Pandora’s Blog

Bob Sullivan at MSNBC did a very length in-depth piece on parents’ misunderstanding of tools available to them to help keep their kids safe online… i.e. monitoring software (have I mentioned PC Pandora is the best?). Unfortunately, he goes to the regurgitating media go-to person, who has schilled for our competitors in the past, but don’t let that deter you from reading this ultra fine piece. There is also a short video segment that accompanies.

Now, rather than paste the entire thing below, as it is long, I want to skip to the technology part and comment – much like I did yesterday, but to a lesser extent.

So…

What you don’t know can hurt kids
Parents must understand online tools to protect their children

By Bob Sullivan, MSNBC

Use technology to fight technology

Many authorities suggest using technology to combat technology. Parents [should] regularly Google their children’s names, nicknames, even addresses, to see if anything unsavory has been posted about them. Others recommend filtering software, which limits the things kids can do online, and the information they can reveal about themselves.

About 75 percent of the parents responding to an informal MSNBC survey conducted three years ago said they’d consider using software to limit their child’s ability to communicate with others over the Internet. Filtering software like [PC Pandora], for example, can be set to prevent children from even typing personal information such as their name, address and phone number. But users were evenly split over whether they’d read their child’s e-mail, as the FBI suggests in its Parent’s Guide to the Internet.

“I _HONESTLY_ wonder if most of you realize what you are saying when you say read your kids e-mail,” said David Weaver on bulletin board that was hosted by MSNBC.com. “Reading a kid’s e-mail is like: Reading normal mail they send Eavesdropping on all their conversations Picking up another phone line when they are on the phone.”

Are you serious? It is NOTHING like reading normal mail, which is sent to ONE person and not to millions (or seen by, rather)… and guess what smart-alec, my parents DID pick up the phone to tell me to get off the phone, but they also knew who I was talking to. I didn’t randomly dial up strangers, nor did strangers randomly call the house looking for a young kid. Get your analogies straight…

One response: “Hands off parenting is not the answer. Blind trust and faith are why you see kids pictures on the back of milk cartons. Now, keep in mind I am not going to go through all their mail every night. They should just be prepared to answer for anything if and when I do.”

THANK YOU!

But while three-quarters of MSNBC respondents said they’d consider technological help, few parents actually use it — under 5 percent, according to some surveys. These programs work in a variety of ways, but generally either block your computer from a predetermined set of yucky Web sites; limit your computer to a predetermined list of Web sites; or block individual Web pages with offensive words. It’s easy to see the limitations of all three, and apparently parents have, too.

This means that fewer than 5% of parents (asked) have the balls to be parents. Truly sad. And they wonder why their kids are messing up their lives, addicted to the Internet, and/or meeting strangers. Monitoring software takes the guesswork out of parenting so you can verify and have proof. It makes you a more effective and better parent.

Some [parents] mistakenly believe the software is too technical to use or easy for clever kids to foil. Or they shrug and say, “I trust my kid.”

PC Pandora is TOO easy to use. The only excuse for not using it is laziness. If you know how to open word and type a letter, or open outlook and send an email, you can open PC Pandora and see who your child is talking to and what they are doing online.

But experts say parents often aren’t really aware of the extent of the trouble their kids can get in on the Internet… Here’s a collection of suggestions from several experts:

• There is no substitute for keeping up with the technology. Don’t shrug or say it’s beyond you. If it is, ask your children to train you. That will make sure you keep up with them.
• Learn how to examine your Web browser’s “History” files, or cache. Even if you don’t do it, make sure your children know it’s possible for you to know where they’ve been.
  Kids know how to delete this!!! But if you have PC Pandora, not only will you be able to see it, but also you can catch them trying to cover their tracks!!
• Look around your desktop, start menu or applications folder for suspicious programs. (see PC Pandora)
• Keep abreast of all your child’s e-mail accounts; understand that free Web e-mail may allow your child to have plenty of e-mail accounts you don’t know about.
• If your child will chat, take some time to come up with an alias, or fake name. One person suggests you give them a fake address and phone number so, if they’re being harassed, they have a way of vacating the situation.
  Awesome idea!
• Play around in Usenet and IRC chat rooms so you can talk to your children intelligently about them, and perhaps decide to ban their use. Contact your Internet provider to see what kind of Usenet groups are available.
• Do the things you would normally do in the real world. Get to know your children’s cyberfriends — certainly don’t let them meet anyone in person without your attendance. Because in the end, computers don’t hurt kids: People hurt kids.

Most of the bulleted points above could be done easier and more effective with monitoring software like PC Pandora. For parents to not be watching and not paying attention (in some way shape or form, whether you use software or not) is just irresponsible and borderline-abusive. If keeping a kid out of school for a day to go to a theme park can be considered child abuse (which is absurd), then so should letting them walk through the Internet door in your house unsupervised be. This isn’t fear mongering; this is common sense in the 21st century.

I haven’t done this in a while. I like to showcase various news reports on the overall issue of safety and offer my ingenious commentary. Hah…

Seriously though… below is an excerpt from a great story done by Linda Brees of The Greenville News in lil’ ol’ South Carolinny. This isn’t a rebuttal, as I do agree with much of what she says; this is more just my initial reaction to some things.

As always, I encourage and urge you to click on the story and read the full article… below are just highlights and my thoughts…

Get tools to protect children using Internet
By Linda Brees

Don’t ever let anyone tell you Internet predators aren’t a problem in our region.

When an administrative assistant from the Upstate installed a program that let her observe her 13-year-old daughter’s instant messaging sessions, she didn’t expect to learn anything alarming. Instead, she was stunned to discover the eighth grader was drinking and smoking pot. The mother was able to intervene early enough to curtail the problem and turn the girl’s behavior around. She also informed the parents of two of her daughter’s online friends of their children’s potential involvement so they could also address the problem before it escalated.

Meanwhile, a North Carolina father who monitored his 13-year-old daughter’s online chat activity discovered that the girl was having a sexual relationship with her 37-year-old middle school teacher. Using records of chat sessions, he was able to gather enough evidence to convict the teacher of statutory rape.

Two excellent and common cases of what happens when parents use monitoring software like our PC Pandora 5.0… we have our own such testimonials from parents and even teachers who were able to deter potentially dangerous and harmful behavior.

It’s stories like these, of course, that fuel the sales of parental control software. But as the technology of parental oversight has improved, parents and caregivers face tougher questions about when responsible supervision turns into paranoia or an invasion of children’s privacy. Five years ago, most parental control software was used only to filter the Web, blocking children from pornographic or violent sites. Now, parents can have godlike powers over their children’s online lives — viewing everything the kids do as they surf or chat, and immediately stopping any activity that the parents disapprove of.

Interesting take…

Naturally, every parent wants their child to be safe, whether the child is online or on the school bus. And certainly if you suspect your child is involved in drugs, inappropriate relationships or other dangerous situations, it’s your responsibility to step in and intervene using whatever tools necessary. But, if parents have no particular reason to suspect trouble, should they be reading their children’s digital diaries?

I’m going to pose two responses here: first, it is hardly a digital diary. MOST of what kids are doing is public and the parents are the only ones not reading the writings. This is not the lock-and-key diary of centuries past; those diaries weren’t portals through which kids were able to literally talk to and showcase themselves to the world. Stop comparing it to a diary. Second: this is also where parental duties and parental courtesy have to be separate. You don’t need to know who has a crush on who, but you need to know if your daughter is talking to someone whom you are smart enough to see is not who they say they are.

Psychologists and child safety experts say yes under two conditions: First, establish a set of ground rules and standards for going online that both you and your child can agree on, and, second, let your kids know you’ll be checking in on them.

Excellent…

Parents have a responsibility to monitor the whereabouts of their kids, whether it’s in the real world or the cyber world. But it’s important to keep a balance between looking over your child’s shoulder every second and putting your head in the sand — somewhere between the two extremes is the prudent parent.

Exactly as I stated above!!! Same wavelength…

What about old-fashioned trust? Many parents — even those who know the perils that exist online — are confident that their kids will make good decisions and believe that monitoring their online activity would send a damaging message that they’re not trusted to behave responsibly.

Even so, given the right situation, any kid can make a poor set of choices. If we parents think that our children are immune to temptation, we’re kidding ourselves. If there’s no accountability, the chance of a child breaking the rules increases.

You answered the question before I could, but I would also like to toss this idea to the jury: what about old-fashioned respect that “youngsters” had for their “elders”? It is gone. Kids today have zero respect for their parents or teachers. Shows like Super Nanny and Nanny 911 would not have existed 25 or 30 years ago because kids did not act like that. What started out as a righteous movement (known as the “self-esteem” movement – Google it) has given way to a topsy turvey world where kids get what they want and think they are always right. Parents stopped being stern rule enforcers and behavior instructors and became friends with their kids. There’s no better example than the usual control of the Internet and the average American household. In addition, kids see the Internet in a different way: to them, it is not a convenient tool; it is a necessary part of life – which, as anyone over 30 knows, is not true. So when you have a younger generation more proficient in technology, with the upper hand of authority, and yet still possessing the immaturity and under-developed real-life skills of a teenager, bad things happen. And that is why parents need to take back control, stop being scared to be a real parent, and monitor their kids. It’s not so much the predators (though they aren’t taking things easy in their hunts) as it is cyberbullying and protecting your child from doing something stupid on the world’s wide stage that will haunt them later. [/rant]

While discussions of online hazards and Internet monitoring often focus on blocking porn sites, the greatest danger may lurk in chat rooms and e-mail in-boxes. This is especially true for older kids who spend time instant messaging and hanging around in chat rooms, where none of the usual social controls are in place and it’s easy to hide behind a false identity.

Again, nothing is private - why are the parents the only one’s not aware of what their child is saying? This is where PC Pandora monitoring software comes in…

But parents and caregivers have a new tool to help keep their children safe — the upcoming Predators in Upstate South Carolina: How to Keep Your Children Safe Symposium, an invaluable guide to learning about abductors, how they operate and what you as parents can do to prevent your child from becoming the next victim…

Sorry this is a bit long. I’ve been trying to shorten or make shorter the posts… but it’s an addictive topic. It’s a real issue that many chose to ignore. Others like to discredit it. Yet, just like cervical cancer (someone once told me), it is the only [social malady] that can truly be prevented. The answer is right there. Monitor your child’s PC activity - not just online, but offline too (to make sure they aren’t distributing illegal content or originating evidence of cyberbullying). Take a look at PC Pandora and what it can do for you and with you.

Knowledge is power! You can be a powerful 21st century parent with PC Pandora 5.0 monitoring software… BUT, with great power comes great responsibility. Don’t abuse it. Know what is effective proper parenting, and what is a senseless invasion of privacy and teen growin’ up.

Truly sickening.

Donald W. Rager, 41, was a part-time police officer in Gurnee, Ill., and owner of a security business, Millcreek Protection Service, in Grayslake, Ill. He was also a former president of the Fraternal Order of Police and his entire life was devoted to protecting the safety of others.

This sick piece of dogsh*t also traveled to four different states, over a two-year period, to rape 14 male victims between the ages of 14 and 16.

*speechless

You can watch a news video here and read the article for yourselves:

Rampant predator gets 31 years in federal prison
By Trish Mehaffey

CEDAR RAPIDS One of the most prolific sexual predators charged in Iowa was sentenced in federal court Wednesday to 31 years and one month in federal prison.

Donald W. Rager, 41, a former part-time Gurnee, Ill., police officer, sexually abused 14 male victims between the ages of 14 and 16 in four different states over a two-year period, according to federal prosecutors. His activities also led to the arrest of four men in England, prosecutors said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter Deegan said Rager contacted and groomed his victims via the Internet through chat rooms and instant messages, and also had physical contact with some of them.

Rager produced video recordings of multiple sexual sessions with the victims, prosecutors say. Many of the victims were abused as many as 10 times during a session.

Rager pleaded guilty in June 2007 to interstate travel with intent to engage in illicit sex with a minor, production of child pornography and interstate transportation of child pornography.

Police captured Rager a year after he met a 13-year-old Dubuque boy through an Internet chat room and persuaded the boy to meet him at a city mall on Feb. 12, 2006. Rager then took him to a motel where he had set up a video camera to record the sexual abuse. The boy returned to the mall, and Rager took the videotape to Illinois with him.

Deegan said the boy told his mother about the incident and she reported it to the Dubuque police in April 2007. Undercover police posing as the boy made plans to meet Rager again at the same mall. Rager was arrested May 18 when he arrived.

The videotape of the Dubuque boy’s abuse also contained two additional videos of Rager molesting minor boys, Deegan said. The images on Rager’s confiscated computer included some that portrayed sadistic sexual conduct and other violence.

Deegan said investigators also discovered Rager traveled to Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin where he sexually abused 13 other boys.

Through this investigation police also helped law enforcement in London, England, arrest four other sexual predators, Deegan said. A man in London sexually abused a 10-year-old boy while Rager watched it live by webcam. Rager gave police information that led to the arrest of the London man.

The trading or sharing of pornography or exploits is common behavior for sexual predators, U.S. Attorney Matt Dummermuth said.

“The sadistic child pornography or prepubescent minor material they are looking for isn’t available on a Web site, so they trade or share with others,” he said after the sentencing.

Anne Laverty of Cedar Rapids, Rager’s defense attorney, declined to comment.

Rager told federal Chief Judge Linda Reade before she sentenced him that he didn’t know how he had became the man who committed such crimes.

Rager said he was a former president of the Fraternal Order of Police and his entire life was devoted to protecting the safety of others. He was a part-time police officer in Gurnee, Ill., and owner of a security business, Millcreek Protection Service, in Grayslake, Ill.

He told Reade he’d had personal and professional setbacks in his life that caused him emotional stress and led to his crimes. But he said that was background information for the judge, not an excuse.

What were these parents doing while their young boys were being groomed? Grooming takes time. It’s not an overnight thing. Why hadn’t the parents ever clued in on what was happening? What is your excuse for not protecting your teenage son? This is the prime situation where monitoring software like PC Pandora could have prevented such disgusting crimes…

Special Saturday post here because this is timely – the state of PA Attorney General’s office is doing a contest called Operation Safe Surf, to promote Internet safety for Pennsylvania teens.

The contest, co-sponsored by Microsoft and Comcast, is part of an initiative to keep kids safe on the Internet and was open to all Pennsylvania middle and high school students. Students were encouraged to help spread the word about online safety by producing a 30-second public service announcement.

Six regional semi-finalists, three from western Pennsylvania and three from eastern Pennsylvania, were chosen out of dozens of entries by a panel of judges. The finalists had the opportunity to travel to Harrisburg and put the finishing touches on their videos in a state-of-the-art production facility.

Internet voters pick the winner. Voters have until May 2 to pick a safety video.

Visit www.videocontest.attorneygeneral.gov to vote.

I came across this guy’s blog, Dr. Frank Kardasz (ED.D.). According to his blog page, he “is an Arizona peace officer assigned to the investigations of Internet crimes against children.” On the page I have highlighted below, he wrote an excellent piece – based on much research and news articles, not just opinion – on the paradigm that exists for officers trying to investigate Internet crimes against children.

His post is very very long and detailed, while remaining interesting and thoughtful throughout. His arguments are backed-up and supported by evidence and the message is clear: the Internet is a huge entity that we all must work together to embrace and make safe for our kids, who can easily become helpless victims of the dangers within.

It’s a very excellent read. I have highlighted important notes below that resonated with me, but please take the time to click over and read the whole thing. It’s a great perspective from someone fighting the fight!

A lot of the stuff in here (again, see the real article for some great details and stats, please!) should serve as a reminder to parents that they need to do what they can do within the home and not rely on outside enforcement (whether it be law, website, etc.). PC Pandora version 5 can be the most valuable tool in your 21st century parenting duffle bag of tools.

Investigating Internet Crimes Against Children: Seeking A New Law Enforcement Paradigm
Dr. Frank Kardasz, April 14, 2008

[Highlights and excerpts from the above blog post]

Introduction
The Internet opened an uninhibited world of wild digital wonder to our generation. Sadly, a troubling dark side to the World Wide Web exists where improved law enforcement efforts are needed. The quiet collision of young people and sex offenders on the Internet has resulted in a desperate cyber-struggle for the protection of children.

For the first time in history, law enforcement officers in the 21st century possess proactive undercover methods to identify and bring to justice those who sexually abuse minors. Proactive investigations using undercover officer posing as minors have been successful in identifying many offenders who have also committed contact “hands-on” offenses against real victims.

Constitutional Conflicts
The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution (Article I, Section 8, and Clause 3) has been interpreted as giving some authority over the Internet to Congress but legislators are reticent to tread on the perceived First Amendment freedoms of information and expression that the Internet provides. In the interim, and until effective controls are in place, minors who become victims of Internet sex offenders are not receiving the equal protection and due processes guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. More work is needed to resolve these constitutional conflicts.

Thomas Jefferson wrote [about] the discovery of “new truths.” One of the new truths discovered in the exploration of cyberspace is that the Internet is a conduit of both good and evil. Jefferson may have opined that constitutionally protected rights to free expression are in question when they permit the rights of children to be horribly violated.

Unlawful Images
Internet crimes involving unlawful images of the sexual abuse of children are now widespread and the number of images and videos available via cyberspace is probably incalculable. A Congressional study in 2006 identified several key factors that contributed to the proliferation of child pornography on the Internet. First, and perhaps most problematic according to the study, is the sheer number of child abuse images on the Internet. United States law enforcement sources estimated approximately 3.5 million known child pornography images online.

The exact number of child pornography web sites is also difficult to determine.

Luring and Enticement
In luring/enticement cases involving actual teens, few of the minors who are victimized ever report the crimes. Victimized teens are often too embarrassed to notify law enforcement and fearful of their parents’ wrath for disobeying rules against communicating with strangers online. Sometimes a teen returns home after secretly meeting an Internet stranger without his or her parents ever discovering the illicit tryst.

In many cases, the teens who are lured by sexual predators will never come forward due to fear or a misplaced sense of guilt. A few of them, like 13 year old Kasie Woody of Arkansas, and 13 year old Christina Long of Connecticut, were forever silenced by Internet sexual predators who lured them via the Internet, sexually victimized them and killed them.

Child prostitution is also being facilitated via the Internet. Pimps use message boards and social networking sites to find customers seeking to engage in paid sex acts with minors.

In the past, child molesters were characterized as often lurking near school yards. Folklore held that child molesters frequented school yards because that is where the children were. The Internet is the new proverbial schoolyard. Cyberspace provides a ready hunting-ground for those who seek children.

The Internet is an extraordinarily important part of the daily lives of millions of young people. For some youngsters cyberspace is more influential than school, family or religion.

Most social networking sites are free and permit users to register without providing information about the users’ true identities or whereabouts. The sites are well suited for molesters who can pose as harmless mentors while disguising their true intent.

Unfortunately, a very few law enforcement agencies have personnel devoted to proactive investigations of offenders who lure and entice minors.

Disenfranchised Youth are Perfect Victims
Children and teens are disenfranchised from social and political power. Some children who become the victims of child pornography offenses are too young to phone 911 for police assistance.

Funding for Internet crime investigations is relatively small. Most police departments have many more traffic cops than crimes against children investigators. Offenders know that children are easily intimidated into silence and often cannot communicate well enough to be understood by authorities. For offenders, disenfranchised children are perfect victims partly because the crimes are invisible to law enforcement and children are powerless.

Internet Service Providers
Internet service providers (ISP) are the unwitting facilitators of Internet crimes against children. ISP’s provide offenders with the connections to the web that allows crimes to occur. Without a cyberspace connection provided by an ISP, Internet crime would impossible. Some conscientious ISP’s are taking helpful steps to provide crime prevention education information to users but more assistance to law enforcement is needed.

In 1998, a federal law was passed (Cornell Law School, 2007) requiring ISP’s to report child pornography to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). By 2002, thousands of reports were flooding into NCMEC from those ISP’s that chose to comply with the law. Those reports were subsequently sent to federal, state and local agencies for investigation. The large number of reports quickly overwhelmed the small staffs of those few agencies that employed investigators who had the technical expertise needed to investigate Internet crimes.

A small survey of law enforcement investigators in 2006 showed that the number one need of those who investigate Internet crimes against children was for improved responses from Internet service providers.

In the same way that automobile manufacturers begrudgingly gave way, after thousands of roadway deaths, to regulations mandating vehicle safety, ISP’s must provide improved Internet safety before the annual number of Internet crimes matches the annual number of vehicular accidents.

Media and Unlawful Images
In cases involving unlawful images and videos, the crimes against children facilitated by the Internet are sometimes so horrible that the news media is unable or unwilling to fully describe the incidents. Adding to the dilemma is the fact that unlawful images are themselves contraband and cannot be released for public viewing. The pedantic written descriptions of the images and videos can never fully convey the abominations suffered by the victims.

Media and Luring/Enticement
Well intentioned media organizations in partnership with cybervigilante groups and sometimes with the cooperation of law enforcement have conducted undercover sting operations targeting Internet sexual predators. The sting operations do little to quell the onslaught of Internet predators and in some cases make the work of undercover officers more difficult. The cybervigilantes often make the offenders more wary as the predators later demand more proofs from UC officers, asking the officers to show that they are not with law enforcement or the media before completing the criminal act.

Law Enforcement

Uniformed crime reporting
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) service reports the number of officers per 1000 population in various regions of the US. Depending on the location, different areas of the US had between 1.8 and 5.5 officers per 1000 population. The DOJ does not gather statistics about the number of citizens who use the Internet and no information is reported in the UCR about the number of law enforcement officers engaged in battling offenders who use the Internet to victimize minors.

Spending for enforcement
The Internet crime problem craves increased resources for law enforcement services, training and equipment. Unfortunately, resources for law enforcement functions of any kind are sometimes scarce.

Offenders, the public and law enforcement
Crimes against children are particularly repugnant. Most people wish to mentally disassociate themselves from thoughts of dreadful abuse involving helpless children.

The true facts about the sexual victimization of minors is so psychologically distressing that few can emotionally tolerate being deeply involved in the investigations.

Community based policing for invisible victims
Traditional law enforcement approaches based on community oriented policing theories are not applicable in the area of Internet crimes against children.

Unlike spectacular crimes and incidents involving crashes, explosions, shootings and widespread newsworthy bloodletting, the evil offenses against children are committed in dark and private places by offenders who often psychologically control or humiliate their victims into silence. The crimes are mostly unreported. Statistics will not reveal the true story.

Federal and local law enforcement
Because of competing priorities, Internet crimes against children have received relatively little attention from federal law enforcement agencies. Since 2001, Federal efforts have focused appropriately, on terrorism and border protection. The continuing war on illegal drugs is also a proper federal priority.

Internet crimes are also relatively new phenomena. Crimes against children were only added to Federal law enforcement duties in the mid 1980s, and Internet crimes against children only began to rise in the late 1990s.

Local law enforcement resources at the state, county and city levels are drawn to homicides, sex assaults, gangs, drugs, burglaries, property crimes and other offenses of legitimate local importance. Consequently, those who fight Internet crimes against children are often overlooked under funded and understaffed.

Law enforcement investigators who are generalists and who must also carry caseloads involving other types of crimes are unable to conduct extensive undercover investigations involving Internet crimes against children. Consequently, few law enforcement agencies have staff who are devoted full time to proactive enforcement of Internet crimes against children.

Law enforcement educators
Some agencies find it easier to mount Internet safety education efforts than to mount law enforcement effort aimed at arresting criminals. Internet safety education should not be confused with law enforcement.

Recommendations
· Voluntary contributions from ISP’s customers
· Basic law enforcement training
· Permanent funding
· Legislation
· Tax on Internet Service Providers

Conclusion
Child victims of Internet sex crimes cannot summon assistance the way other victims can. They cannot adjust agency manpower, set policy or change regulations for their benefit. They cannot notify their local elected official. They cannot form a citizen-action group and they cannot vote. All they can do is suffer and hope. Hope that someone will pick up the cause and summon the sustained resolve to overcome legal, systemic, societal and psychological hurdles to help them.

No single entity can claim to be in command of the Internet. Cyberspace has no single location on which to plant a flag. The Internet is like a new planet and we are still the early inhabitants. Because the Internet is not made of brick and mortar, it is easy to abdicate or ignore responsibility for authority over cyberspace. It is easy to succumb to those who might argue against any restraint whatsoever over electronic communications. While the Web remains unmanageable, offenders have quickly planted their flags and taken full advantage of the global communities’ inability to control cyberspace.

Law enforcement institutions must advance to keep pace with developments in cyberspace. Administrators should consider the number of Internet users and subscribers in various regions and consider deploying proactive Internet crime investigators based on Internet saturation ratios. Such considerations would represent a step towards a new paradigm in policing. The paradigm begins by recognizing the rights of children to be safe from offenders who use cyberspace to gratify their sexual desires. Undercover proactive investigative techniques must be improved. Instead of avoiding technology, we must embrace it for the purposes of protecting minors.

I thought this was worth posting. A lot of sites have posted this bit of research from the University of Missouri, concerning the communication process that predators use to lure victims into a web of entrapment. Thought it does not have to do specifically with online luring and more with real life encounters, it can easily be translated.

Below I have posted the full story (taken from www.sciencecentric.com), highlighting what I felt were some key points made.

Scientists Reveal Communication Tactics Used By Sexual Predators To Entrap Children

A child’s innocence and vulnerability presents a target for a sexual predator’s abusive behaviour. University of Missouri researchers are beginning to understand the communication process by which predators lure victims into a web of entrapment. This information could better equip parents and community members to prevent, or at least interrupt, the escalation of child sexual abuse.

‘Our children are our greatest gift and our greatest responsibility. The fact that they could be abused in any way, shape or form is horrific - both in the moment of the abuse and in the long-term effect,’ said Loreen Olson, MU associate professor of communication in the College of Arts and Science. ‘It’s a social problem with grave consequences that is prevalent and needs attention. It’s incomprehensible, but it’s happening. The sexual abuse of children has dramatic negative consequences to their emotional well-being throughout their lives.’

According to the researchers, in order for the process of entrapment to take place, the perpetrator must first gain access to the potential victim through various exploitive means. Olson and her team identified several communicative elements in the cycle of entrapment, including the core phenomenon of ‘deceptive trust development.’ Deceptive trust development describes the predator’s ability to build a trusting relationship with the victim in order to improve the likelihood of sexual encounter.

Deceptive trust development is central to other manipulative strategies used by the predator such as grooming. Grooming sets the stage for abuse by desensitising the victim to sexual contact. Grooming may include activities such as sitting on a child’s bed and watching them get into their bedclothes; ‘accidentally’ touching the child inappropriately; showing the child pornographic images; and making contact or sex play with implicit sexual suggestions.

As perpetrators are grooming their victims and building deceptive trust, they also work to isolate them both physically and emotionally from their support network. Isolation strategies may include offers to baby sit, giving the child a ride home, and taking advantage of fragile family and friend relationships. Isolation causes the victim to become more and more dependent on the perpetrator.

A third strategy is approach, which is the initial physical contact or verbal lead-ins that occur just prior to the sexual act. Examples of approach strategies include suggestions to play sex games, more explicit discussions about sexual issues, giving a child a ‘rubdown,’ bathing or undressing a child, and instigating wrestling and other physical games as a means to escalate sexual physical contact.

Olson, and her co-authors analysed existing published material on pedophilia and child sexual abuse and proposed their theory that explains the communication process used by child sexual predators. Their theory of luring communication is part of a new area of study which Olson calls ‘the communication of deviance.’

‘The more we know about how these adults are entrapping children and building a sexual relationship with them, the better we can either intervene and stop the cycle from happening, or de-escalate it,’ Olson said.

According to the study, the theory of luring communication also may offer important insight into social, deviant and communicative problems plaguing society, such as how con-artists lure victims and the recruitment strategies of gang or cult members.

The big news today is from Massachusetts where the Supreme Judicial Court said for the first time, on Friday, that sexual predators could be prosecuted for communicating with their potential victims over the Internet.

Now, before I paste the article, I want to give you my thoughts:

There is a lot of hoopla over the fact that this impedes freedom of speech. As you know, the 1st Amendment has granted that right and been challenged and re-worked over and over. What it comes down to is that you can say what you want in this country, thankfully, as long as your ‘speech’ does not include intention to commit a crime.

For example, on a plane, you can have a conversation about how you are afraid to fly because of people blowing up planes. But if you start saying out loud and screaming that you have a bomb or you think there is a bomb on the plane – you will be arrested.

For example, you can talk about sex with an underage person (as nasty as it may be that you are), but if you are doing it to lure them into contact or with the purpose of hurting them, those conversations can be used against you and you can be prosecuted.

There is nothing wrong with that law taking effect. I read one person’s comment that said something to the effect of ‘the next thing you know, you’ll can be arrested for saying you want to bitchslap your boss.’ There is no ground for assuming that, other than trying to make a pointless and invalid conclusion on the Internet. You will read that the judge clearly stated that a strong case has to be built.

FYI: The defendant at the center of this case says the cops initiated the conversation… I am pretty sure he is lying. Anyway, read this article and click on the link to read the comments that follow. Its very interesting and certainly a good thing for law enforcement in their fight against online predators.

SJC backs 2002 law on Internet predators
Online communications can result in prosecution
By John R. Ellement

The state’s high court said for the first time yesterday that sexual predators can be prosecuted for communicating with their potential victims over the Internet, a law that one county prosecutor said has prevented children from being murdered.

In a unanimous ruling written by Justice Roderick L. Ireland, the Supreme Judicial Court upheld the child enticement conviction of Richard S. Disler, who had an online conversation in 2003 with a police officer posing as a 14-year-old girl.

“This is a very important victory,” said Jonathan W. Blodgett, the Essex district attorney who prosecuted Disler with the help of the North Eastern Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council, whose officers played the role of “Sara.”

Blodgett, who set up a unit in his office to focus on sexual predators attacking children using the Internet, said he is convinced the 2002 law has saved the lives of children. His office has prosecuted nine people since its enactment.

He cited the case of one man, who was arrested in possession of a rope, a plastic tarp, handcuffs, and a video camera as he prepared to meet a female officer posing as a teen.

“That’s pretty chilling,” he said of the items discovered by police when the man was taken into custody. “I’m convinced it prevented a murder.”

Writing for the court, Justice Ireland rejected Disler’s contention that his First Amendment rights were violated and that the law should be tossed as a result.

Ireland agreed that discussing sexual activity, even with someone underage, is constitutionally protected free speech.

But, he added, “there is no right to free speech or free association implicated when someone entices another with the intent to commit a criminal act on them.”

Ireland also said that prosecutors must be able to document the defendant’s intent to commit a sex crime before they can convict.

Disler was placed on probation for three years, ordered to stay away from children under 16 years old, and to register as a sex offender following his conviction for child enticement, the SJC said. Disler, according to the court, testified at his trial that he was “role playing” and trying to discover the girl’s true identity so he could end contact with her. He also testified he never intended to meet “Sara.”

Disler’s lawyer, James B. Krasnoo, said in a brief phone interview yesterday he is disappointed by the SJC ruling because it leaves intact a law he considers dangerously overbroad. In court papers, he argued that the law violated the First Amendment by making conversations about sex over the Internet a crime. He also contended that Disler was entrapped. “I’m very worried about the danger that the statute could cause. It should be remembered that Mr. Disler never left his computer,” Krasnoo said. “I wonder how the intent to commit a . . . crime can be proven when one doesn’t leave his computer and never meets a human being.”

A person can only be convicted if prosecutors show the suspect intended to violate any one of the 18 sex crimes, such as rape, that are linked to the law, the SJC said.

Blodgett said his office now investigates up to 250 reports of sexual predators preying on children in Essex County each year.

“The number is growing every year,” Blodgett said. “There are more predators who are using the Internet as their weapon of choice, so it’s always going up.”

Let the record show that I will publicly state that the prev’s lawyer, James B. Krasnoo, is just as sick as the pervo. Putting morals aside to defend someone who likes to talk about f*%king little kids with other kids is just as disgusting as doing it.

The wacko convent in Texas wants to hide behind religious freedom as an excuse to take rights away from and rape adolescent girls… this guy wants to hide behind the first amendment to be able to have i-sex and instigate real sex with 14-year olds.

Freedoms weren’t granted to you could be a sick a**hole.

p.s. Parents, more proof that guys like this are out there AND think they are doing nothing wrong when they ask your teenage daughter for sex. They think that if they don’t actually do it, then it’s OK. Do you want your children talking to these guys? Use PC Pandora monitoring software to make sure they aren’t!!

This is a great story and one that I hope other children of this age will remember:

Hampton girl, 12, helps police nab Internet predator
From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
A Hampton girl is being credited with bringing an Internet predator to justice — and potentially saving the life of a friend.

Jennifer Yeager, 12, a sixth-grader at Hampton Middle School, went to her friend’s mother when she became concerned about the nearly yearlong relationship her friend had developed with a man on the computer. It progressed to telephone calls, sexually explicit conversations, him sending her nude pictures, and there was talk of meeting in person.

Jennifer also helped police by telling them what she knew. Her cooperation led to the arrest of Touray M. Skinner, 48, of Barnegat, N.J., who pleaded no contest to charges in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court in January and who is now serving seven years’ probation.

“I think the little girl is a hero,” said Hampton police Officer Tom Vulakovich, one of the officers who began investigating the case in January 2007. “She turned the tables on a predator. I think the prey became smarter than the predator.

Vulakovich said there were indications Skinner had online contact with other young girls.

“It’s what we teach kids about Internet safety to do in a situation like this. It is exactly what that little girl did,” he said.

Hampton Council recently recognized Jennifer with an Outstanding Citizen citation.

“That a student in the middle school at that age actually would make the effort to cooperate with the authorities and put somebody like that behind bars should be recognized in the community,” said council President Victor Son.

Jennifer and her friend, who was not identified, were both 11 when Skinner first made contact with them through a chat room in the spring of 2006, police said. Jennifer refused to talk with him, but her friend did. Over the course of their talks, his age varied from 15 to into the 30s.

During one chat session, when both girls told the man they were only 11, his response was, “I don’t care. I’m a child molester,” according to court documents.

“I’m proud I helped my friend, and I was willing to be there by her side,” Jennifer said. “I love my friend very much.”

Her mother, Vicki Yeager, said she’s proud of her daughter.

“It’s surprising how easily these things can happen, especially when you have a computer. There’s so many different kind of people you can talk to, some good, some bad. It’s amazing how easily these predators can go on the computer and say things that make a younger girl feel good about herself,” said Yeager, 52.

“I’m glad that she came forward. It could have definitely gone in another direction for both of them.”

Jennifer Yeager said she thinks Skinner deserved more than probation. She’s happy her friend is safe, and not chatting as much on the computer anymore.
“I would just tell the other kids my age to keep their head up high in situations like this, if they would even be in this situation. Think before you act,” she said.

I posted the full story there because it is so good. This is clearly the case of a girl who has a head on her shoulders and knows the right thing to do. Her friend, however, not so much… and the sad fact is that the “friend” is the majority of kids today.

It’s too easy to go right to this, but since it is the MO of this blog, I must: what the hell were the parents doing and thinking to let their 11 year old girl go in any chatrooms unsupervised?! I hope they realize their mistake and realize they owe little Ms. Yeager big time. I hope that other parents out there, just as much as they feel good when reading about Jennifer, also are shocked and mortified at the [not so good] parenting here and realize that these guys are out there and the are blatantly befriending your kids.

“I don’t care. I’m a child molester”…!!!!!????

C’mon parents. Wake up! This isn’t fear-mongering as some may want you to belive - it’s simple reality. Letting your kids play on the internet is not like letting them play outside in the fenced-in back yard… or even in the open street for that matter (which they should be doing instead of sitting on the computer to begin with – don’t get me started)… monitor your children’s PC activity! There is no excuse not to.

Kids are using 21st century technology in their lives without any notion of the consequences, because today it is the norm. That is an uncontrolable reality. But what is controllable is that you, as parents, must use 21st century technology to help safeguard them. Failing to do so is the epitome of ignorance and responsibility of today’s parents.

PC Pandora monitoring software is the best tool you can get to get the job done!

I thought this was the cutest video ever on Internet safety. It is done by 6th graders and teaches a good lesson:

Visit TeacherTube for more videos and blogs and other items covering a variety of topics… You can use the search within the video player to find other videos on Internet safety.

Nothing really to do with PC Pandora or monitoring software, but I thought it was worth sharing…

So I have decided, subconsciously at first, to do this once a week… when I have pulled together a good amount of stories from around the country to showcase the plethora of sickos arrested, caught or tried every week for trying and in some cases succeeding in having sex with minors they met online.

Here we go… in no particular order:

Rimersburg man faces Internet predator charges
From The Clarion News (Pennsylvania)

RIMERSBURG – A 27-year-old Rimersburg man has been charged by the state attorney general office’s child predator unit relating to the use of the Internet in an attempt to have improper relations with a minor.

John R. Goodman Jr. is charged with two counts each of unlawful contact with a minor and attempted unlawful contact with a minor, and one count of criminal use of a communication facility, all third-degree felonies.

According to court documents, a female agent of the AG’s child predator unit encountered Goodman in an Internet chat room allegedly known to be used by child predators.

The agent, posing as a 13-year-old girl, was contacted by a person in the chat room using the name “shady16282008.”

The user name and computer IP user was eventually traced to Goodman’s home.

Goodman allegedly said he was 27 years old and the agent allegedly identified herself as being 13 years old and asked Goodman if the age difference bothered him.

Goodman allegedly said he was OK with age difference and started a “mature sexual conversation” with the agent.

Goodman allegedly asked for photographs of the agent and she sent him a photograph of herself when she was 13. The photograph was described as non-suggestive.

Goodman alleged suggested the agent, posing as a 13-year-old girl, meet with him in his vehicle and asked for additional photographs.

Court documents list some of the conversations between Goodman and the agent, which are too sexually explicit to publish here.

At one point, Goodman allegedly set up an Internet cam and performed a sexual act on himself, sending the image to the agent. Goodman’s face allegedly was visible in a mirror in the room along with several tattoos that allegedly match those on Goodman’s body.

Goodman waived a preliminary hearing on the charges and was released on $25,000 bail.

Suspected Honolulu online predator indicted
Honolulu Advertiser Staff

A 30-year-old Waipahu man arrested Friday in a law-enforcement sting operation that targets online sexual predators of children was indicted today by an O‘ahu grand jury.

Tyler M. Wong was charged with first-degree electronic enticement of a child for allegedly setting up a meeting for sex with a 13-year-old girl. An agent for the Hawai‘i Internet Crimes Against Children task force posed online as the girl.

Wong was arrested at 12:25 a.m. Friday when he showed up for the meeting at Kaonohi Street and Moanalua Road. Authorities said Wong is a physical therapist employed by the state.

Wong was charged Saturday and released after posting $40,000 bail. A warrant stemming from the indictment has been issued for Wong’s arrest.

Internet predator arrest helps persuade legislature to hire specialist
Mid-Hudson News Network

[Excerpt]
KINGSTON – A New Jersey man is in custody after being nabbed in a sting orchestrated by the Ulster County Sheriff Office Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Unit.

Aung E. Aung, 42, of West Orange, NJ, is charged with three counts of disseminating indecent material to a minor.

The felony charges stem from a month-long investigation by the ICAC. Aung had engaged in numerous conversations with an undercover deputy, posing as a 14-year-old female. Aung initiated several communications of a sexual nature, and sent three photographs of himself performing a sexual act.

On April 4, Aung said he would like to make a trip to Kingston to met with the girl for the purpose of seeing a movie and getting a motel room.

Members of the ICAC, New York State Police, Ulster Police Department and URGENT set up surveillance, picking up Aung’s vehicle, following him, and making the arrest. Police in New Jersey subsequently searched his residence, seizing a laptop, cell phone and other evidence.

Aung is being held in lieu of $25,000 bail.

Metuchen man faces online child-luring charge
The Press (of Atlantic City)

MAYS LANDING – A central New Jersey man was arrested after he tried to arrange an encounter with an undercover officer posing as a 14-year-old girl on the Internet, Atlantic County Prosecutor Ted Housel said Wednesday.

Brian Sharkey, 27, of Metuchen, Middlesex County, was charged with child luring and endangering the welfare of a child, Housel said.

Over the course of the week-long investigation, Sharkey contacted an officer from the prosecutor’s Child Predators Unit who was posing as a 14-year-old girl, said assistant prosecutor Donna Fetzer. Sharkey allegedly had several sexually explicit conversations with the “girl” and arranged to meet “her” in a restaurant parking lot to engage in sexual activity.

“Pedophiles should realize that the Atlantic County Prosecutor’s Office Child Predators Unit exists to proactively disable the activities of online predators who would take advantage of our children,” Housel said in a released statement. “Their criminal behavior will not be tolerated and they will be appropriately punished.”

Sharkey was taken to the Atlantic County jail and was released after posting $75,000 bail, Housel said. If convicted, he faces as many as 15 years in prison.

Still think parents shouldn’t be worried? These guys ARE out there!

It’s good to see the cops slowly cleaning the trash off the Internet, but monitoring software like PC Pandora can help you be certain that your child or teenage surfer never has a run-in with slimeballs like these…