November 21st 2006
Not only was AOL  allowed access onto my computer but the entire process was done while I was not even  in my house.

I had a scheduled manicure for 9am i was running late and didn’t  even leave the house until 9:30.  Since i was too late for my apt i ended up gong out running errands than to work I didn’t  allow access for AOL  because it happened one other time a few weeks ago I went to log on and saw that an icon on my desktop was from AOL so i called Comcast cable and was told by one of the  gentleman that AOL  couldn’t have been downloaded by a hacker since i have privacy block and all the security for MacAfee he also said that someone would have to have been sitting right in front of my computer to access the internet.

* note:  this note actually also means someone had to have broken into my home and was trespassing into our complex and/had to sit at my computer to download the aol program. 

Today I called to make a payment on my credit card .  This card was the card issued after a renewal card did not show up at my home.

Today called to make a $953.00 payment on credit card spoke with:
shakira ( id#T3L433) and Her boss BaBa(id# EP13)  They said i could not make a payment over the phone because i needed a password on my account.

Prior to accessing info. today and making a payment I had to send in a password request/ copy of forms and my social security #.    

 Attention : Dean Peck
Economic Crime Unit Naples Florida

You requested that I fax you this letter to attach to a report already on file .  I will retain a copy fo my reports and records.
Thank you for your kind attention in this matter.
Sincerely Yours,
Mary Jean Ziska    

sworn statement filed: August 18th 2006
Report #:  06-27161
content of report:

I entered into Bank of America @ Travila circle.  I came in to check on my bank account and was informed that my account was overdrawn.  I protested that was impossible since I had $1000.00 in my account as of my last statement.  The bank employee went through my account and informed me that a check for $804.94
( #1006) was rendered from my account.  She gave me a copy of the check and it is NOT my handwriting nor is it on past ordered checks.  There were also 50 checks ordered  without my consent and  I did not receive any checks.  Checks were written off my account # 1001/#1002( $1194.06)/#1003($664.87) #1004 (206.05)#1005 ($45.00) all the above checks were not my handwriting but using my signature.  I didn’t authorize anyone  to write checks from my account i will prosecute the people involved.

I first heard about  a case that  went to trial  concerning bulling when  i learned about  Lori Drew and Megan Myer.   February 2008  

United states of America /United States district court for the central district of California ( plaintiff) vs. Lori Drew( defendant )  the case involved a 13 year old girl Megan Meier.

*The intentional infliction of pain /humiliation

“This woman broke the law- that’s easy.  You agree to teams of service( especially when it comes to  harassment) then it’s pretty clear.
Some have argued that she shouldn’t be held accountable for the s girl’s death.  I can see why you might argue this , but that’s not  what the law says.  
Should this woman serve 20 years?  Probably not , but I think she should serve jail time, the outcome of this woman’s actions was the suicide of a young girl. 
As for culpability, I think you have to see this woman’s action as criminally reckless, she probably didn’t KNOW what the outcome would be but she must have known it was a real possibility. Like a drunk driver, she mus be culpable under the law.
Hopefully this case will continue to be widely reported as a warning to others. 
Posted by JEZ May 15th 2008 2:20:18pm  

Lori Drew Indicted in My Space Suicide Case–Updated by Kim Zettler May 15th 2008 3:01:41pm from WIRED

A federal grand jury issued an indictment against a woman in Missouri accused of creating a fake My Space page to bully a 13 year old girl.  the girl committed suicide as a result of the bullying.

Lori Drew was indicted this morning in Los Angeles on federal charges for fraudulently using an account on My Space.  The indictment charges Drew in four counts —
one count for conspiracy and three counts “for accessing protected computers without authorization to obtain information to inflict emotional distress”
according to a press release.  The later charge relates to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

The indictment (pdf.) alleges that Drew and her co-conspirators violated My Space’s terms of service, which requires registrants to provide truthful registration information and refrain from soliciting personal information from anyone under 18 or using registration information and refrain from soliciting  personal information from anyone under 18 or using information obtained from  My Space services to harass or harm other people among other terms.

If convicted on all four counts, Drew could face up to 20 years in federal prison. 

“This adult woman allegedly used the internet to target a young teenage girl, with horrendous ramifications”  said United States Attorney Thomas P. O’Brien.  “After a thorough investigation  we have charged Ms. Drew with criminally accessing My space and violating rules established to protect young vulnerable people.  Any adult who uses the internet to a social-gathering website to bully or harass another person, particularly a young teenage girl needs to realize that their actions can have serious consequences. ” 

Drew’s co-conspirators include her daughter and another teenager, Ashley Grills, who helped set up the MySpace account and sent comments to Megan Meier that contributed to her suicide.  It was reported earlier this year that Grills was given immunity for her cooperation with investigation. 

When asked at the press conference what this might mean for other people who engage in similar behavior, O’Brien responded that , “Anyone who engages in harassment and violates the law similar to Ms. Drew is subject to investigation and prosecution on the right facts.”

 784.048 f.s.      Abstract:

 (2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of staling, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s.  741.30 or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person’s property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously,and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking a felony of the third degree.

this blog entry is a recreation of the email sent to the police department  (ccsoweb@colliersheriff.net) on Thursday September 4th 2008 @ 2:23pm I am typing this blog on Tuesday November 23rd at 2:04pm

To Whom it may concern,                                                    9/04/2008

I am writing today Thursday September 04, 2008 to reconfirm conversations i have had these past weeks with various police officers.  I am writing to receive a copy of the report that should have been written and to find the progress of the case.

Caller ID Spoofing about to be outlawed
two bills making their way through the House and Senate will outlaw caller ID spoofing.
By Ken Fisher/ last updated June 27th 2007 *8:49PM 

“Today the  US Senate Committee on Commerce Science and Transportation has passed S. 704 a bill that would make it a crime to spoof caller Id Dubbed the “truth in Caller ID Act of 2007” the bill would outlaw causing “any caller identification service to transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification information “via” any telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service.”  Law enforcement is exempted from the rule.

While  we all probably wish this would outlaw caller ID blocking( think “private”) it won’t The proposed legislation only targets misleading caller ID spoofing such as pranking your buddy by sending along “Bush GHW” with your next VoIP call.

On a serious note, caller ID spoofing can be used to bypass dial-in systems that use your calling location to determine who you are. 

 Article concerning spoofing: 

copyright 1995-2009 AARP.  All rights reserved.  A Member of AARP Global Network

From AARP Bulletin  today/  Ask Sid:  Who is that really on my caller id?

By Sid Kirchheimer/ AARP Bullitan Today July 3, 2009
Q.  How does telephone spoofing work an is it legal? 

A.  Caller ID spoofing lets callers hide their real phone number and instead display another number on the recipient’s called ID service, along with the name of the company or individual registered for that number.  Such services, widely available  on the internet and costing as little as $10.00 per house of calling time, are legal and have traditionally been used by collection agencies police private investigators and others who want to hide their identities. 

But increasingly, scammers are using spoofing services to commit identity theft.  They pretend to be calling from a bank, credit card company or a government agency and the recipients may feel safe revealing personal information such as bank account and social security numbers because the name and phone number of the legitimate company or agency appears on their caller ID.

Once a scammer has subscribed to spoofing service getting the victim’s caller ID to display a fake number is easy.  The spoofer simply enters the recipients number and the fake caller ID number on a Web form or telephone touch pad, and the service completes the call.

The practice has become even more widespread with the growth of the technology known as voice over Internet protocol.  VoIP phone services such as Skype and Vonage use computer addresses instead of actual phone numbers to connect calls over the Internet.  That means their subscribers can choose any area code and phone number that’s available in the entire county and scammers can take advantage of that flexibility to choose a deceptive number. 

FLORIDA IS THE ONLY STATE THAT HAS BANNED CALLER ID SPOOFING MAKING IT A FIRST DEGREE MISDEMEANOR AND SOME OTHER STATES ARE CONSIDERING  SIMILAR LAWS.

No matter where you live, people who have signed up for the National Do Not Call Registry ( file complaints)
about unsolicited spoofing calls with the Federal Trade Commission or their STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL’s OFFICE

The bottom line:  Because spoofing is easily done and enforcement has been las, you should never provide sensitive information to any caller.  Instead, look up the number of the company that claims to be calling and dial it yourself.