CHAPTER
123
To defend against online attack, one must understand the meth-
ods used by attackers. There are as many kinds of online attacks as
there are malicious attackers, but attacks can be roughly categorized
by the content of the attack and the means by which the attack is
spread. These are the same categories that professionals use when an-
alyzing and defusing online reputation attacks.
Be aware: we describe a variety of methods through which rep-
utations are attacked, but this section is not a how-to manual for on-
line reputation attacks. Those who seek to attack others online will
find nothing that is not already available in the metaphoric dark al-
leyways of the Internet. Instead, we offer this section as a guide for
those who seek to understand online attacks or prevent their spread.
If you are reading this in the hope of learning how to attack others,
we kindly ask that you put the book down now before wasting any
more of your own time.
Types of Internet Attacks
Content Versus Method
An online attack can be broken down into two important compo-
nents: the content of the attack, and the method of its distribution.
The content of the attack is the “what”—what the attacker says
or does to make the victim look bad. All too often, the content relates
back to the classics: “sex, lies, and videotape.”
The method of distribution is what the Centers for Disease
Control would call the “vector,” or the means by which the attack is
spread. Attackers can use e-mail, search engines, viral content, and
other means to spread their smears.
Of course, one attacker might utilize several different attacks, each
with its own content and distribution method. Or one particular
smear—a lie, or privacy breach, or manipulated photo—may be dis-
tributed by several methods. By examining the unique content and dis-
tribution methods of each attack, you can learn how to defeat them.
The Content of an Attack
The Simple Lie
The most common online attack is simple: the attacker spreads a
damaging lie about the victim. A flat lie of this type is considered to
be libel under many state laws. The subject of the lie can be anything
from a playground insult to an accusation of infidelity. Some classic
attacks are common online: attackers often claim that the victim is
sexually promiscuous, has committed an act of marital infidelity, or
has a sexually transmitted disease.
A purported “dating advice” website called DontDateHimGirl.com
provides some useful statistics about the ways people attack each other.
The site claims to be a guide to help women avoid dating cheaters,
liars, and cads. Users of the site can post “reviews” of the men they have
dated. The reviewer remains anonymous, but the men are described by
full name, location, and sometimes photograph. Some of the reviews
Wild West 2.0124
are likely true. But, at least one person has sued the site, alleging that
the anonymous reviews were not only entirely false but posted by peo-
ple whom he had never met.
1
To determine what kind of allegations
capture the most attention, we searched more than 50,000 reviews that
were posted. Of these, more than 19,000 call the man a “cheater” or a
“cheat,” more than 8,500 claim that the purportedly single man is mar-
ried, more than 2,300 allege that the man has an STD, almost 1,000
claim the man has a disease generally, and more than 300 claim the
main has AIDS. The prevalence of these particular allegations shows
the power of these attacks. By comparison, only 100 reviews call the
man a “slob,” and only 700 reviews call the man “lazy.” In life, there are
probably more slobs than cheaters, but, among angry ex-lovers and un-
requited suitors, it is 190 times more popular to call your ex- a “cheat”
than a “slob.”
Another typical lie is that the victim has committed some so-
cially unacceptable act. A lie like “Joe is an axe murderer” is too ob-
vious—nobody will believe it. Instead, attackers of this kind focus on
plausible smears that may play into a stereotype of the victim or a
fear shared by the audience. A sample accusation of this kind is that
a teacher or day care worker abuses children. This kind of attack pre-
dates the Internet. In the 1980s, there was a panic over so-called “sa-
tanic ritual abuse.” Talk shows and news programs were filled with
reports that thousands of children were being sexually abused by cult
members, with some reports going as far as to allege human sacrifice
and cannibalism.
2
Gossip magazines featured lurid tales of alleged
abuse committed against celebrities when they were younger.
3
Thou-
sands of child care workers were accused of being members of Satan-
worshipping cults that abused children as part of their sacred rites.
Some of the accused were jailed, many lost their jobs, and hundreds
lost standing in their communities.
While it is impossible to know the truth behind every allegation,
many high-profile accusations were discredited,
4
and one study of
12,000 accusations of satanic ritual abuse revealed none that could be
corroborated.
5
But the complete absence of hard evidence did not stop
Types of Internet Attacks 12 5
the accusations from ruining lives and careers.
6
The story demonstrates
that accusations that are hard to disprove can spread dangerously
quickly without anyone stopping to closely evaluate the evidence—es-
pecially when the accusations tap into other common fears.
The Half-Truth
True or partially true statements can also be the subject of an online
attack if they are misleading—for example, because they have been
taken out of context. Attacks of this kind are often legally actionable
as libel or under a theory called “false light,” but an online attack can
be harmful even if it does not trigger legal liability.
A simple example of the importance of context is the statement
“Jim took a knife and cut Tim’s stomach open.” If you envision a bar
brawl, then Jim seems guilty. But if Jim is a surgeon trying to save
Tim’s life, then Jim seems to be a good Samaritan. The only thing
that changed was context. Another classic half-truth is elegant in its
simplicity: a disgruntled sailor wrote in the ship’s log “captain sober
today.”
7
The statement was entirely true—the captain was sober that
day—but the statement leaves a clear (and false) impression that the
captain’s sobriety was noteworthy for its rarity.
This kind of attack can be particularly damaging because any-
body who investigates it will be able to verify some of the facts un-
derlying the story. As they say, the best lie always has a kernel of
truth. Rumors based on a kernel of truth can spread very rapidly: in
1954, an urban legend in Seattle claimed that a powerful new radio
transmitter was dangerous to human health. The proof, some said,
was that the radio waves had dug tiny pits into thousands of wind-
shields across the Seattle area.
8
The story caused a panic as people
inspected their windshields and found hundreds of tiny pits. As it
turns out, the transmitter had nothing to do with the pits; they were
simply the result of normal wear-and-tear on glass windshields and
usually went completely unnoticed. But the tiny kernel of truth al-
lowed the panic to grow out of control.
Wild West 2.0126
The Manipulated Photo
There are some things you just can’t un-see.
—COMMON INTERNET SAYING
Manipulated photographs can be used as a form of online attack.
Photographs are a particularly powerful medium of attack because
images are considered trustworthy and because photos tap into sub-
conscious visual associations. One study of the Tiananmen Square
incident in 1989 showed just how suggestive doctored photos can be.
The iconic image of one man standing in front of a tank shows him
standing alone—but when volunteers were shown a manipulated
picture of the showdown that added large crowds, the volunteers
(falsely) remembered reports of mass violence.
9
Photo manipulation is almost as old as photography itself. Some
scholars believe that an iconic 1860s photograph of Abraham Lin-
coln is actually a composite of Lincoln’s head placed on the body of
prominent politician John Calhoun.
10
The digital revolution has de-
mocratized photo manipulation and made image manipulation eas-
ier than ever. Digital photography has made it possible to instantly
share personal photos with friends and relatives around the world.
But, thanks to modern software, many users now have the ability to
perform manipulations that once took sophisticated darkroom
equipment. In reference to the popular Photoshop® digital editing
software, manipulated images are often referred to as “photo-
shopped” images or “photoshops”—despite the attempts of Adobe’s
lawyers to prevent the use of “Photoshop” as a generic term for photo
manipulation.
Sometimes the manipulation is obvious, such as placing a cap-
tion or speech bubble on a photo. Any lie can be the subject of the
caption or speech bubble. False quotations can also be attributed
with this method. Despite its simplicity, this can be a damaging at-
tack if carried out well.
Another powerful form of manipulation is to add or subtract
Types of Internet Attacks 12 7
..................Content has been hidden....................
You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.