When people say they 'don't have social media' it usually is a good idea to check what their definition of 'social media' is. If they have a web presence that they regularly update it doesn't really matter what the label is, it can likely be used to infer a whole bunch of stuff.
I know quite a few people who claim not to have 'social media' and yet they are on LinkedIn etc. Maybe I should have used 'web presence', but I think that what I intended to convey is clear: if you have a regularly updated online identity then you are giving an impostor a lot of useful information.
If there is absolutely nothing about this person online, including that they don't use any of the video chat services, no tiktok videos etc then yes, the circle of suspects would narrow accordingly. But most teens are quite active online, even if their parents aren't always aware of it.
If they have a web presence that they regularly update it doesn't really matter what the label is, it can likely be used to infer a whole bunch of stuff.
My 90s-era internet paranoia has never steered me wrong. I don't put out my real name or picture anywhere. When I mention personal details as part of a story or argument, I randomize the details, brother becoming uncle, gay becoming straight, etc. We are not far from powerful AIs being able to link every online account you've ever had together by just your unique writing style, but they can't manufacture information that simply doesn't exist. There isn't enough emphasis these days on keeping your real and electronic identities separate.
> When people say they 'don't have social media' it usually is a good idea to check what their definition of 'social media' is. If they have a web presence that they regularly update it doesn't really matter what the label is, it can likely be used to infer a whole bunch of stuff.
They didn't deny having social media. She implied that she did have social media accounts. They said the social media accounts were non-public, aka friends-only.
Hence my point: If their social media presence was friends-only, then it would imply that it's someone in the friends circle who had access to enough information.
I'm not using a smartphone. I have no illusions about my contact list being public because the other side is using smartphones. So you can infer my contact list from other sources. Similar mechanisms apply to other tech.
Anyway, we'll see what comes out. I'm aware of a blackmail case where the perp was very close to the family so I'm sympathetic to your argument, and investigators typically only expand the net when the closest contacts can be ruled out.
> The part I quoted claims that she doesn't have any public social media, so that wouldn't work.
It claims her voice is absent from her public social media, not that she does not have any social media accounts: "does NOT have any public social media accounts that has her voice".
Brie herself doesn't even need to be the sole broadcaster. The mother or other family members could be contributors.
I still think it is way more likely that someone posted about he trip on social media. There is basically no benefit to targeting someone you know with this sort of scam, and the risk is higher.
