Schools have a clear responsibility to protect children from inappropriate online experiences. This responsibility is outlined in established legislation (CIPA - Children's Internet Protection Act ) and pending legislation (Deleting Online Predators Act of 2007 - H.R. 1120). Among the expectations established in legislation is the responsibility to filter (block) sites of potential danger to children.

H.R. 1120 specifically mentions chat and social networking sites that:

(i) is offered by a commercial entity

(ii) permits registered users to create an on-line profile that includes detailed personal information;

(iii) permits registered users to create an on-line journal and share such a journal with other users;

(iv) elicits highly-personalized information from users; and

(v) enables communication among users.

Because we assume there is some potential educational benefit in participatory Internet experiences, the following comments are intended to raise questions related to the assumption that filtering access is a productive approach to one of the more serious concerns associated with online interaction - i.e., contacting minors for the purposes of sexual victimization. Among the questions we want to raise are the following:

1. Has it been established that minors are frequently contacted while using a school computer?
2. Has it been established that the unintended sharing of information via blogs and other social sites is a major factor in which minors are targeted?
3. What is the best way to understand the behavior of minors who end up being victimized so that appropriate steps can be taken to limit such incidents?

Public Perception

 Chris Hanson and NBC's "Dateline - To Catch a Predator" series have done a great deal to alert the general public to the dangers posed by online predators (note there is a now a book by the same name and a blog). The series relies on "sting" operations to attract pedophiles to demonstrate the nature of the problem for a television audience, but also to allow these individuals to be arrested.  Ironically, the attention generated by the program extends even to the perpetrators caught as part of the program - these individuals often mention the program before they understand they are part of a future episode.

It is clearly scary stuff.

While it is obvious that the "stings" make use of the Internet to attract perpetrators making clear the reality that at least some with criminal intent rely on the Internet to communicate with victims, it is not clear what else should be concluded or what actions should be taken. More specifically - is it likely that a young student attempting to author a blog or maintain a social networking site is in danger?

A Research Perspective

My present thinking on this topic was shaped by the opportunity to watch testimony offered by several researchers to the Advisory Committee to the Congressional Internet Caucus (a video of this presentation and a transcript may still be available online). If this material is still available when you view this page, I urge you to do view these same resources.

In addition, I read several of the journal articles authored by the individuals on the panel. It is this material that I am summarizing here.

Wolak, Kinkelhor & Mitchell (2004) contacted law enforcement agencies nationwide to identify sexual offenses against juveniles that originated with online encounters. The victims were found to be predominantly 13-15 year old females who met adult males in Internet chat rooms. The offenders did not deceive their victims regarding their interest in sex with an estimated 80% discussing sexual topics online or the fact that they were adults. Half of the victims were described as being in love or feeling a close attachment to the offenders and met them on multiple occasions for sex. Violence was involved in less than 5% of the cases.

The authors are concerned that the impression that the Internet fosters deception and allows pedophiles to lure unsuspecting youth into face to face encounters that result in abduction and rape is a media promoted deception leading to the wrong course of action. In most cases, the risky behaviors in question involve knowingly discussing sexual topics with unknown adults online and then being willing to meet adults with sexual intentions.

In a more recent study, Mitchell, Wolak and Finkelhor (2007) interviewed 1500 randomly selected Internet users 17 and younger. Five percent of the 13 and older group reported what was described as an aggressive sexual solicitation (an attempt to follow online interaction with an attempt to contact by mail, phone, or face to face). Most of these youth involved in these situations provided the necessary information to be contacted off-line. The authors concluded that discussing sexual behavior with people known only online ("strangers") under some conditions is related to victimization, but the simple sharing personal information is not.

Finally, this is largely a problem that plays out outside of the school environment. When victims who had a close online relationship resulting in a face to face meeting were asked to identify where they connected for the online meeings. Over 90% indicated they connected from home, 7% connected from the home of a friend, and 0% connected from school (Wolak, Mitchell & Finkelhor, 2006).

Conclusion

There are obviously bad people in the world and no environment (on-line or off-line) can be regarded as absolutely save. These findings may offer data that reduce the level of assumed risk associated with some participatory uses of the web (e.g., blogging), but at the same time raise new and in some ways more disturbing concerns. Some proportion of adolescents appear to willingly enter into dangerous online situations and willingly follow-up with individuals they meet under such circumstances. They either seem to feel a sense of control that is unrealistic or knowingly participate based on naive or misguided motives.

A personal comment - this is the type of situation adults find difficult to address. It is easy to offer concrete advice on some topics because the advice is given as information under the assumption that a younger person may not know such things. It is more difficult to address problems when there seems to be disagreement on whether a risk is really a risk. This situation seems similar to other risky adolescent behaviors (drinking, unprotected sex, drug use) and passing laws related to some of these issues has not been the solution. The researchers have made a contribution in demonstrating what this situation is not, but they also recognize that solutions are not obvious. (http://www.netcaucus.org/events/2007/youth/).

REFERENCES 

Mitchell, K.J., Wolak, J., & Finkelhor, D. (2007). Trends in Youth Reports of Sexual Solicitations, Harassment and Unwanted Exposure to Pornography on the Internet. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 116 –126.

Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Internet-initiated sex crimes against minors: Implications for prevention based on findings from a national study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 35, 424-434.

Wolak, J., Mitchell, K. J. & Finkelhor, D. (2006). Online victimization of youth: Five years later. Available www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV138.pdf

Return

 5/28/07