Pandora’s Blog

In Southern Florida (Hollywood, to be exact), a 32-year old Ansen Brown met a 15-year old girl from California on MySpace (gee, there’s a shocker). He claimed to be a music producer and told the girl he could jump-start her career; he told her they would write songs together.

That’s all it took. Brown then bought the girl a plane ticket… she went to the airport and flew to Florida to meet him.

Then, of course, he took her to an apartment – not a music studio – where he took her identification away, gave her new ID cards and told her to adopt a new identity. Then he molested her.

Fortunately, and they don’t say how it was discovered just yet, the cops in California called Hollywood police saying they were looking for a missing teenager, and presented Ansen’s information. By then, Ansen had left the girl at the apartment and was on the run… they caught him in Greenville, SC.

You can read two articles on this here:

Man accused of molesting girl, 15, caught in South Carolina
By Joel Marino, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

Police arrest man accused of luring girl via MySpace.com
By Diana Moskovitz, Miami Herald

OK, so, for all those that downplay the dangers of Internet predators and the dangers of social networking – there you go. But I’d like to add that: if you wish, fine, dismiss the Internet predators – let’s just be reminded here of the immaturity and ignorance of your average mid-teenager.

See, teenagers today don’t know a world without the Internet. They think it’s just there to connect them to friends, and that everyone is nice and correctly identifying and representing themselves online. That is simply not the case. And parents who think that nothing could happen to their kid are just as irresponsible and ignorant as their teens.

It’s harsh I know, but I am making it my mission to get parents to wake up. This is not your pen pal letters or telephone calls or lock-and-key diary or even cruisin’-‘round-town of generations past. This is a whole new battlefield that parents must maneuver to keep their kids safe. Rule #1 is having knowledge. If you don’t want to use monitoring software like our PC Pandora at least be educated and know full-well what your kids is really doing online. (e.g. that is where PC Pandora comes in as a valuable aid)

Don’t try to play the “it’ll never happen to my kid; they are too smart” card. That’s just plain ignorance and laziness. Technology has changed, so should the rules of parenting.

Be smart. Be a parent, not a buddy.

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!!

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…

This post isn’t shocking because it shows teens being cruel to each other, though the beating is pretty serious and effed up (why was this girl even friends with these people?)… But it’s more shocking – to me at least – because it demonstrates the value that teens have for MySpace, a pedestal that is dangerously high.

Maybe it’s because I am in my 30s and didn’t have the Internet when I was in high school (not a well developed form that is, I remember a few of the geeks using the loud modems to dial up and “get online” in the mid 90s), but even when someone would write something mean on a locker – we just kind of gave the middle finger and did the same back.

At least in my high school, just 15 years ago, stuff like this never happened:

More Teens Charged In Taped Beating
(click link to read full story and watch a video)

LAKELAND — Two more teenagers were arrested, accused of videotaping a beating a 16-year-old girl so they could post the video on the Internet.

Authorities said the girl was attacked on March 30 by six girls when she arrived at a friend’s home.

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said the incident began after comments were made on the popular social networking site MySpace.com.

At one point in the video, the beaten girl was knocked unconscious, and was later seen pleading to be let out of the house.

The sheriff’s office said after the attack, three of the teens forced her into a vehicle and drove her to another location, where she was told she would be given a worse beating if she called police.

Two males — one adult and one minor — were also charged for allegedly acting as lookouts during the beating. One boy, who was charged as an adult, was freed on bail.

The victim’s father said the teens intended to post the video on YouTube.com.

After this article, the story of which has now made rounds everywhere (I just saw a lengthy report on CNN), there was an update this morning:

Teens In Taped Beating Could Be Charged As Adults
[excerpt]
The Polk County Sheriff says he wants everyone connected to a taped beating of a 16-year-old, which showed up on MySpace.com, tried as adults.

Authorities said Victoria Lindsay was attacked on March 30 by six girls when she arrived at a friend’s home.

Eight teens have been arrested, ranging in age from 14 to 18.

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said the incident began after slurs and insults were allegedly made on the popular social networking site MySpace.com by Lindsay.

Lindsay is still recovering from a concussion and has lost some vision and hearing. She said she won’t be returning to public school because of what happened.

EDIT: CNN just reported the attackers WILL be charged with felonies.

I don’t know what was written that provoked the attack, but I am certain it wasn’t what would be considered “cyberbullying.” Maybe along with Internet safety, parents and teachers should be telling kids that they will never be able to control what people say on the Internet – so don’t fret. They are already saying be careful of what you post – but let’s take it one step further and tell them not to worry what one idiot says. After all, the Internet is chock full of them… And maybe someone should tell teenagers that nothing that happens in high school will matter in 5 years… that is, unless they videotape themselves beating-up a peer and post it on the Internet.

This unfortunate story also just shows the pure immaturity of teenagers, and the misplaced importance they have for the Internet. It also clearly demonstrates the ignorance of parents when it comes to knowing what their kids are doing and how they are feeling.

I hope the girls that were vicious enough to do this - and then stupid enough to tape it and post it online - are scarred for life by this incident, just like the victim. That should be their penalty for acting like psychos and then showing it to the whole world. Likewise, I hope the victim will now think twice before posting stupid insults on a page that everyone can read. I also hope the parents pay for their kids’ actions – maybe that will serve as a reminder to watch what your stupid teens are doing online. (I won’t even go into a rant about parents needing to toughen up in order to prevent breeding little monsters)

EDIT: mom Lindsay was just on CNN and mentioned how they had emailed MySpace, asking them to delete their daughter’s profile. They did not. Of course – why would they care about their members…? (that is sarcasm, if you can’t pick it up) She also mentioned she had put parental controls on the computer, but the daughter was smart enough to get around them.

I applaud mom for appearing on CNN and feel terrible about what happened to her daughter, but it is true – had she been monitoring (like, let’s say, with an excellent program like PC Pandora 5.0), rather than trying to filter and block, she may have been able to step in and tell her daughter that posting taunting comments like that is stupid and could very well come back to hurt her. Certainly no one could have foreseen a beatdown, which is still inexcusable and disgusting… but you know what I am saying. The only way to truly know what your kids are doing is to monitor their Internet activity.

Our deepest sympathies go to the Lindsay family and to Vicky, whom I hope has a speedy and healthy recovery.

I meant to write about this last week, but ran out of time on Friday. For all those that say fears are overblown, I submit the following four stories from Wednesday and Thursday of last week. These are abridged versions of the stories; you can click the links for the full monty:

• Ohio Cops Help Nab Suspected Predator
  DETROIT (AP) - Police from a small Ohio town have helped Wayne County authorities arrest a Detroit man on child pornography charges. Jeffrey Burt Vandeveer has been arraigned Wednesday on eight felony counts, including distribution of child sexually abusive material and dissemination of sexually explicit material to a minor. An undercover New Waterford officer posing as a young girl over the Internet had received sexually explicit chats and an explicit image of minors engaged in sex.

• Accused ‘Web predators’ from Bucks, Chesco jailed
  Two Philadelphia-area men identified as “Web predators” were arrested Tuesday, the state Attorney General’s Office announced yesterday. Francis J. Smith, 62, of Bensalem, and Bobby W. Mundell, 32, of Coatesville, both initiated communication in online chat rooms with what they thought were 14-year-old girls but who were actually undercover agents, a news release said. Both men also sent sexually explicit Webcam videos to the agents. Smith was arraigned on charges that include unlawful contact with a minor and criminal use of a computer; he was remanded to Bucks County Correctional Facility after failing to post $500,000 bail. Mundell, arraigned on similar charges, was taken to Chester County Prison with bail set at $75,000. The release said the arrests were made by the Child Predator Unit, created in 2005 to capture Internet predators before they can harm children. To date, the unit has made 132 arrests, including 64 over the last 12 months, the release said.

• Child predators
  A Harrisburg man is the latest in a growing number of men to be arrested while trying to solicit sex from teenagers online. According to the State Attorney General’s Office, last October, James Stambaugh started an online conversation with a 14-year-old girl. Investigators then say the conversation allegedly turned very sexual, very quickly. When Stambaugh went to teach the teen her [sex] lesson last month, he got one himself. Instead of a teenage girl, he met officers from the Swatara Township Police Department, working with detectives from the Attorney General’s Child Predator Unit - who have netted four arrests in recent weeks, and 132 in a little over three years. The Attorney General’s Press Secretary calls James Stambaugh a “traveler”, someone who will travel to meet up with a child; the type of suspect who can be the most dangerous.

The fourth story isn’t a predator caught, but does back-up the importance of knowing what your child does online:

• Little Elm police investigate whether 14-year-old accessed child porn
  Little Elm police were investigating whether a 14-year-old boy accessed child pornography on his home computer. The undercover Internet investigation, which originated in Illinois, resulted in a search warrant for two computers at the teen’s home, said Little Elm police Det. Oscar Hinojosa. The investigation was continuing and no charges have been filed against the teen, police said. “It might have been an accident,” Det. Hinojosa said. “He could have been looking for regular porn.”

I posted the first three stories to show the skeptics that predators are in fact out there and getting caught all the time – which is both good news and a reminder. The last story is just another reminder to be aware of what your kids are doing. Whether or not the parents were fine with the 14-year-old looking for porn, if he happens to view images of people his own age involved in the acts – that is child pornography!

Knowledge is power. Be a powerful 21st century parent with PC Pandora monitoring software… protect your kids from Internet predators – and themselves!

Earlier this week, the North Country Gazette reported a story about the NY State Senate’s efforts to further increase protections to kids online by taking another whack at would-be predators. Since I live in the state, I have a soft spot for these stories. You can read the full article here: Senate Okays Exploitation Prevention Act

Here are the juicy bits:

The New York State Senate has passed and sent to the Assembly a comprehensive plan that would enact aggressive measures to protect children from the dangers posed by Internet predators, child pornography and child sexual abuse. The “Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation Prevention Act of 2008″ (S.6747) is based upon recommendations made in a report released by the Senate Majority Task Force on Critical Choices entitled, “Protecting Children in the Internet Age.”

The report highlights the strong link between child pornography possessors and individuals who sexually victimize children. This comprehensive legislation will:

• Toughen penalties for promoting child prostitution;
• Increase penalties for producing child pornography;
• Provide enhanced penalties where a sex crime against a child has been committed using a computer or computer service;
• Increase the penalty for persons who permit their premises to be used for child prostitution;
• Allow the admission of business records into evidence in child pornography grand jury proceedings via affidavit;
• Allow a “non-judicial” subpoena to be issued by a district attorney or the Attorney General for child pornography via the internet; and
• Require local social services districts, when possible, to establish safe houses for sexually abused children.

Earlier this year, the Senate passed Attorney General Cuomo’s e-STOP initiative (Electronic Security and Targeting of Online Predators Act) that requires sex offenders to register their online identifiers and updates Megan’s Law for the Internet age (S.6875-A, Skelos). The Senate also passed legislation (S.1921-A), sponsored by Sen. Robach, to increase criminal penalties for using a computer to commit a sex crime against a child. 4-2-08

This new bill and the provisions within are an excellent next step. There is really no way anyone could argue against these protections in place. They do not limit the average user’s Internet freedom… that is, unless that user’s interests are in child pornography. While I will step out of the “registering” part of the debate, I think this is the way law enforcement in each state needs to go:

• Make it illegal for a would-be predator to use the Internet to solicit a child
• If they are caught, use every piece of evidence against them
• And then make the penalty as stiff as possible

This is what the case would be if a predator was found kidnapping kids on a neighborhood playground; it should be no different in the digital one.

Parents, remember to know where your kids are and what they are doing. Monitor their activity with software like PC Pandora 5.0… Knowing, without question, what they are doing when they step into the digital worldwide playground is an essential part of 21st century parenting. There is no reason not to know…

I came across this Q&A on APP.com with Larry Rosen, professor of psychology at California State University-Dominguez Hills. Rosen has long studied “the Net generation,” the first to grow up with the Internet. I pasted the ENTIRE Q&A below because I think it’s a great take on the issue and has some good information within. Naturally, however, I have some comments…

“Net generation” parents urged to give kids their (My)Space
BY JANET KORNBLUM • USA TODAY

Larry Rosen, professor of psychology at California State University-Dominguez Hills, has long studied “the Net generation,” the first to have grown up with the Internet, not to mention cell phones.

In “Me, MySpace and I: Parenting the Net Generation” (Palgrave Macmillan), he helps parents understand social networks. His advice: Talk to your kids, learn the technology and don’t panic. USA TODAY’s Janet Kornblum spoke with the author.

Q: Why did you write this book?
A: For kids — what I’m calling the Net generation, anybody born after 1980 — technology is not a tool. It just is. It’s part of their life. They think of it differently.
PCPan: I’ve always considered the year to be 1985-ish. I feel the kids that graduated 5 years ago can still turn off technology when they need to and recognize it as a tool – not a necessity. But that is a minor detail…

Q: How has technology influenced this generation?
A: They do things in a more abbreviated fashion. They IM (instant-message) with multiple people at the same time. They can’t uni-task. They do everything on their own. They’re very self-motivated.
PCPan: So true on uni-tasking! But I don’t think they are self-motivated… I feel they are more motivated to do as little work as possible. I.e., send an email instead of picking up the phone. Also, as I’ve said before – I’d love to see the long term effects of the IM abbrv’d lingo on the proper English language.

Q: How does it specifically affect their relationships?
A: They make commitments to people online they don’t even know. But their strongest commitment is to their family. They see more of the world as a social world. So social problems are very important to them.
PCPan: Yes they talk to strangers online, but I have yet to see evidence that their strongest commitment is to their family. I think it’s towards their MySpace page…

Q: Do you think the Internet is fundamentally changing kids?
A: This world encourages us to multitask. I think it encourages kids to be much less patient. More terse.
PCPan: you better believe it!

Q: Why are social networks so popular?
A: When I grew up (a baby boomer), our social life was outside. We hung out. The next generation spent time at the mall. This generation spends time at home — connected. Kids have to be social. It’s all part of the preteen and teen years and young-adult years. MySpace happened to come around at the right time when you had a whole generation of kids who needed a place to be social.
PCPan: I am the “mall” generation. I completely understand this, though I debate the word choice of “right time”… would any time have been right? Is any time wrong? Whenever it happened, the current teen generation was bound to lock on.

Q: Weigh the positives and the negatives of social networking.
A: Because they have a combination of people they know face-to-face in the real world and people they don’t, (those of the Net generation) get a lot of chances to bounce ideas and to test out things on a social network that they probably wouldn’t do face-to-face. I hear that a lot from kids — that they feel much more comfortable saying things online than they ever would off-line. That’s a real positive because they get to test out their world.
PCPan: Saying things online they wouldn’t say offline is not a good thing in general. Forget about the dangers of giving out too much personal information to strangers, it encourages being sheepish and not learning basic face-to-face conversational skills… which seem to be universally fading slowly. However, I will not deny that for some, being able to express yourself at all - even if the Internet is the only place you feel comfortable - is a good thing for sure!

Q: So, how should parents think about social networks?
A: You can certainly use your parenting skills to help them get the most out of MySpace — to not be addicted, to not be bullied and to know what to do when you’re bullied. But taking (MySpace) away from them is really like restricting going to the mall with their friends or going to school and talking to their friends. It’s tantamount to making them a pariah.
PCPan: I agree. Don’t fight it – learn it.

Q: Can you give some solid parenting tips?
A: Talk to your kids. If the computer is in their rooms — which is not a good idea — walk in and ask them what they are doing. Ask them what’s new, what they like about it. Don’t be judgmental. Tell them you want to learn. Kids love rules, believe it or not. Kids need limits. They’re defining a new generational attitude. But they’re not new teenagers. We know what adolescents do. You have to learn what potential problems there might be, and then, like a good, authoritative parent, you discuss those with your kids. You know there might be sexual predators out there. How do you handle that?
PCPan: Absolutely right on… and this is also where PC Pandora monitoring software can help…

Q: Compare the Internet and social networking to television.
A: Every waking minute of every day, they are interacting with some sort of technological medium, except perhaps when they’re in school. Even then, kids are texting from their pockets. They’re wearing iPods all day. It’s just a different world for them. The impact of television on society took years and years and years. And we had a chance to adapt to it. The kinds of tools these kids are using are vast. Nobody heard of MySpace five years ago. Nobody heard of an iPod five years ago. Nobody heard of instant messaging. This is a rapidly changing technological world and the kids are the first ones to adapt to technology.
PCPan: Very true. I don’t think there has been such an overnight change in technology and way of life EVER. The only thing that could be remotely compared to it would be the birth of classic rock and roll in the earl/mid ‘60s. One minute it’s jazz and big band and slow music… the next, it’s the Stones and Hendrix. But to go from no Internet to instant communication and knowledge is something we’ve never experienced. And while the older generations see the change, kids today can’t comprehend a world without it (kind of like my generation and microwaves or VCRs).

Q: Are parents keeping up?
A: Parents have a total misconception about what their kids are doing online. They don’t know how much time they’re spending. They don’t have the breadth of what’s happening to the kids online. They think the kids are being attacked by predators all the time. They are way over-concerned about the technology that the kids are using. Everything is so different from year to year. No wonder the parents are afraid. They don’t have to know everything, but they’ve got to see what MySpace is about.
PCPan: I agree wholeheartedly and once again reiterate the knowledge is power. You can’t have the power in your house if you simply ‘don’t know.’ Talk to your kids and use technology to help you attain knowledge you can’t otherwise get. PC Pandora can play a vital role in any 21st century parent’s arsenal of equipment.

This type of post is my guilty-as-charged go-to topic when I don’t have much else for the day…

WBBH/ NBC-2 in Ft. Myers FL reported about another sicko who traveled “more than 100 miles to meet [a] girl who he thought was 11-years-old.”

22-year-old Alexander Quinones traveled from Miami to a shopping center in East Naples on Friday to meet a youngster he met online, in hopes of sex. Of course, it was an undercover cop and Quinones was arrested and charged with three felonies for using a computer to lure, solicit and travel to meet a child. It was the payoff to more than three months of chatting online.

The story is available online as a video (story by Adam Freeman) and also serves as a character profile of Detective Scott Rapisarda of the Collier County Sheriff’s Office, who spends his days posing as an 11-year old girl online.

Rapisarda also offered some tips for parents. He says parents should always ask questions and should always keep an eye on who your children are chatting with and what chat rooms they go into.

Couldn’t have said it better… it’s the bottom line hard truth to the whole issue. Fortunately, tools like PC Pandora monitoring software can help you gain that knowledge…