Allene Ecker tenses up when the phone rings with an unexpected call.
She’s wary of going out at night.
And during the day, she worries someone will walk into the hair salon where she works and expect a sexual encounter. At a previous job, a man booked a haircut with Ecker, only to arrive expecting to meet a prostitute.
“All of the color went out of my face,” Ecker said. “That’s when I realized: I’m not safe.”
Court records show that incident resulted in a harassment charge for the misled visitor, but nothing for the man who Ecker believes sent the visitor to her.
Only recently did that man, Matthew Kolasa, 31, of Plum, face consequences for what Ecker says was a six-year pattern of online harassment through fake and anonymous social media profiles.
Lower Burrell police ultimately filed charges against Kolasa, accusing him of prowling Reddit forums to find a man who would rape Ecker under the guise of a consensual encounter.
Kolasa pleaded guilty last month to reckless endangerment after prosecutors agreed to drop stalking and harassment charges. He was sentenced to two years of probation and mandatory psychiatric
treatment and was banned from contacting Ecker directly or indirectly.
Kolasa’s attorney, Jeffrey Ries, did not return requests for comment.
Ecker said she believes Kolasa deserved a harsher penalty.
“I just don’t think that’s just misdemeanor worthy,” she said.
Ecker’s case illustrates how online stalking and harassment can often be met with low-level charges, despite the devastating impact it can have on victims, experts and advocates say.
All the while, social media platforms evade liability for much of what happens on their watch under a piece of federal law written before they existed. Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides limited immunity to users and providers of internet services.
It allows web operators to moderate content as they see fit, with few exceptions.
“It was meant by Congress to let the internet flourish,” said Lee Davis, a Pittsburgh attorney who has come to specialize in digital law and cyber crime. “As time has gone by, Facebook, Snapchat and the rest of them have been able to shield themselves using this law.”
Rampant harassment
Ecker isn’t alone when it comes to being harassed online.
Pew Research polling found that 16% of women reported being a victim of online sexual harassment in 2020, up from 6% just three years earlier. Pew also found that 13% of women were stalked online in 2020, up from 7% in 2017.
Men also are victims.
Matthew Herrick, a New York resident, faced abuse in almost the same way as Ecker through the LGBTQ+ dating app Grindr, with unknown men appearing at his home and workplace.
The company emerged unscathed from a civil suit filed in 2017. Section 230 contributed to the unraveling of Herrick’s case.
As in Ecker’s and Herrick’s cases, predators often rely on a web of fake or anonymous profiles to spread sensitive information and put their victims in harm’s way. Current or ex-romantic partners often make for the most effective impersonators.
“They could have everything including your Social Security number, your work schedule,” said Kim Casci-Palangio, who specializes in helping victims of romance scams. “It’s just super easy to do.”
People can monitor for impersonators by periodically searching their own name online, reverse image searching pictures of themselves and setting their social media accounts to private.
“It’s really just doing damage control after that,” Casci-Palangio said.
Holding social media accountable
Davis wants to see social media platforms to do more to root out imposter accounts.
He cites PayPal as an example. The online payments service verifies users’ identities with a one-cent charge to their bank accounts.
Casci-Palangio suggested using fingerprint or other biometric verification systems, but said these methods would likely hurt the social media industry.
Davis agreed.
“It’s a function of money, plain and simple,” Davis said. “They could do it if they wanted to.”
TribLive received comment from Instagram, WhatsApp, Reddit, Snap Inc. and Meta, the company that owns Facebook, about their respective policies related to impersonation, harassment and sexual exploitation.
On each platform, actions like Kolasa’s are expressly prohibited. Reddit and Snap, Snapchat’s parent company, said reporting tools are available within their respective apps or online.
Most major social media platforms release the number of phony profiles deleted from their sites in periodic transparency reports.
Facebook, for example, reported that it deleted more than 27 billion fake profiles between October 2017 and mid-2023 — more than triple the global population.
Limits of law enforcement
Law enforcement agencies also play a role in rooting out bad actors, but they, too, are at the mercy of social media companies.
Unmasking an anonymous cyber criminal requires lots of search warrants and patience, said Lower Burrell police Detective Brandon Nedley.
“Some companies are compliant with law enforcement and others take two months to get back to you,” Nedley said.
Other companies have redirected his requests for information to subsidiaries or provided information that wasn’t relevant to an investigation.
“They aren’t going to go above and beyond to look at it and apply common sense,” Nedley said.
He said he didn’t encounter these hurdles in pursuit of Kolasa.
Bailey Ziencik and the University of Pittsburgh police weren’t so lucky in their efforts to find the source of death threat against her. In 2018, the former Allegheny Township resident received Snapchat messages from a stranger who threatened to slit her throat.
Snap refused to provide police with records it requested during its investigation, Ziencik alleged in a lawsuit that was thrown out by a California judge earlier this year.
“This is the part I can’t get my head around,” said Davis, who represented Ziencik in the case. “Snapchat has no responsibility to respond in a timely manner to search warrants.”
Getting off easy
The charge against Kolasa is typical of an online harassment case in Pennsylvania, according to Laurie MacDonald, president and CEO of the Pittsburgh-based Center for Victims. She said prosecutors have limited options to go after these types of offenders.
Pennsylvania is among the majority of states that don’t have specific laws against online impersonation or cyber bullying, she said. State law also lacks a criminal charge for domestic violence. These cases are typically prosecuted as assaults.
Victims of online harassment can seek protection-from-abuse orders, theoretically blocking contact of any kind, but MacDonald doesn’t find them particularly effective.
“If somebody wants to get at somebody, they’re going to do it come hell or high water,” she said.
She advises targets of stalking and harassment to call a hotline such as the National Sexual Assault Hotline as a first line of defense. From there, operators will suggest whether to contact law enforcement. Victims can also go directly to local police.
Ecker takes some solace in Kolasa’s court-ordered restrictions. She also relies on her husband, friends and coworkers to watch her back.
She has no choice. Her livelihood depends on connecting with clients online.
“I don’t know if it’s going to make it stop,” Ecker said of Kolasa’s sentence. “If it doesn’t, I feel safer knowing that all I have to do is call Detective Nedley. I feel for the people who are stuck in situations like this where they feel like nobody helps them.”
Jack Troy is a TribLive reporter. A Pittsburgh native, he joined the Trib in January 2024. He can be reached at jtroy@triblive.com.
This post was originally published on this site be sure to check out more of their content
