1. American Military University
Cyberstalking Vulnerability
School of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math
Department of Information Technology
ISSC630: Advanced Cybercrime Analysis
American Public University System
By
CPT Matthew C. Kurnava
Arlington, VA
July 03, 2016

2. ii
In Memoriam, Amy Boyer
(1979-1999)

3. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
I. INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT 1
II. RESEARCH QUESTION 2
III HYPOTHESIS 2
III. LITERATURE REVIEW 3
IV. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 6
V. DATA 6
VI. ANALYSIS 15
VI. CONCLUSION 17
REFERENCES 20

4. 1
I. INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT
It was the fall of 1999, Amy Boyer, a young beautiful 20-year-old girl with a smile on her
face, just finished her work day as a dental assistant in Nashua, New Hampshire. As she got in the
car and shut the door, she heard a tap on her driver’s side window. She saw the glistening of the
sun off the barrel of the Glock 9mm and defensively raised her hand to her face, and then “click”.
The “click” of the Glock 9mm was the last sound she heard. Amy Boyer was dead; shot in the
head by 21-year-old Liam Youens, a person she had never associated with, a person she barely
even knew. Liam then reloaded, put the barrel in his mouth and ended his own life. (Wright, 1999)
Nobody understood why, why would this reclusive individual kill this girl in cold blood,
someone who only knew him from going to the same high school 5 years prior? The truth came
out in the investigation. Liam was obsessed with Amy since high school and developed a web page
devoted to her (amyboyer.com). Liam was able to trace Amy’s social security number to her
workplace address using the internet. (Wright, 1999) He had an extensive blog on his webpage
dedicated to her. Two years prior to the murder he dictated his plan as the Boston Weekly Wire
points out:
I have always lusted for the death of Amy," he wrote, before going on to describe exactly how he would kill her. "I'll
lay in wait across the street further down at 4 p.m. . . . When she gets in I'll drive up to her car blocking her in, window
to window I'll shoot her with my glock." The site was up for more than two years. (Wright, 1999)
The webpage was the murder’s very own stalker diary that he maintained. It was public
but was never reported to anyone prior to the murder.

5. 2
This horrific cyber stalking event ended in a murder of a girl who didn’t even know she
was being stalked. It also occurred before smart phones, advancements in GPS, social networking
and a plethora of other technological advancements that now make cyber stalking even more
dangerous and threatening to the lives of innocent people, like Amy.
This research is important because it will show how advancements in search engine
algorithms, social networks, GPS technology in smart phones and Internet of Things (IoT) have
allowed the access to individuals PII and allow those with criminal intent to successfully commit
crimes.
II. RESEARCH QUESTION
What advancements in technology have enhanced the ability for individuals to find
individuals PII and stalk or harass individuals?
Secondary Questions:
1. Considering the new technology, how can individual’s best protect themselves from
being cyber stalked?
III. HYPOTHESIS
Advancements in technology have increased in capability exponentially. These advancements
are supposed to make things easier for an individual. My hypothesis is that technological
advancements may have done so, but have also come with a great risk to privacy.

6. 3
IV. LITERATURE and DATA REVIEW
1. Cyberstalking Definition. For the purpose of this research the following definition as
provided by Technopedia will be the definition for cyberstalking when referenced in the research
Cyberstalking is a criminal practice where an individual uses the Internet to systematically harass
or threaten someone.This crime can be perpetrated through email, social media, chat rooms, instant
messaging clients and any other online medium. Cyberstalking can also occur in conjunction with
the more traditional form of stalking, where the offender harasses the victimoffline. (Technopedia,
2016)
While there are other definitions, like many other cyber terms there is no consensus,
however this definition meets the needs of this research and is acceptable for the intent of this
paper.
Cyberstalking Laws in United States.
a. 18 U.S. Code § 2261A. The U.S. law regarding cyber stalking is covered in part 2
of 18 U.S. Code § 2261A. This federal law covers “any interactive computer service or electronic
communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce”. (LII, 1996)
It provides that if a person uses these devices with the intent to “kill, injure, harass or intimidate”
(LII,1996) any person and that action causes an emotional distress, fear of death or serious bodily
injury to the victim, there will be judicial punishment. It states that there will be a minimum
sentence of 1 year for stalking to life imprisonment for any action that resulted in death of a victim.
(LII,1996)
b. State Laws. State Laws vary from state to state. Each state has different specifics
regarding who is covered and the punishment for the crime. As a result, there is an inconsistency
between interstate cyber stalking laws. Also, many states claim to have cyber stalking laws but

7. 4
these laws only cover individuals under the age of 18 (WHOA, 2016) Also, it is important to note
that cyber stalkers can be aggressive and repetitious in their behaviors regarding what constitutes
cyberstalking but fly under the radar of what constitutes illegal activity. (Pittaro,2007) This also
does not include the non-reported cases that occur each year.
2. Cyberstalking Statistics. The Bureau of Justice Statistics, a part of the Department of
Justice, reports that 14/1000 individuals age 18 and older were victims of stalking in a 12-month
study. (BJS 2016) 1 out of 4 of these individuals were victims of cyberstalking “e-mail (83%) or
instant messaging (35%)”. (BJS 2016) According to a recent Pew Research Center study
(American Trends Panel Wave 4 conducted May 30-June 20 2014) 2,849 respondents were asked
numerous questions about online harassment. 18% (512) of those completing the survey responded
that they witnessed online stalking of some type and 8%(227) of the respondents said that they
personally experienced online stalking for an extended period of time. (Duggan 2014). On July 4th
2015 the population of the United States was 321,442,019. (Census.gov, 2015) If these samples
are an accurate sample representation of the American populace, it can be argued then the
estimated figure for the number of people who possibly experienced cyber stalking of some type
in 2015 is 25,611,561. That is more that the population of the top 8 largest cities in the United
States (Infoplease, 2014)
3. Cyber Stalker Typology. Paul Mullen, the chief psychologist for an Australian high
security mental hospital, developed the following stalking types in 1993. (Perry, 2013) Mullen
and his associates analysed 145 diagnosed stalkers and developed the following typology for
assessment and treatment of patients (Muller, 2013) Cyber Stalkers can be typed into these five
different categories based upon their actions and intent towards the victim in cyberspace.

8. 5
a. Intimacy Seekers. These individuals are seeking after a relationship with the
individual, the stalker believes that the victim is their “soulmate” and that they are incomplete
without each other. (Perry, 2013) Usually only mandatory psychiatric treatment can resolve the
issues with an intimacy seeker (Mullen et al, 2001) Treatment usually involves addressing
mental disorders and also addressing erotomanic syndrome.
b. Incompetent Suitors. These individuals are typically an individual who is
infatuated with another person, but lacks the social skills to approach the individual. Often there
is entitlement and a wanting of possession of the victim (Perry, 2013) Individuals of this type
rarely see prosecution because they pursue people that they are attracted to but usually stop
because the gratification sought after is not enough to sustain the behaviour. This individual
enjoys the “chase” and feels entitled to seek the other, but after they have made contact, they
back off. This individual stops stalking an individual when told to stop but then will move on to
another individual. (Mullen et al, 2001)
c. Rejected stalkers. These individuals “pursue their victims in order to reverse,
correct, or avenge a rejection”. These stalkers include ex-spouses and former relationships that
have ended. (Perry, 2013) This is one of the more common types of stalker; they may have
personality limitations but occasionally have psychotic illnesses. (Mullen et al, 2001). Usually
rejected stalkers cannot cope with having been rejected by an ex- lover, are angry, and seek
revenge.
d. Resentful Stalkers. These individual feel slighted by the victim in some way
and feel vindictive, they attempt to frighten or cause emotional distress to the victim. (Perry,
2013) Resentful stalkers are not oblivious to their effect on their victim. (Mullen et al, 2001)

9. 6
e. Predatory Stalkers. These stalkers plan to assault sexually or physically their
victims. These individuals have the intent of rape, murder, or torture to their victims. (Perry,
2013). Predatory stalkers “should almost always be managed within a sex offender programme”
(Mullen et al, 2001). Their actions and stalking is a set up for a more serious threat to the
victim.
V. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The Research Method of this research is a Qualitative Ethnographic study (Sauro, 2016).
In this research, I will use a volunteer to see how vulnerable they are to cyberstalking using current
technology (smartphone, computer etc.). The dependent variable in this research is the relationship
between the stalker and the victim. The independent variables are varying types of technology
used to change this relationship from non-association/acquaintance to a criminal/victim
relationship. I will take the role of a rejected suitor cyber stalker. Subject A will be a friend who
has authorized this social experiment and the research will use cyber methods to seek to obtain as
much PII as possible via the internet and the Internet of Things (IoT). The intent is to see how
much PII data can be pulled and show how easy a cyber stalker can gain PII. This will also show
how dangerous the release of information can be.
V. DATA
Background. Subject A is a 32-year-old Caucasian female. She has volunteered to take part in
this research. Subject A will remain anonymous for the purpose of the research and her PII will
not be released in the course of this paper, only the methods used will be detailed and described.
The value of “how” the information is obtained regarding the subject is more important the actual

10. 7
information, plus there is no reason to give the actual PII on this research. Data shows that most
stalking of women involves a current or former intimate partner. (Mechanic 2000). This will be
the relationship that is the foundation for this research.
Search Engines
Using a search engine is one of the easiest methods to begin trying to find information on
someone. This is not limited to the typical sites such as Google.com or Bing.com, but also people
finder sites that can former addresses and phone numbers of individuals. These sites (Peoplesearch,
Intelius, PeopleLookup.com) provide information on individuals that are easily found on the
internet and for a small fee perform a background check and find more detailed information.
When Subject A’s name is entered into Google.com, immediately sites containing PII
appear for the individual. Information such as: workplace, former workplace, LinkedIn Profile,
and Facebook profile appear on the very first page of the results. The next page has Spokeo and
other people search finder sites. While this may seem superficial, it is quite informative for anyone
who pays attention to detail and can extrapolate from an incomplete idea, using abductive
reasoning. The LinkedIn Profile for Subject A gives me her current workplace and her current
title. Her Facebook profile shows a picture of her and of a young girl probably age 4-6, most likely
her daughter. It also shows a picture of a young boy between 8-11, probably a son. Further digging
into the page this is revealed to be fact. It also appears that Subject A has a secondary job at a local
church, and a phone number is given that this can be verified to be current. This information is
very relevant PII, a stalker can use this information by printing out the pictures and scoping out
the individuals place of work. This would turn the cyber stalk from merely a cyber stalker to a

11. 8
physical stalker and be a worst case scenario, but it is possible. The stalker could also follow the
social network pages and the social network pages of her work. These social network sites do not
require you to “add” the person but could “follow” the individual. Unless the person has this
feature turned off (Subject A does not) then the stalker can monitor Subject A’s activities including
following her home from work. This would give the stalker a home address as well.
Reverse Image Search
Google offers another search option that allows an individual to upload a picture to the
search engine and the algorithm searches for that specific picture and any related pictures. The
original google search revealed the Facebook profile of Subject A. While there appears to be
privacy settings set on most of the pictures, the profile picture supplies the research with the ability
to upload data to the reverse image search.
The search engine algorithm only produced pictures that were exactly the same inputted
into the search engine. This resulted in producing only results where the picture was originally
found. This concludes that the pictures used in the search engine will only produce results where
that picture is specifically used. Subject A has privacy settings raised on most of her pictures and
thus no further results were produced from the reverse image search.
Background Reports
Using some of the information available found from the search engine searches, a stalker
can then enter in the information into a background search engine. WhitePages.com offers a
background check of current addresses, emails, family members and other PII for $29.25/month.
There is also a $1 trial for 5 days. (Whitepages, 2016) Once this is purchased, one free background

12. 9
report is generated. This background report has been reviewed with Subject A, she has stated that
it is 100% accurate.
This background report reveals Subject A’s following information: name, current cell
phone number, current full address ( with map and picture of address), time spent at current
address, birth month and year, current name and previous alias, 9 previous phone numbers,
previous and concurrent addresses, current active email address, a list of 17 relatives, a list of 7
known business associates, details of a chapter 7 bankruptcy (date, case number, attorney, court
and trustee), previously owned property ( with picture and map)
This PII cost only $1. With Subject A’s name and current city, there is enough PII
revealed that now her house can be cased and the stalker could show up at her house or even call
her. This further deepens how much information is easily gained by a cyber stalker and all
information that has been obtained has been completed through legal methods.
Reverse Phone Lookup
Another interesting asset of the WhitePages.com site is that it allows a reverse phone
lookup. If the only information available is a cell phone number, the reverse phone lookup will
pull up current location and any other available PII. This is disconcerting, individuals often have
their Facebook connected to their cellphone and the cellphone number is published on the
Facebook profile, sometimes unbeknownst to the individual. This allows a stalker within 5
minutes, find your social profile, your phone number and then your PII. When Subject A’s cell
phone data was entered into the reverse phone lookup, it revealed the last location reported to the
service provider, this was her home address.

13. 10
There are plenty of online software possibilities that are available that will track a cell
phone number and display its GPS location. Some of these are free and some of them are not. Most
of the freeware come with the risk of hidden malware. Sites such as gpsphonetracker.com or the
software “Google Map GPS Cell Phone Tracker” (SourceForge, 2016) provides a free service.
However, this comes with the risk of adware and malware and its functionality is not easy to use.
Due to the risk of adding malware to the research computer, these methods were not used, but it is
important to note that they are available and capable for a cyber stalker to access readily.
Geotagging
Social Geotagging is a process completed in social networks that allows an individual to
tag their posts or pictures to show to their friends where they are and where they have been. Using
this form of geotagging to stalk and commit crimes has been done before. A site called
Pleaserobme.com pulls social geotagging data and shows who is at home and who is not based on
their social geotagging. (Valli and Hannay, 2010) This allows criminals to know if you are at home
or not and if not you are able to be robbed.
There is a site called another form of geotagging is completed when an image file is
actually created.
The Exchangeable Image File format (EXIF) is a published industry specification for the image file
format used by digital cameras. The location data is typically stored within the EXIF records for the
image using the EXIF Global Positioning System sub-IFD that uses the TIFF Private Tag 0x882.
The EXIF can also contain information that uniquely identifies the device that has taken the image
as well. Graphics tools such as ExifTool are able to extract this extended device and locational data,
likewise digital forensics tools are able to locate this data (Valli and Hannay, 2010)
Both types of geotagging are dangerous when it comes to cyberstalking behavior and
provide the stalker with specific location of where a photo is taken. Through the social media geo

14. 11
tagging, a review of her posts could show frequently visited places and locations of where she goes
to church, gets coffee and eats lunch. It also could provide times that these occur, and that Subject
A has been consistent in going to specific places at specific times throughout the work week.
However, it doesn’t. Subject A has limited her publishing of pictures on her Facebook page and
has not socially geotagged her pictures.
Next, a search of her pictures’ EXIF sub FID can reveal where they were taken. This does
not require any technical skill, just a knowledge of where to find a service that will do it for you.
The site Pic2Map will take a picture and pull its EXIF data and plot it on a map for you, free of
charge. Reviewing Subject A’s available pictures of where she was at in coffee shops or at home
can allow the data to be pulled as to where the individual was at when these pictures were taken.
The more recent the data then, the more accurate the data to the subject’s current physical location.
The cyber stalker will come into an issue when using pictures from social networking sites such
as Facebook or Twitter, these sites strip the EXIF file when they are uploaded. This is fortunate
for social networking users because it narrows the window of possibilities. When Subject A’s
Facebook picture was uploaded to Pic2Map the following screen appeared:
Figure 1(Pic2Map,2016)

15. 12
When Subject A’s work picture was uploaded from her work page, Pic2Map provided
information on when the picture was taken and with what camera.
Figure 2 (Pic2Map, 2016)
This information however does not assist in finding the location of Subject A. Human error
may also prevent the EXIF data from displaying correctly if the camera clock was not set correctly.
(Pic2Pic, 2016) Thus this method of retrieving PII is not as reliable as predicted on Subject A.
However, an individual who is naïve with how vulnerable geo tagging places them would allow a
cyber stalker more opportunities to locate an individual and place the individual at more risk.
Internet of Things(IoT): Surveillance Devices
With the amount of data already obtained on Subject A (i.e. Workplace, Home Address,)
then a cyber stalker may branch out into actually physically stalking an individual as attested to in

16. 13
the literature review. In doing so, additional information can be obtained including finding out the
make and model of Subject A’s vehicle (White, Chevy Trailblazer, 2006) and use this information
to begin surveillance on Subject A. This research will detail the process of what IoT devices are
readily acceptable for purchase and could be used to cyberstalk Subject A.
Since the home address of Subject A is identified, the placement of a GPS tracking device
on the individual’s vehicle can be simply achieved. The below device can be bought on Amazon
for under $30 and placed under the frame of the car in a secure location. This device is magnetic
which assists in the securing of the device for the vehicle.
Figure 3 (Amazon, 2016)
This device would allow the cyber stalker to track Subject A’s whereabouts for at least a
24hr period. This is not the only one on the market and there are several to choose from. This
device would be able to track from a cell phone or a computer the GPS location of Subject A. The
cyber stalker can tell when the individual is home or when they are out working or at the gym or
a coffee shop. This allows the cyber stalker to monitor Subject A and her activities.

17. 14
Hidden cameras are also another possibility, since Subject A’s residence and workplace
are known then access to the public areas of these places has little effort and hidden cameras
placed in offices, bathrooms, etc. Below are a few possibilities of IoT cameras that can be easily
used by a cyber hacker.

18. 15
Figure 4 (Amazon, 2016)
Other IoT camera devices can be sent in the mail, since Subject A is a known person to the
cyber stalker and the cyber stalker’s activities have been hidden, there is no reason to think that
she would not accept a gift from the cyber stalker. This would allow items to be placed into the
house that could have GPS tracking capability or cameras on them. Amazon has a list of items
such as teddy bears and picture frames that could complete this task.
ANALYISIS
The data collected in this research was not complicated, nor did it require a lot of technical
capability. There was no cracking of cell phones or cracking of computers, these type of cyber
stalking behaviors could have been accomplished by a serious hacker, but the point was to show
what data could be extrapolated and what risk the individual could be placed in from a novice
technical cyber stalker.
The data shows that accessing the PII of an individual on the internet is very easy and cheap
to do so. Within moments of beginning the research based only off the individual’s name alone
the following data was able to be pulled:

19. 16
 Name
 Address
 Cell Number
 Social Networks
 Profile Picture
 Number of Children
 Past Addresses
 Family Members
 Work Place
 Work Address and
Phone
 Property owned
 Bankruptcies
 Past Crimes (none)
 Maps (address with
picture)
 Previous phone numbers
 Known Associates
This was enough data to lead to other information including
 Car (make, year and
model)
 Frequented
establishments
 Daily Schedule
Finally, it leads to a cyber stalker able to use the Internet of Things (IoT) to monitor and
track the victim. This could occur with little or no contact with the actual victim and that the victim
would probably not even know they were being stalked until the later phase in which the cyber
IoT devices “could” be discovered. Some of the findings (geo tagging and reverse picture search)
did not offer as many results as was suspected. This resulted from Subject A having higher security
protocols on pictures and privacy settings. However, the information that would have been
obtained from these methods would be the same information that was already achieved through
the background check, it would have only further strengthened the evidence. Upon review of the
data, Subject A confirmed the data and found it to be accurate. Further studies would have to be

20. 17
completed to determine how efficient the background data check is on other subjects to reveal
whether this data is anecdotal or not. However, I suspect that the data is overwhelmingly correct
across the board since the data collected was 100% accurate according to Subject A.
The analysis of the data supports the hypothesis, while many of the platforms such as social
media, search engines, and the internet of things have been able to benefit humanity, they are also
detrimental in the preservation of privacy. While the internet is there to assist us in connecting
with the rest of the world, it has also left us open and vulnerable to those who would take advantage
of that interconnectivity allowing those criminals to use the internet and the IoT to invade the
privacy of others if they choose to do so.
CONCLUSION
The research data answers the research question. Advancements in technology (Search
engine algorithms, Social Networks, GPS Technology in smartphones, and IoT devices) of the
past 5 years has allowed the privacy of an individual to be successfully compromised and then put
at risk in ways never before possible. The amount of money the cyber stalker would have to use to
successfully cyber stalk Subject A would have amounted to under $100. The advancement in
search algorithms, in search engines, GPS technology, and IOT devices allows for any individual
to be at exceptional risk of a cyber stalker. While the number of individuals possibly being cyber
stalked seemed high from the literature review, it is quite possible since many of the activities
annotated here could not be easily attributed.
In order to reduce the risk of PII being reported on reports and shown on the internet,
individuals must make their own personal security a priority. While the majority of women are the

21. 18
victims of cyberstalking this is even more true. (BJS 2016). While it may seem drastic there are
some tactics that can be taken to limit the virtual foot print. This includes 1. Not using your real
name in social media. The easiest way to find someone was through the WhitePages.com site. All
it needed was a name and a city of residence, with these two small amounts of information, a
Pandora’s box of information became accessible. Using a false name would keep unwanted
individuals from tracking and stalking you. 2. Do not use a personal photo of your face as a profile
picture for any social media. While the point of social media is to connect with people you know,
the public photo gives a lot of information and allows an individual to use that picture against you
in the attempt to find more information. 3. Contact Search Engine sites and have your name
removed from search results. There are also third party sites such as Reputation Defender which
will work to erase your virtual footprint. (Reputation Defender, 2015) Ensuring that your privacy
is protected and your loved one’s privacy are protected will help prevent another incident like Amy
Boyer’s from occurring.
Stalking individuals is a criminal behavior that has existed prior to the technological
revolution. However, computers, the internet, and the internet of things have made the capabilities
of a stalker much more egregious and easier to accomplish especially within the last 10 years via
cyber stalking. The ability to find any individual within the United States within minutes is a
possibility. Criminals no longer have to creep in the shadows but now can sit behind their computer
screen or smartphone and stalk individuals without anyone knowing. They can watch them, track
them and know their victims every move. This research did not cover the black hat tactics of
hacking Facebook accounts, hacking traffic cameras, or even hacking web cameras. All of these
actions are also easily achievable by someone with a little more knowledge than the common

22. 19
layperson. This research was based on a stalker with none of those capabilities and yet was still
able to find very personal details on Subject A with very little effort. There is no doubt that there
are many benefits to technology and its advancements in the past decade. However, there must
also be caution and an awareness to what information we are allowing to be released to the world.
While we strive for connectivity we must also be aware of those who will take advantage of this
and seek to do us harm. Diligence must be taken at the personal level to protect one’s self and
family from those criminals who would seek to use cyberspace as a playground to hunt their prey
and make you their victim. There must be a constant awareness to protect ourselves and our loved
ones to prevent another incident like Amy Boyer’s and save the lives of others.

23. 20
Reference List
Reputation Defender. (2015). Http://manage.Reputationdefender.Com/reputationdefender/.
Retrieved July 3, 2016, from
http://manage.reputationdefender.com/reputationdefender/?gclid=Cj0KEQjw7-
K7BRCkkIH3t_WwoskBEiQAD8oY3kUORd4IrCtAZEOvWalz64maO13n8bO_EY0Qlfw0r
lwaAlAQ8P8HAQ
SourceForge. (2016). Download Google map GPS cell phone Tracker from SourceForge.Net.
Retrieved July 3, 2016, from SourceForge,
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpsmapper/files/GpsTracker-v5.1.1.zip/download
Pic2Map. Retrieved July 3, 2016, from Pic2Map,
http://www.pic2map.com/error.php?problem=noexif
Amazon. Retrieved July 3, 2016, from Amazon.com, https://www.amazon.com
18 U.S. Code § 2261A - stalking. (1996, September 23). Retrieved June 26, 2016, from
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2261A
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - stalking. (2016, February 17). Retrieved June 27, 2016, from
Office of Justice Programs/ Department of Justice,
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=973
Duggan, M. (2014, October 22). Online harassment. Retrieved June 27, 2016, from Pew
Research Center, http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/
Google Images. Retrieved July 3, 2016, from https://images.google.com/
Jarrett, H. M., & Bailie, M. (2009). Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic
Evidence in Criminal Investigations. Department of Justice:
Mullen, P. E., Pathé, M., & Purcell, R. (2001). The management of stalkers. BJPsych, 7(5), 335–
342. doi:10.1192/apt.7.5.335
Muller, R. (1991). In the mind of a Stalker: Revealing the Five Types of Stalkers. Retrieved July
3, 2016, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/talking-about-trauma/201306/in-the-
mind-stalker
Perry, J. (2013, September 13). How stalking has been made easier by the internet and social
networks. Retrieved July 3, 2016, from Facebook,
https://www.grahamcluley.com/2013/09/internet-mobile-social-networks-stalking/

24. 21
Pittaro, M. (2007). Cyber stalking: An Analysis of Online Harassment and Intimidation.
International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 1(2), 180–197. doi:10.1201/b10718-21
Population clock. (2015, July 4). Retrieved June 27, 2016, from Census.Gov,
http://www.census.gov/popclock/
Sauro, J. (2016). 5 types of qualitative methods: MeasuringU. Retrieved June 17, 2016, from
http://www.measuringu.com/blog/qual-methods.php
Top 50 Cities in The U.S. By Population and Rank. (2014). Retrieved June 27, 2016, from
Infoplease, http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/a0763098.html
Valli, C., & Hannay, P. (2010). Geotagging Where Cyberspace Comes to Your Place. Retrieved
from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Craig_Valli/publication/221199906_Geotagging_Where
_Cyberspace_Comes_to_Your_Place/links/0f31752e126676b00a000000.pdf
What is Cyberstalking? - definition from Techopedia. (2016). Retrieved June 27, 2016, from
Technopedia, https://www.techopedia.com/definition/14326/cyberstalking
Whitepages. (2016). Whitepages Premium. Retrieved July 3, 2016, from
https://premium.whitepages.com/details/comp_report/425207?record_id=kOFWLa6NcC-
7SnDsXxsQ8Ro0oHPnVbe1rX9mwR94c_8%3D
Working To Halt Online Abuse(WHOA). (2016). Retrieved June 26, 2016, from WHO@,
http://www.haltabuse.org/resources/laws/
Wright, C. (1999). News & opinion: Murder.Com (the Boston phoenix . 08-14-00). Retrieved
July 3, 2016, from WeeklyWire.com, http://weeklywire.com/ww/08-14-
00/boston_feature_1.html