Due to cyber technology, offenders and victims have the possibility to interact through the cyber medium rather than in person. This leads to new challenges for defining stalking and harassment and providing safety for victims and gives ease to potential offenders finding their potential or current victim. The first impact upon interactions between victims and offenders is the burden of proving intent. The offender must be proven to not only be committing the act of which they are accused, but also be aware and intend to do so. Behavior exhibited by offenders, such as repeated behavior or contact after being told to stop, provoking or extorting an individual, is hidden behind a veil of anonymity. A cyber offender is unable to utilize the typical tools of the trade to commit the act of stalking or harassment. This guise makes it difficult for law enforcement to police cyber stalking or cyber harassment. Cyber offenders also may be entirely anonymous to the victim. Individuals have ample opportunity to purchase temporary, working cell phones or create fake social media accounts with inaccurate information, pseudonyms, or taking the name of another, possibly uninvolved and unaware, party. While committing acts of stalking or harassment may increase the case in terms of intent, it causes difficulty in finding the offender. Anonymity may also increase the fear, alarm, or distress experienced by a potential victim. Fear, alarm, or distress experienced by the victim is necessary in order to prove that cyber harassment or cyber stalking is taking place. Threats may be made toward the victim’s person, family, or significant other. The offender may also utilize gestures sent through a cyber medium. The most difficult stipulation when referencing punishment for committing acts of cyber stalking or harassment is finding the jurisdiction. Crimes may be punished within the jurisdiction that the harassing or stalking acts were received or sent.