You'd be amazed what what's really present in the statistics. Humans commonly worry about the wrong things. Categorically, we are very poor judges of risk on a

You'd be amazed what what's really present in the statistics. Humans commonly worry about the wrong things. Categorically, we are very poor judges of risk on a broad scale. In a single event, we're pretty good, but it cannot be emphasized enough that we suck hard at intuitive understanding of broad threats. Here's an article that points out quite a few things you wouldn't expect. It's about 2 years old, which isn't all that old for stats. These things take time to compile. http://crimeinamerica.net/2010/12/13/what-are-my-chances-of-being-a-victim-of-violent-crime/ http://crimeinamerica.net/2010/12/13/what-are-my-chances-of-... A relevant point: "Females knew their offenders in almost 70% of violent crimes committed against them (they are relatives, friends or acquaintances). If females make the best possible choices as to who they associate with (if they have a choice) their rates of violent crime drop considerably." So right off the bat, we can see that a significant majority of violent crime is committed by the person you know, not some random stalker on the internet. My point isn't that we should ignore internet privacy concerns. My point is that the fear mongering in the press is reprehensible. The obligation of the press is to inform the public. Today, it seems that the obligation of the press is to sell ad impressions, and scary plot lines... sorry, scary editorials about internet rapists draws readers.