


Creepy crawlies

The internet allows the malicious to menace their victims

See article

Readers' comments


Steve L

It is indeed disturbing and sick that an individual can wreak such havoc on another person's life. The stalker in this case is clearly a deranged individual, one whose life is so empty and worthless that he/she has to spend such effort and time to try to make another human as miserable.

Google is complicit in this cybercrime, in my opinion. They should remove all citations from their search engine immediately upon Ms. Ramm's request.

Anyone with a brain will read the stalker's messages as unauthentic and puerile. Ms. Ramm should make it clear that her only official site is the one over which she has full control.

If the perpetrator-coward is tracked down, I vote that he/she serve a life's sentence in prison for this horrible behavior.


Let me be a cynic and play the devil's advocate here:
It is difficult nowadays to draw the line between:
(i) thoughts, words and deeds,
(ii) private and public behaviour.
Suppose you just think "badly" about someone (like your boss, your government lol) and just write that down and post it on your fridge at home, not in your office or on your Facebook page or in a blog. That's not a criminal offence, is it? But the next step (what I am doing right now!) is to put a thought into words that are displayed on the internet (and saved for perpetuity) is nowadays is so easy. Thoughts become words and words can be not only spoken but also written, which is an act and hence a deed.
As Omar Khayaam said
"The moving finger writes; and having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy piety and wit
shall lure it back to cancel half a line.
nor all thy tears wash out a word of it"
except for the US congressional records where recently the Senator from Arizona Jon Kyl was allowed to rewrite what he said. He explained that what he said was "not intended to be a factual statement".

Tushar Thakkar

I think the stalker of Ms Ramm is using the following url - http://divasgonewild.blogspot.com/ - for slandering her. He has even posted a tampered / edited version of this Economist article on the site to sling more muck at her. I think this might just be an opportunity for the Economist to help Ms Ramm by getting the site shut down for copyright infringement or something similar. (I am not a lawyer so wouldn't know precisely what charge might stick, but am sure the Economist's lawyers can figure something out)


Nobody deserves to be stalked - even if they put themselves in the firing line. Ms Ramm seems to want to draw attention to herself. She's provided an alluring and very curvaceous photo to the Economist of herself. Hardly a crime. Her Youtube page is full of information about her life, her interests, her love of the limelight....not the least of which is the fact that she was conceived by artificial insemination with sperm from a donor bank of nobel prizewinners. The narcissism being exhibited is troubling. If she cannot stand the heat, it may be best to keep a lower profile. All that said, I think she is a highly talented individual.


MathsForFun_1: I concur with rour points. I for one have been a victim of cyber-stalking. I was burning in agony fighting back by responding to the treads at the same time seeking failing police efforts. A friend advised me to:
1 - Ignore the stalking
2 - Not to respond to the mails/sms and the likes.
3 - Not to change my contacts, because if I did, my culprit will know he is hitting the target as MathsForFun_1 puts it and will further look for ways to get to me again.
It worked! the sms & emails frequencies dropped by about 50% in two weeks and later less than 10 and ended finally a month later.
4 - Additionally, inform the police, it may help them to accrue fact to better up investigations.

For the cases of website i will suggest:

1 - If you own a website conspicuously disclose at the top and bottom a "red-ink" link of your stalker.
2 - Consult the police they may not be experts but that will help in the long run.
3 - keep to your daily routine, the culprit or his private eyes may be on you checking your euphoria and depressions.


99% of the population have never killed or maimed, but they should be monitored all the time when they use the internet or a phone.
That's Neo-Tshekism and there are people who will fight back.


@Metta1: Maybe you understand my rant when I tell you this anecdote: Mr Guttenberg's (former Minister of Defence of Germany) wife was a very prominent member of a "Anti-Child Abuse Club" and had her own show in private TV here.

see httpCOLON//www.innocenceindanger.de/

Ms Guttenberg also campaigned for the retention of all communications metadata (such as source, target, timestamp of internet packets or location, timestamp of all mobile phones) "in order to catch the child molesters".

It turns out this "charity" was financed by companies who sell internet surveillance technology and french gendarmerie.

So this nice lady wanted to politically gain from the "child porn abuse" sentiment and also help out sleazy businessmen to sell their wares to the state.
I also suspect french intel&security wanted to "help" Mr Guttenberg to get even further in his career. After having disposed both the Inspector General of German Armed Forces and an experienced frigate captain....

Thank god we got rid of him and I am proud to have taken part in that op.


@sapperf So...I'm a little confused by your comments. Are you saying that the existence of cyber-stalking is really a construct by big corporations to make a profit by scaring people into....what?

Or that the "alleged" victims of said cyber-stalking, should simply create a "junk email address" and be rid of their stalker? Isn't that a bit like blaming the victim.

While reading your responses, I was reminded about a "discussion" I've been having on another e-mag regarding internet etiquette, and how it allows people to vent their otherwise suppressed aggressions, or as I see it - petty beastliness, out on unknown, unseen, "dehumanized" victims, out there somewhere in the virtual world.

What exactly is your argument? Is it a rant against censorship? That in adding protection to would be victims of cyber-stalking, is likened to a Bolshevik-like take over of the internet? Really?

Besides reeking of an Ad Hominem attack on the victim of what you consider a money making scheme of some sort, it borders on cyber-bullying itself. So let me see if I get this correctly, as reprehensible as it is. The "chick" should grow a thicker skin, and perfect her "nastier" survival skills set? Is that the solution your proposing to the victims of cyber-stalking? In other words, get over it?


How much did The Economist get from the likes of Rhode&Schwarz and E-Systems for this %rap ?
"Online Stalking" - my ar$e, as the common Englishman would say. How difficult is it to set uo a secret email address, a secret Facebook account (which is fully locked down), a secret Skype account ?
It costs about 0 Euros 0 Cents and just 20 minutes of time.
Alongside "Child Porn" and "Electrosmog" this is just one of these ruses of industry and Security Services to sell their contraptions and to control the sheepish idiots who take every lie by face value.
I do think Felix Tsherschinsky is laughing from hell all day.

Freedom in the West - my ar$se.


It's an arms race: at the moment, the aggressor has the advantage. There are two possible ways to solve the problem:

1. identify the culprit (a non-starter at the moment)

2. devise ways to ensure that the aggressor KNOWS that the target is not seeing the aggressive material. For most aggressors, the certain knowledge that their punches are not hurting their target will soon demoralise them sufficiently to stop


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Writing worth reading: Dark matter
Babbage March 15th, 14:43
Bits and mortar: Babbage visits Ada's
Babbage March 15th, 10:22
Deportations: A kinder expulsion
Democracy in America March 14th, 21:38
Blasphemy laws: Wrong on so many levels
Erasmus March 14th, 17:20


Products & events