Let this be a lesson.....

[MrLinus]

The original point stands regardless of whether it's the internet or otherwise. Like many of you I met my SO online and have been with him for over 10 years. But when we met, we met in a public environment first. It's not the meeting online that's the issue; it's the meeting face-to-face that's the problem and how much we trust the person next to us.

We, unfortunately, live in a society where we cannot expect people to be nice. This summer I had my chain break on my bike in the middle of nowhere (between Fundy National Park and Hillsborough for those familar with the area/highway). A kind gentleman picked up me and my bike and dropped us off at the nearest gas station and refused to take any payment of any kind (one of the last good samaritans in the world I suspect).

To be honest, I doubt that any of you have had to deal with an online stalker and that is a really scary issue (although I wonder if Neg's SO has had this in the past). What's worse is that no one will do anything about a stalker (they can fade away in the IP Numbers) but they will do something after your dead. Anyways, point is that far too many put trust into the 1s and 0s that are seen online. I have seen how people interpret postings based on their own emotions rather than what the poster was trying to convey (a game I played that was based on interactions between individuals and power plays by the individuals highlighted this in the worst/best ways).

That all said, as a general rule I believe people should be somewhat cautious of others in today's society regardless of where they meet them. Forensic science has come a long way but the courts haven't. As such, they may not be able to full trace what's going on even if they do get the address. If this wasn't a truism, unfortunately, we wouldn't have things like the Amber Alert.


Monsters still exist in society.

[hogfly]

When did this become E-harmony.com ?

msmittens is correct in that most people interpret postings based on emotions rather than what is being said. Hence the need for stupid emoticons to convey the feeling that goes with the statement.

As for the forensic science and courts...

No, courts haven't come a long way, it's still the same game. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt. There is rarely ever a smoking gun that says "I KILLED <insert name, date, place here>". What happens is that n amount of clues are tied together to build a case that leaves absolutely no room for loose ends. In this case, the IP address is probably the most circumstantial evidence being presented. But, if it's dialup, and the ISP is served a subpoena for release of records, then the FBI(FBI in this case because it crossed state lines and due to the Amber alert) will tie together the DHCP logs, the calling number, the time etc etc..and the IP address will fit in to place. The more interesting phases of this case will be when the computer is torn apart and we see what was really going through that womans head. Maybe there will be a smoking gun, or perhaps in cross verification by the defense(which I doubt she will have a good group since it's federally appointed and not personally) some stuff will come out of her and she'll get off on insanity.

This is most likely an open & close case because she admitted to it already, it's in the midwest, it was premeditated, and she actually did it. *shudder runs up hogfly's spine*


FBI affidavit here:
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/kid...21704aff2.html


Here's some snippets that outline what I was saying..
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/kid...21704aff6.html

[RoadClosed]

When did this become E-harmony.com

lol. but I could see the attraction since users of this forum share unique interests that might bore the hell out of some "normal" citizen.

These people were in contact via a forum and just like me, the ops and the cops could have my IP very quickly especially if my relatives knew I was meeting someone from Antionline.com and tipped of the police. It is amazing how fast it all fell into motion.

[hogfly]

Amber alert+FBI+viable fetus==incredibly fast responses.

[rowdy_yates]

i guess the lesson there is watch what you say on MSN. big brother may not be watching - but he sure can track you down for saying the wrong thing.

[voltagirl]

I met my ex bf online.We lasted for almost 3 years.It really depends upon a person who you would meet online but 80% of them are *******s.I'd rather find a bf online than in person because it challenges me.

[mathgirl32]

You will all, of course, notice that each of you that piped up saying you met your SO's online are all male..... Is there a pattern...

I'm a female and I met my husband online!

I'm sure any girl can tell you that for every decent guy you might meet online....there are at least 1000 creeps.

[el-half]

To be honest, I doubt that any of you have had to deal with an online stalker

I have met an online stalker. About 2 years ago (I was 15) I met some guy on the internet and I added him to msn and we talked and stuff. He claimed to teach at a German University near the Belgian border. He wanted to meet, which we almost did, but I didn't show up because I noticed some contradictions in things he told me about his life. He also seemed to know suspiciously little about computers for a professor teaching computer science.
He really came to the place where we intended to meet because he asked me afterwards why I wasn't there.
When I told him it was because he lied he started telling **** like that I was subject of some psychological investigation. In the flaming email conversation that followed (spread over a few months, he always replied after weeks) his age varied between 35 and 60 :\ lol

[voltagirl]

i need a bf!

[MadBeaver]

Holding out for Maynard?