Cyber Monday Shoppers and Retailers Beware of Scams and Attacks

 Cyber Monday Shoppers and Retailers Beware of Scams and Attacks

December 2, 2013 marks Cyber Monday, the day when Internet retailers expect to experience a major surge in traffic thanks to people shopping online for the holiday season. The concept of Cyber Monday, or Mega Monday as it’s known in Europe, was introduced back in 2005. It takes place after the Thanksgiving holiday weekend, when people return to the office and buy Christmas presents from their work computers, according to retailers. Some dismissed Cyber Monday as marketing hype but over time, the day has grown in significance, thanks to competitive deals on offer from many major retailers. In 2012, the 500 biggest retailers in the US took more than US$206.8 million on Cyber Monday while in Europe, approximately €565 million was spent on this day. This year, experts believe that Cyber Monday sales will grow by 13.1 percent as consumers increasingly move from buying presents in bricks-and-mortar stores to shopping online.

 

However, considering the hype surrounding Cyber Monday and the expected traffic on ecommerce sites on this date, there could be a chance that attackers will take advantage of the day to target both consumers and retailers. According to a recent study from RSA Security and the Ponemon Institute, 64 percent of retail-focused IT professionals have seen an increase in attacks and fraud attempts during high traffic days such as Cyber Monday. But just one third of these IT professionals take special precautions to ensure high availability and integrity of websites on these days. Worse still, the estimated direct cost of a cyberattack around the holiday season is believed to be US$8,000 a minute. 

 

Attacks against retailers

There are several ways that attackers could target retailers and consumers during Cyber Monday. Identity theft is one possible threat and it has plagued many stores and customers in recent years. The increased traffic on Cyber Monday could entice attackers to target vulnerabilities in retailers’ infrastructure in order to plant malware that could steal consumers’ information. Our recent research found that 53 percent of the websites scanned by Symantec contained unpatched and potentially exploitable vulnerabilities. 

 

Another possible threat to businesses on Cyber Monday could be distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks. Many retailers have already experienced the effects of such attacks. In 2012, among the UK firms that were hit with DDoS attacks, 43 percent were in the retail sector. Cyber Monday could prove to be an attractive date for attackers targeting retailers with DDoS attacks. Attackers have been known to undertake DDoS attacks on dates of significance, as they are aware that their efforts will get noticed if they attack on high traffic days such as Cyber Monday. Attackers could also use DDoS attacks to distract Web administrators from other malicious activities that they could be carrying out elsewhere. DDoS attacks have been occurring more frequently, as there has been a reported 54 percent increase in attacks in the second quarter of the year. 

 

End users

Of course, retailers aren’t the only ones who should protect themselves this Cyber Monday. Consumers should also make sure that they shop safely online. This year, analysts expect that more consumers than ever will be searching for deals through their mobile device. Marketing research firm eMarketer believes that mobile commerce will generate US$41.68 billion of the total US$262.3 billion in ecommerce sales for the year, representing a 68.2 percent increase in mobile commerce sales from 2012. However, the recent 2013 Norton report showed that while 38 percent of smartphone users experienced mobile cybercrime in the past 12 months, almost half of mobile device owners didn’t implement basic protections such as passwords, security software or data backups. Even though some consumers may opt to shop on their mobile device rather than their computer, they could still be vulnerable to the threat of cybercrime.

 

Scammers will still be relying on more well established techniques to target both businesses and consumers this Cyber Monday. Symantec has found a recent spam campaign that tells the email’s recipient that they need to prepare for Cyber Monday if they want to make money from it. The email also includes two links claiming to offer advice on how to take advantage of the day. These links redirect users to a spam Web page that includes a video to trick users into thinking the page is genuine.

 

Figure. Spam email claiming that the message’s recipient can make money from Cyber Monday

 

Stay protected

Consumers and retailers should heed the following advice to stay safe this Cyber Monday.

• Web administrators should ensure that any potential infrastructure vulnerabilities are plugged before Cyber Monday in order to prevent attackers from taking advantage of these flaws. They should also monitor network traffic for any suspicious activity.
• Retailers should ensure that their employees are trained to understand the risks associated with social engineering attacks that are designed to breach their companies’ systems, which could affect consumers. Similarly, other companies should also train their staff to be aware of phishing scams around this day, in case employees decide to shop online from their work computers. 
• Consumers should use the latest version of their Internet browsers to shop online and should ensure that their software, including antivirus software, is up-to-date. Symantec offers consumers the latest Norton solutions for both computers and mobile devices.
• Customers should only purchase goods through reputable online retailers and should check if the website that they’re shopping on is secured through Secure Sockets Layer (SSL). They can tell if the site is secured in this way if the URL includes “https” rather than just “http”. Consumers should avoid inputting financial information on sites without this protection.
• Users should always avoid clicking on links in unsolicited emails, especially if they offer deals that seem too good to be true. They should always check legitimate retailers’ official websites to see what deals are on offer. Users should also never send sensitive financial information through email.
• Consumers should monitor their bank or credit card activity over the holiday season and report any suspicious purchases or unauthorized money transfers.

 

Cyber-Harassment: What the Online Community Can Do to Stop the Trolls

Cyber-Harassment: What the Online Community Can Do to Stop the Trolls

The Internet is a bountiful source of information, commerce, entertainment and enlightenment. We share stories and pictures online. We cheer up our friends with encouraging messages. We read the news and share our opinions about the issues of the day. We watch funny videos and search for jobs, mates and rare copies of Ramones albums. Cyberspace is no longer a science fiction concept, but an alternate universe that exists in our reality, one that we can tap into at any time, from anywhere. 

It is a wondrous place.

However, as in the real world, you'll also find the corrupt and depraved. Thieves will try to steal your identity. Con artists will attempt to rob you of your affection and cash. And trolls will ambush you, intent on harming your sanity, your self-worth and your reputation.

Over the course of my 22 years in journalism, I have been threatened numerous times. Sometimes the subjects of my stories didn't like having their misdeeds aired to the public, and so they lashed out. Sometimes, the people involved were just nuts.

I once wrote a story about an assistant fire chief who got caught driving drunk. A day later, an unidentified man left a message on my answering machine saying that if I ever have a fire at my house, don't bother calling the fire department because they wouldn't come. 

A man who was charged with sexually assaulting a woman in her dorm room once vowed to hunt me down and rape me "til I bled to death" because I had the temerity to write about the case. If only these comments could have been used at trial; it might have changed the outcome. Unfortunately, he was later acquitted because the judge said sex without a woman's consent was not rape unless the attacker used force or the threat of force. Apparently, begging him to stop the assault was not enough.

One man was so incensed about the fact that a story on Lady Gaga had appeared on the front page of a website where I worked that he emailed and said he wanted the U.S. government to kidnap me, throw me in Guantanamo, torture me for 10 years and then dump my body on my parents' lawn. I wasn't even the person who published the innocuous profile.

More recently, I have been cyber-harassed, and it wasn't in response to anything I had actually written or said. Instead, someone created a fake profile bearing a stranger's name and used that account to post horrible anti-Semitic comments online. Then someone apparently stole a picture from my Website and digitally added it to displays of those comments, implying that the comments came from me. Some trolls then took to their blog and to Twitter to write about it. The sum effect of all of this slandered my reputation as a journalist by alleging that I was a bigot and a coward. Such lies not only defame my character, but my employers' as well. 

People of all ages, races, religions and nationalities are considered possible marks for trolls, but female journalists are a popular target. Why just in the past month, several female journalists have been threatened with bomb attacks online. Imagine logging onto one of your favorite micro blogging sites and seeing this:

"A BOMB HAS BEEN PLACED OUTSIDE YOUR HOME. IT WILL GO OFF AT EXACTLY 10.47PM ON A TIMER AND TRIGGER DESTROYING EVERYTHING."

So how are we, the innocent parties, supposed to respond to these despicable actions? Here is some of the advice I've received:

"Don't feed the trolls. Just ignore them. They'll go away."

"You need to develop a tougher skin. It's the Internet after all."

And my personal favorite, "Well, that's the price of fame."

Basically, don't feed the egos of the attention-starved people who use the Internet to (often anonymously) defame, harass and frighten. Or worse, accept that this is how the world should work instead of trying to change it.

To which, I call bullshit.

I would not tolerate such behavior in person, and I am certainly not about to do so online. Thankfully, I'm not the only one who feels this way. Others have also decided to fight back. 

Emma Barnett, women's editor for the Telegraph in London, tried to ignore the bomb threat she received by meeting with friends at a local pub. It was, after all, just one of many online attacks she has experienced on Twitter and on her articles for years. Barnett was also reticent to contact the police because she didn't have much faith in their understanding of the problem. Barnett eventually decided to share her story online in order to launch a conversation about the best ways to deal with such abuse.

Caroline Criado-Perez is a freelance writer and feminist campaigner who successfully lobbied the Bank of England to feature a female face (other than the Queen's) on British bank notes. For this, she received numerous online threats of rape and murder. Examples include: "Wouldn't mind tying this bitch to my stove. Hey sweetheart -- give me a shout when you're ready to be put in your place" and "Everyone report @CriadoPerez for rape and murder threats and also being a cunt #malemasterrace."

Criado-Perez could have ignored these comments and hoped that none of the threats were serious. Instead she and other Twitter users began adding the hashtag #SHOUTINGBACK to their tweets. She also wrote a brilliant essay on the topic in which she talks about how difficult it is for people to openly discuss the issue of cyber-harassment.

"I am making people uncomfortable. If I continue to 'feed the trolls,' I deserve all I get. Never mind that ignoring or blocking only results in new accounts being set up -- or the trolls simply finding a new victim. Never mind that my 'trolls' are trying to shut me up. Never mind: take this awkward truth away," Criado-Perez wrote.

After learning about Criado-Perez's story, Kim Graham took to Change.org to lobby Twitter into installing a "report abuse" button on all tweets. 

"Abuse on Twitter is common; sadly too common. And it frequently goes ignored. We need Twitter to recognise that it's current reporting system is below required standards," she wrote. To date, more than 135,000 people have signed the petition. 

Catherine Mayer, TIME's Europe editor, has often been on the receiving end of sexist comments and cyber-bullying. But when she became the target of a bomb threat on Twitter and found out other female journalists had been victimized, she contacted police.

"I think this is something that is never properly taken into account. People always say of individual incidents, 'that's not very serious is it? Don't let it bother you,'" Mayer said. "But it's the accretion of all of these incidents of low level abuse that matter, and that's very true of female journalists. Both in the virtual world, and the real world, we encounter throughout our working lives low level abuse and low level harassment all the time."

Hadley Freeman, a columnist for the Guardian who recently received a bomb threat online, reported it to the police and then took to her column to discuss the problem of trolls.

"It doesn't matter if you think you are fighting the feminist cause by railing at newspaper columnists who you believe are insufficiently feminist, covertly racist, blatantly transphobic or anything else. Abusing people is not a good way to get anyone to consider your complaints seriously. As Helen Lewis wrote in the New Statesman last week, 'Being a dick to people on Twitter is not activism. Hashtag truesay,'" Freeman wrote.

Think Progress reporter Alyssa Rosenberg has tweeted the full names and institutional affiliations of trolls under the #ThreatoftheDay hashtag. "Threaten me," Rosenberg wrote, "and I will cheerfully do my part to make sure that when employers, potential dates, and your family Google you, they will find you expressing your desire to see a celebrity assault a blogger."

The Everyday Sexism Project seeks to expose the breadth of the problem by cataloguing the abuse women experience on a daily basis. Since British writer Laura Bates launched the site in 2012, it has received more than 25,000 stories about women being followed, humiliated and attacked (online and off).

The International News Safety Institute plans to study the issue as well, and will launch a global survey into violence against women journalists and the nature of the dangers they face in relation to their work, from physical threats to cyber-bulling. All women working in the news media are invited to participate. 

And then there's the unmasking option, which Gawker did in 2012 when it revealed that Michael Brutsch was actually the troll known as Violentacrez on Reddit. As writer Adrian Chen noted, "If you are capable of being offended, Brutsch has almost certainly done something that would offend you, then did his best to rub your face in it. His speciality is distributing images of scantily-clad underage girls, but as Violentacrez he also issued an unending fountain of racism, porn, gore, misogyny, incest, and exotic abominations yet unnamed, all on the sprawling online community Reddit. At the time I called Brutsch, his latest project was moderating a new section of Reddit where users posted covert photos they had taken of women in public, usually close-ups of their asses or breasts, for a voyeuristic sexual thrill." 

Brutsch was eventually fired from his real-world job after being outed.

Now as we all know female journalists aren't the only ones being targeted by trolls. There have been way too many stories in the news about men using Craigslist to send strangers to rape ex-girlfriends, ex-employees trying get back at their former bosses by publishing defamatory comments and subscribing them to porn sites/magazines, and teens posting vicious rumors and lies about fellow students. The devastation felt by these victims is incalculable, and in some cases even led to suicide. 

This type of behavior has to stop.

In recent years, politicians and law enforcement have stepped up efforts to combat the thieves and con artists. They've passed safety measures to battle against fraud, and created avenues for cybercrime victims to file complaints. Yet when it comes to trolls, there is generally little legal recourse. Victims can document the threats and defamatory comments, but that does not stop the abusers nor does it keep them from attacking others. So what else can we, as citizens of the Internet, do to end such atrocious behavior? 

* Education is key to changing attitudes and making clear that the denigration of women and violence against them are unacceptable, Vivienne Hayes, chief executive of the Women's Resource Centre, told CNN. "I hope the horrendous level of this kind of trolling is going to push this issue into the forefront" and prompt government action.

* Freedom of speech has its limits, and people need to learn what they are. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. You can't threaten violence with the intent of putting someone at risk for bodily harm or death. You do not have a constitutional right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization.

* If you see something, say something. Don't allow trolls to take over your blogs or social media feeds. If you spy terrible comments, delete them. If the abusers continue to spew their hatred at you, ban their IP address. And if you notice that trolls are attacking someone else, don't ignore the problem. Stand up for the victim and make it clear that such cruelty is not acceptable under any circumstances.

* Internet providers and Website administrators must be more proactive against threatening and defamatory speech. Earlier this month, Twitter announced that it would create an "in-tweet" report button and roll it out to all platforms. This is an excellent start. Hiring moderators, banning users who abuse others, blocking anonymous users and sharing threats with authorities would be a great second step.

* Train the police. Many departments are becoming savvy social media users, as evidenced by the official usage of Twitter and Facebook and Instagram and Google+ to share Amber Alerts and BOLOs. But officers also need to learn how to deal with cases of cyber-bullying, cyber-stalking and cyber-scams.

* Arrest the perpetrators. Police in England did just that last month, in response to online threats made against Criado-Perez and politician Stella Creasy. Perhaps a bit of jail time will make trolls think twice before typing out another online threat.

* Lastly, the Internet community must discuss this issue, and create clear and helpful guidelines for victims of online abuse.

No one should have to suffer in silence.

Thinking about the virtual 2

50% of the group actively asserted that digital technologies make real life easier, whilst 75% of the group agreed that online communication supports offline community and this was used to initiate a discussion of how the virtual relates to the ‘real’. The group were asked how they conceptualised these modes and whether together they constituted a process.

Elaine asserted that virtual life

is part of the process [of real life], it’s not totally separate, because somehow, there is some way that these are actually connected to each other, the real life and virtual life.

Kevin echoed this with an assertion that digital technologies

have the potential to connect [virtual life] to real life […] and in some cases [they do].

Anthony took up this idea and forecast that technological development could facilitate the connectedness of virtual and real community, to the extent that this ‘will be the norm in the future’. He asserted that digital communication is ‘normal now’, a part of everyday life. It is not inconceivable that technology can determine the extent to which community can exist online. Herring refers to Markus, Spears and Lea and Walther and asserts that

technological determinism […] was vigorously critiqued in the early to mid-1990s […] but has been making a quiet comeback as a result of a growing body of empirical evidence that the medium can shape the message, or at least, how the message is packaged and processed (Herring 2004:26).

Arguably, it is not the medium shaping the message, as social, economic, political and cultural factors are shaping the medium. In any case, technological development could enable communication forms, such as high fidelity video projections of members of communities, coupled with high fidelity audio or development of realistic virtual worlds for example. This could allow transmission of physical cues and would increase the resemblance of online and offline worlds.

Elaine recounted a physical meeting, based in Malaysia , of an online group involved with an online role playing game called ‘Ragnarok online’. The members of the group were in the same ‘guild’, a collective that competes against other guilds for possession of castles. She asserted that

we [had] a gathering to get to know each other [and to discuss] the next war and strategy.

This exemplifies a group meeting based on shared interests and it can be seen that processes of virtualisation and actualisation are taking place here; initially, the individuals joined an online group to pursue interests or to fulfil needs that may or may not have been associated with digital technology. In turn, through online interaction, the group met face-to-face to discuss strategies for the game, but also to broaden their knowledge of each other. In turn, they met online to pursue their strategic aims, perhaps resulting in a fulfilment of an original ‘real’ life aim. That is to say, that the process can be characterised as stages of actual to virtual to actual to virtual and similarly, within this process, microprocesses of virtualisation and actualisation in the form of message exchange can be seen.

Elaine recited similar evidence of two of her friends who met online playing Ragnarok. After a year of online interaction, ‘virtually having a relationship’, whilst residing in different countries, they eventually met face-to-face and today are still in this relationship. As above, this shows a process of a real life situation, a desire to meet a partner (actual), using a virtual community to initiate this (virtual) and developing the relationship in real life (actual).

It was established from Elaine that there is a hierarchy within a guild, as there is a ‘guild master’ or ‘leader’, usually the founder of the guild. Elaine was asked if the hierarchical structure remained in place when the guild met face-to-face. Elaine perceived that the power relationship dissolved offline and characterised the relationship as one of equality, as ‘friends’, although she asserted that ‘[the guild leader] wants to act like the leader’, as he holds a high-powered managerial position in a company.

Kevin asked Elaine, when meeting offline, are the roles, attitudes and attributes of members ‘reproduced’ offline?. That is to ask, are identities and relationships structured in the same way?:

If there is somebody in your group who is […] not there all the time [and] they don’t really play that well, [when meeting face-to-face] would he be seen as [inferior] to someone who is really dedicated [and] plays the game well?

Elaine replied

everyone has to have their own opinion. […] The gap between our master with us is the age and the way he do things […] because he is dealing in business. […] To most of us, it is just a game.

She continued to say that when the guild meet offline, the strategies that the leader proposes, are presented in business terms and apparently informed by business and management principles. Elaine suggested that the process of selecting a master was based on skills, knowledge and possessions related to the game. A factor that roots the game in the capitalist system is the fact that possessions can be traded for ‘real cash’. By Elaine talking in terms of ‘master’, it can be construed, although is not necessarily so, that these relationships at least retain a trace of their structure.

Kevin compared the game to discussion in a chat room. He asserted that when discussing a certain subject, somebody with ‘superior’ knowledge is likely to hold more weight and this power of knowledge could be transposed into an offline community. To invert this, presumably it can be maintained that despite a diminution of status cues, offline community structures can retain some of their character online. These points can be seen to exemplify a continuity between on and offline community.

In discussing online games as communities, Anthony asserted that

it’s more personal and I can see myself having fun. […] I think this is a good example of a community.

Potentially, at least 75% of the group felt that online gaming constituted a community. Anthony’s attitude seemed to change from earlier discussion and this raised an issue of context, in that notions of fun through playing games could allow a different introduction to online community, one that allowed pleasant associations that seemed to counterbalance perceived problems such as surveillance. A role playing game was seen as a valid form of ‘acting’, because pretending is the nature of the game and all the players know this, whereas, perhaps with other forms of online interaction, the ‘rules’ of the ‘game’ are blurred; it is unclear who is pretending and who is not, leading some individuals to generalise that everyone is pretending. It might also be difficult for participants to identify whether norms are actual or simulations or both. This can be seen to reflect physical community, although the Internet can add a layer of simulation, that in some contexts, to some individuals, may present a barrier to a feeling of community. However, simultaneously, this seems to reflect imagined ‘physical’ community mediated by broadcast or newspapers for example.

Elaine discussed the process of buying a mobile telephone. She pointed out that product details available on manufacturers’ and retailers’ web presences differed to the information available on a bulletin board; for the former, products would be presented in their best light, whereas on the latter, anecdotal evidence of actual use of the products was available, outlining a range of views. As Anthony put it,

the community knows more about a product than […] the company does.

Elaine asserted that

within a group of your friends you might not get sufficient information, […] but with a forum [you can find out] which phone is the best before [buying one].

This demonstrates a ‘weak community tie’, to utilise different resources for different needs, in this case a community tie that can provide product reviews. Again, these points highlight the virtual as a process; researching, using a virtual community, then perhaps purchasing offline and potentially reiterating feedback into the virtual community.

The group were asked if they thought that the Internet reflected the disordered nature of ‘real’ life. Kevin agreed with this and pointed to the unregulated nature of the Internet and the asserted that freedom of speech is such that there is an abundance of information available for questionable activities. Elaine responded and asserted that there is freedom of speech but ‘you can’t confirm that [information] given is 100% true’ and signalled caution in this respect. During this discussion, there was an obvious awareness of participants of the perhaps unethical nature of some activities and communities on the Internet: one topic mentioned was mobile telephone ‘workarounds’ that obviate payment, including ‘cracks’ and unblockers’, information about which had been posted on bulletin boards.

It was proposed to the group that such communities can therefore be seen to develop a field of knowledge. Elaine and Anthony agreed and he asserted that

It puts people together to think, […] by scale. […] You could type in any question [in a bulletin board system] or even start a debate, […] come back a week later [(Anthony)], […] and find hundreds of people interested in that subject (Kevin).

Again, this embodies the idea of a collective intelligence and a process of interaction with physical community and returning to an online community, suggesting processes of real world problem resolution through online means, such as communities that share information about mobile telephone ‘unblockers’. The quote above also refers to ‘hundreds of people’ and an order of ‘thousands’ was mentioned during discussion, illustrating the scale of some online communities. Also, there was a suggestion that these knowledge communities develop knowledge exponentially, one idea perhaps generating several others, an occurrence that is probably not so concentrated in physical communities.

By way of a conclusion, the group were asked ‘when is a virtual community a community?’.

Kevin asserted that

It is when you become part of a group

Anthony discussed Elaine’s experience in gaming communities and asserted that

[Elaine] is a good example. […] You got inside a community, […] then got to know people and now you trust these people, because […] they are friends. First, she just went to a community because she is interested in [online gaming] and now you have made friends in there […] and now [new] people are entering your community.

Kevin added that

You have made a real community from a virtual community [(and in the context of a gaming community)], the only way to get to your real community is through the virtual, so that’s the access, that’s the door , to get to become part of your community, […] you have to go through the virtual, through the game.

Elaine responded and asserted that

In a country or a city that is so huge, [online gamers] might be connected between your friends […] but you never get to know them, [so, a gaming community] is another way to get to know each other, from the virtual to the real community.

Anthony asserted that

[Elaine’s experience] is a perfect example of what online communities are meant to do, […] because you’ve got your own community now, […] other people enter it and […] it’s the norm for you.

Kevin asserted that a virtual community

will never be real as you won’t have the other senses that make us human.

Community and virtual community

Community and virtual community were discussed together. The group were asked ‘what are your views of community?’.

Daz pointed out that ‘we are a community right now’ and Kevin interjected, a ‘community of people talking about communities’. In this context, it appeared that this suggested proximity and an emphasis on communication and similar interests. Kevin asserted that

an online community is very similar to an offline community, it has to be similar, in the sense that, in the real world […] you have people interacting, they can communicate, they can help each other […] they can see each other […] they don’t have to speak if they don’t want to [, they are] very similar.

For Kevin, the word ‘community’ evoked feelings of

communicating unitedly […] about something similar […,] saying something or doing something together [as] one mind […] There are loads of different communities [on the Internet,] where people who have the same view or same interests want to communicate unitedly about one subject.

Again, shared interests or beliefs are central here and there is a feeling that this unites individuals. The metaphor of ‘one mind’, ‘together’, echoes Lévy’s notion of ‘collective intelligence’, a synergy, characterised by ‘a universally distributed intelligence that is enhanced, coordinated, and mobilized in real time’ (Lévy 1999:16). ‘[O]ne subject’ implies extremely specialised divisions of interests.

Elaine thought that when communicating through the Internet

there is still a gap in between people; where one bunch of you can actually hang out together in a place and have a drink […,] chit chat [and] relax [, with a] feeling of enjoying it, instead of facing a computer […] talking to the computer. […] Communicating [online:] the feeling is still different.

There appears a suggestion that the limitations of technology prevent any interaction that is comparable to face-to-face interaction with another individual, almost as if the computer is another person, a gatekeeper, a form of ‘noise’. It was considered that this might relate to the size or nature of the computer equipment, although Elaine was asked if using Skype telephony felt the same as using a mobile telephone and she confirmed that it did. One way to account for these feelings is telepresence. Co-presence offers a ‘multiplicity of symbolic cues’ and this is perhaps why Elaine noticed a ‘gap’, a ‘difference’ (Slevin 2000:79). Although verbal exchange offers limited physical cues, such as intonation, punctuation and volume for example, with written communication, different, less effective cues are used. It can be seen that there is a dramatic contrast between ‘drink’, ‘chit chat’ and ‘relax’, associated with multisensory face-to-face interaction, and the relationally arduous ‘face-to-computer’ interaction. Furthermore, although ‘talking to the computer’ may literally have been the case, this infers that Elaine’s friends are inside the computer, which suggests that psychological barriers prevent a feeling of ‘being there’, even if ‘being there’ could be computer simulated. It seems that ‘non-communicative’ feelings of intimacy illustrate a fundamental difference between physical and online life.

Elaine continued and asserted that

the purpose for getting online […] is to get connected to the people

and she used online communication, ‘for convenience’, because she was unable to see her friends from Malaysia on a face-to-face basis. So, in this context, the reason for using a computer to communicate is not to replace face-to-face interaction, but as a ‘second best’: some inferior contact is seen as better than none.

In a sense, these feelings were echoed by Anthony, but in another context: He raised an issue of surveillance and asserted that

I prefer face-to-face communication [as] the computer feels like a third person, […] I don’t feel settled. […] I don’t believe in network systems, because that’s too much information given out.

In light of this and in the context of unsettling feelings such as paranoia, the group were asked ‘do you think the downsides [to virtual life are] similar to the downsides of real life?’. This was asked in order to ascertain whether these feelings were only associated with online life and to reveal the feelings that participants associated with online life and how these compared to offline life.

Anthony asserted that

In a virtual community you could [characterise participants] as alias people […] but at the same time, I know I am not being myself, […] it’s like I’m acting [,…] acting, just to be in a community, to fit in […] not being myself.

It was put forth to the group that in everyday life, there may be hops from identity to identity depending on context, often subconsciously. But Anthony, by ‘acting’ meant that there was somehow a conscious, intentional and unnatural effort to change identity, as he did not perceive any day-to-day meanderings of identity that there might be, as acting. Perhaps this is why he felt that others were not themselves, if indeed they were and are. Jones refers to Turkle and asserts that ‘one can have multiple identities in cyberspace; moreover, one can shift identities rather easily’ (Jones 1998:28). In Lévy’s terms, ‘the individual becomes a molecular vector of collective intelligence, multiplying his active surfaces, complicating his interfaces’ (Lévy 1997:160). This identity fluidity is not necessarily a cyberspatial function, as this can be viewed as part of ‘the project of the modern self’, where ‘social relations and social contexts […] are reflexively incorporated into the forging of the project of the self’ (Slevin 2000:159). So in this sense, it can be seen that individuals of modernity are ‘alias people’, with multiple, adaptable identities and it may be that the Internet is a medium that is particularly suited to an expression and representation of this. If this were the case, this is one strand of evidence that highlights continuities between online and offline interaction.

Some of this discussion revealed that there were concerns with traceability and surveillance:

In a community [(offline)] you can pretend to be somebody else, but online […] it is easier to be tracked to who you really are (Kevin)

because of IP (Internet Protocol) addresses, Internet Service Providers, cameras in Internet cafes and traces through credit card details for example. However, Elaine responded that increasingly, surveillance takes place offline, with cameras. A consensus appeared to emerge that network systems should be regarded with suspicion in terms of revealing information. This seemed to apply to both online and offline life although more concern was expressed about online life, perhaps because there is heightened awareness of direct connection to an electronic network.

The group were asked in what way they thought that offline life related to online life

Kevin asserted that he

could never see online community taking over the real, […] as a substitute. Online community […] it’s just another form of communication.

There is a suggestion here, that online interaction is not viewed as ‘virtual community’ at all, but part of a process of real community, viewed as a communication tool, as part of a process of actualisation. That is to say that online community is a means to an end of real community. However, at the same time, they seem to be viewed as separate.

Elaine asserted that

Some people, they are really, really shy when they meet someone in real life, but when they are on the Internet they can talk however they want.

Kevin explored this idea and asserted that

For some people […] online community is better than the real, because […] if someone’s disabled for instance, they might find it easier to meet people online, than they would in real life.

These assertions seem to highlight that a lack of social cues allows anonymity and development of multiple identities and for some this may even be better than ‘real’ community, as for example there is a perception of equality. This equality does not exist in real community and this reflects a discontinuity with online community. Again, Kevin’s assertion seems to divide ‘real’ and ‘online community’.

Anthony suggested that online community is a place of comfort and refuge:

When [people] are typing away at home […] they are free to express themselves […;] you can say something you wouldn’t normally say [as] you can’t get hurt, no one can hit you online, no one can even cuss you, [as] you can block them. They [(online communicators)] are cowards […] acting, they only have confidence because they are in their own environment [(home)].

This would appear to suggest that there is an escape from physical community, into a protected environment, where behaviour is uninhibited, comfortable, characterised by security and confidence, promoting a ‘false sense of security’. Furthermore, commitment and diversity is limited as participants can be blocked and they can exit with a mouse click.

There was a suggestion to the group that online and offline community are not separate. This was promulgated by way of an example: ‘suppose, for example that you met your girlfriend […] in the real world, […] then you send emails, […] is that a separate part of your life?’

Elaine asserted that

I think they are still together

meaning that communication via email to someone known offline is inseparable from the processes of ‘real’ life.

Anthony could be seen to add that

No, they are not separate actually, [but] it feels fake.

There was a discussion about the syntactic construction vis-à-vis semantic content of messages and an implication that it was relatively easy to falsify true feelings.

Elaine asserted that

You can still type up a fantastic email [with] flowery words […] a meaningful email, […] but it might not be what you are saying [(Elaine)], ‘your heart might not be in it’ (Kevin).

Elaine continued and asserted that

When you are talking, you have expressions, […] you have your high pitch and tone, […] you can feel what the other side actually thinks, but when you are writing, there is no emotion in it.

Kevin asserted that online and real life are

definitely separate, but they are similar in some ways.

Elaine added that digital communication supports real life relationships. Online life and real life are not necessarily separate as

it depends on certain situations, how you use [online communication] […] and the reasons [underlying use.] For me, if I have a chance to go out, I would rather spend my time outside with my friends, rather than […] sitting online to chat with them.

Kevin asserted that online and real life are

very different, but similar. […] For instance, if you are having an argument with someone, you would feel kind of angry, in the same way that if you were on the phone […] you can still feel angry, […] so it can trigger off emotion.

Elaine added

that’s why there are emoticons nowadays on instant messaging […] to show [what] you look like.

These formulations appear to maintain that online and offline community are viewed by some as connected and disconnected by others and the former can support the latter. There seems to be a theme that online communication at present is limited in the physical cues that can be transmitted and therefore it is difficult for a participant to know how to respond emotionally. This is exacerbated by suspicion of messages, because a lack of physical cues prohibits confirmation of the intention of a message, that is, it cannot be definitely contextualised instinctively. However, some messages could have very unambiguous semantic meaning and so provoke definite emotional responses. It seems that interpretation of a message is largely a matter of contextualisation, in that it is not the content of the message, but the circumstances of transmission and reception. So, whereas the circumstances of face-to-face interaction often provide sufficient information, those of online interactions seem not to and this suggests that with current technology, there is a significant difference between virtual and physical community, even when community is viewed in terms of communication alone.

Recent use of digital technologies

The focus group was initiated with the question:

When was the last time you used a digital technology to communicate, what was it, who was it with , how many people were involved and how did you perceive the experience in terms of community?

Anthony had used email several minutes before the focus group convened, to contact a girlfriend and Daz used a mobile telephone 3 hours before to send a text message to a friend. Kevin had recently used Yahoo Messenger to discuss university work with other students, whilst Elaine had recently used Microsoft Messenger, Yahoo Messenger and Skype. Elaine asserted that she used the Internet more than a mobile telephone for communication, because the cost of an Internet connection was far less than the cost associated with mobile telephony and furthermore, Skype allowed unlimited calls without cost.

These responses exemplify the range of digital technologies in use and the extent to which they have diffused into everyday life.