Catfishing

Catfishing – The new Phenomenon - Someone A pretends to be someone else B, especially on the internet. A then uses this fake identity to contact C with devastating consequences.

Currently this is perfectly legal but there is momentum to redress this.

The term catfish has recently commanded a lot of attention in the press mostly due to the efforts of male model Matt Peacock and Rebecca Jane, owner of the Lady Detective Agency. They lead a campaign to acknowledge and address legitimate concerns regarding the modern phenomenon of catfishing and make it illegal. Catfishing is a term now synonymous with online dating and the fraud perpetrated by certain individuals in which they impersonate another person and begin a relationship with an unbeknownst party, leading them on an often disastrous emotional journey and rarely having to suffer any consequences for their deception. The term cat fishing itself is quite uncomfortable to use due to the level of colloquialism attached to the title, which perhaps fails to address the gravity of the consequences to its would-be-victims. Mr Peacock, says he was put under enormous strain after his identity was stolen by a catfish, with his wife being repeatedly contacted and told he was cheating on her by going on dating websites and asking women for sexual photographs and videos.

Ludites and technophobes alike will struggle to understand the intense dependence a lot of people have with social media. The typical scenario involves an assumed online profile of an attractive person instigating a conversation with another person and developing a relationship in which, as is often the case, hours upon hours are invested communicating with one another, and a number of different outcomes are possible. Often the pipe dream for imposters is that the person they are speaking to will fall in love with their personality and when they eventually confess, the other party will forgive them and they will begin a relationship. However as is often the case nerves may get the better of the imposter and they may constantly delay revealing the truth and it is at this point the relationship can take on a life of its own. Currently the mental and emotional costs of such a deception are rarely acknowledged and often trivialised as not being a ‘real’ world problem. This then becomes a double edged sword in that not only is the victim left unsupported and ignored but the perpetrator is unpunished and is able to repeat his actions and affect several other people as is often the case.

Law makers are cautious when addressing matters of the heart, broken hearts are generally not considered a legal issue unless it is accompanied by some other predicate criminal offence, a deception as to character, or intent within relationships, are not considered within the scope of parliament. Thus many men and women often express their deep sadness at a former partner who was living a double life or behaving in a certain manner simply to obtain a goal be it money or sex.

Emotional toil is almost impossible to quantify unless it leads to a mental health issue, but even then causality within criminal law is an extremely complex concept and proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a persons specific actions caused a mental health issue or something more extreme such as an attempt on their life is a grand task. It is usually the case that other things happening in people’s lives contribute somewhat to something as extreme as a suicide attempt or a mental health issue, and to untangle a number of interlinked factors to highlight the online communications with an imposter as the most significant factor, is often a very difficult task for prosecutors.

Online impersonations tend to have an added dimension to the consequences which becomes a serious aggravating factor, in that the perpetrator usually steals a real persons identity to commit the deception. This then in turn exposes another to a risk of violence, retribution or some other negative outcome. Matt Peacock as mentioned earlier was the scapegoat and the consequences he felt, included suspicion from his partner, anger from the victims, his own sense of unexplained guilt and the time he invested in catching the person responsible for the charade.

Matt Peacock from a legal perspective is the first victim, commonly referred to as B in our scenario to this action and it is reasonable to infer that in the future it may be the case that the second victim, C unknowingly holds the first victim accountable for whatever negative acts he or she experiences and commits an act of violence against them believing them to be responsible.

To those uninitiated in the recent phenomenon of cat fishing it may seem slightly outrageous to concede that such an act may compel another to behave so extremely but the reality of cat fishing is one in which this has undoubtedly already happened many times.

There is a dark irony that presents itself in that perpetrators are effectively exploiting another persons need for connection and love but similarly are in the same position and are compelled to act in this destructive manner due to their own deficiencies in life. Current theories of addiction have brought connectedness and by extension the lack of it, into the realm of basic human needs as argued by Johan Hari in his paradigm shifting book ‘Chasing the Scream’. Adopting this theory provides far more explanatory value into why victims of cat fishing are traumatised so deeply. A connection perceived or otherwise, is likely to provide a lot of meaning in people’s lives especially if they lack it elsewhere, thus when the farce is exposed the psychological consequences are likely to be severe.

Mitchell Bowie from Manchester last year committed suicide after being ‘catfished’ by an online persona who threatened him continuously and made him fear for his life through their behaviour. It would be difficult for most to empathise or understand the decision making process that could have led to such a final decision given that the threats were all online; however the importance of the internet and the symbiotic relationship people, and in particular youths, have with technology now are not to be underestimated; over twenty years ago Sherry Turkle wrote a book titled ‘The Second Self’ detailing the intimate connection between computers and people, and since then that relationship has developed far greater than even she may have expected. Incidentally Sherry Turkle is now a pioneer in addressing the perils of the internet and how our techno-infused attempts at connection has led to a culture of disconnectedness.

Victims who are enamoured by the person they are talking to would most likely share private photos, thoughts, feelings and money, whilst making plans for the future and various other things which would affect their day to day living. An intimate betrayal of that nature could have drastic psychological consequences but causality is a complex legal phenomena and attributing any mental health issue or depressive episode to the betrayal as has been mentioned would be very difficult to prove. A far easier and necessary task would be to criminalise the very actions that brought about such a traumatic state of affairs.

Cat fishing itself is an umbrella term for a myriad of different types of fraudulent online communication; some will be lonely men or women who use an online ‘mask’ to communicate with others due to confidence issues whilst others will be intent on obtaining retribution against another for some perceived wrong and similarly others will use their alternate identity as an opportunity to defraud by siphoning money from their targets through coercion and subterfuge.

The law puts particular emphasis on intention or ‘mens rea’ as it is commonly referred to within legislature and it would be correct to do so with the formation of a cat fishing offence. There are occasions when certain deceptions are harmless, or at the very least should not be criminalised and it would be up to the police and subsequently the courts to determine whether these intentions were of a substantially dishonest nature in that they become criminal.

A proposed wording for a catfishing offence could be the following:-

Fraud by online impersonation

‘A person commits an offence if he/she dishonestly impersonates another person, and communicates with another on two or more separate occasions with the intention of gaining gratification or other benefit from the experience at the expense of either or both parties.’

Something similar to the above may allow law enforcement to have a set offence to bring offenders to justice. The main issue that has allowed so many perpetrators to avoid any culpability regarding the suffering they have caused is not having an offence that fully captures the nature of their actions. Many offenders fall into the crevices of different offences, not quite meeting the threshold of any; offences under The Malicious Communications Act, The Public Order Act, The Protection from Harassment Act and The Fraud Act, all fail to meet the necessary requirements to successfully prosecute people, leaving a trail of distressed victims and highly motivated offenders. A new, independent offence needs to be created to address this recent epidemic of online deception.

There is often a major disparity between technology and the law, with the law playing catch up with technology until enough harm is done within society whereby a law must be created to prevent further harm. It is surely the case that the level of acceptable harm has been met, and it is now urgent that a law is put in place to prevent other members of the public becoming victims to cruel online deceptions.

One important thing to factor into the potential legislation of catfishing is the possible ramifications this may have on so-called internet vigilantes. There is a growing sub-culture of vigilante-esque groups who interact online with people they believe to be paedophiles. They attempt to expose paedophiles by impersonating a child and when arrangements to meet are made the police are called and the person in question is arrested.

The relatively recent offence of grooming makes it illegal for adults to communicate with children and then arranging to meet them with the intention of committing a sexual offence, either at that meeting or subsequently. Groups such as Guardians of the North are themselves catfishes, albeit what many may consider positive ones, however their actions would be criminalised under this potential future legislation. The Crown Prosecution Service guidelines do not consider internet vigilantes helpful or necessary so this may in fact be an impetus to ‘kill two birds with one stone through legislation. Conversely many members of the public are thankful groups such as The Guardians of The North do exist as the amount of online predators are so plentiful that it is unreasonable to expect the police to be able to catch them all.

A solution may be to have certain groups being authorised to act in that capacity; however at this stage it is mere speculation as to how these groups should, if at all, be preserved.