threat with the intent to place person in fear of death or bodily injury. Such conduct, acts or threats include, but are not limited to, conduct, acts or threats conducted by mail or by use of a telephonic or telecommunication device including, but not limited to, electronic mail, Internet communications and facsimile communications. Stalking is a felony that is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for up to five years or by a fine of not more than $1000, or imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or both.
Bottom of Form
Social media has become a very important tool for people to use on a personal as well as professional level these days. People all over the world make use of social media in order to stay connected with each other. On the other hand, business organizations use social media not only to promote their products and services but also to obtain customer feedback on the same (Gelinas et al., 2017). This has become the primary reason for discussing the importance of ethics and a formal code of conduct while using social media.
Assuming that the line between the personal and professional spaces on social media is very thin in case of corporate employees, it is important that the employees understand certain ethics that they need to follow while making use of social media. The primary responsibility of an employee is to understand that even if they are using their personal profiles, they are not allowed to share any confidential information over social media with anyone or publicly. Besides, it is also important for the employees to understand that just like them, their superiors are also allowed to use social media at a personal level. The employees should respect their privacy and also make sure that they are being provided the same by the organization that they are a part of (Martin, 2016).
In spite of such regulations, there are many grey areas in the discussions about ethics and obligations of the employee while using social media. In a recent case, it was seen that an employee demanded a sick leave from work but posted a number of her pictures while being on a holiday. Even though it is a breach of employee privacy, social media became an important source of evidence against the employee in this case. In another case, an employee abused and openly criticized his employer on social media after a bad day at work (Gelinas et al., 2017). This not only attracted attention to the affairs of the company but was also seen as an open insult of the managers after which the employee was expelled from the company.
Online web-based social networking applications are rapidly picking up the mindshare of organization representatives and changing similarly as quickly. With every one of the advantages that online life is bringing to the corporate world, an organization faces various dangers in its utilization, from abuse of organization assets to irreconcilable situations and stigmatization of others.
Internet-based life is a difficult theme since it traverses such a large number of morals and consistence issues. Be that as it may, similar to some other morals and consistence theme, it can and should be proactively overseen for an organization to protect its notoriety and give its workers the devices to deal with their very own and business exercises
Representing the Company
At the point when workers use organization email, they go about as delegates of their manager regardless of whether they’re sending an easygoing email to an expert associate. On the off chance that workers utilize unseemly language, it ponders adversely the organization and could drive away forthcoming clients or stain the organization’s picture. Likewise, if a representative makes articulations or guarantees utilizing organization email, the beneficiary may think about that anything the worker says speaks to the organization’s perspectives, and that anything guaranteed is authoritative.
It’s significant that organizations make arrangements with respect to email use in the working environment, and that those approaches layout precisely what’s permitted and what’s disallowed. On the off chance that the arrangement is obscure, it may not ensure bosses. For instance, if businesses intend to screen both organization and individual messages, the approach should express that even close to home, Web-based records are dependent upon examination. On the off chance that the organization permits restricted individual use, the approach should state when workers can do as such, for instance just during breaks and lunch hours. In the event that the strategy is ambiguous, workers could effectively challenge it in court.
A student-teacher had posted pictures of herself dressed as a pirate and clearly alcoholic on MySpace. The school region, arranging her as a worker instead of as an understudy for reasons for assessing her, banned her from the study hall before her finishing the semester. The college where she was enlisted renamed a few credits, issuing her a degree in English instead of the training degree that would have qualified her to look for credentialing. The understudy instructor contended that being delegated a representative limited her ability to speak freely rights contrasted with what they would have been under an understudy classification.
Documenting a claim against the college in 2008, Ms. Snyder affirmed that college directors abused her First Amendment ideal to opportunity of articulation. Following a 2-day non-jury preliminary, the judge decided for the college litigants.
In this case, includes a 14-year-old young girl who was an eighth-grade student at Blue Mountain Middle School, Orwigsburg, PA, during 2008. J.S. (initials are utilized on the grounds that the understudy was a minor) and a kindred understudy made a profile for their school head-on MySpace. The profile they made for the chief incorporated various vulgarities and rough references and made trashing remarks with respect to his better half and youngsters. The profile contained the chief’s photo duplicated from the school area’s Website.
The student looked for an impermanent limiting request and primer order against the school locale to hinder sanctions. That was denied in US District Court. A similar court later allowed outline judgment to the school area, deciding that the school could train lecherous and indecent off-grounds discourse that affected grounds, regardless of whether this impact didn’t add up to a “generous disturbance,” as characterized in the Tinker case choice.