Child Predators: Does Technology Increase Exposure and Risk?

Child Predators: Does Technology Increase Exposure and Risk?
Introduction
Child predators, or a person who preys upon minors for self-gratification often in a sexual manner, has been a known social issue before computers were invented. With the increased availability of computer based technology, including social networking, people have begun to demand more laws and regulations in regards to sex offenders ability access online technology and communication tools (Wynton, 2011). The availability of computer based communication has allowed for the world to interact with others in a way that is not like that of telegraph or telephone. Does the increase of technology create more predators or does it just give a medium for predators to expand and reach their potential victims? As with many things that are linked to technology, the exposure and the knowledge that is needed to prevent the increase of child predators online is reliant on multiple factors. These factors include access to online environments, increased preventative technology, knowledge of children and their risks online, and the need for social responsibility for web developers, parents, and children. The expansion of technology does not guarantee more predators will emerge but it does give new mediums and victims that may not have been available previously, creating a need for changes in both the virtual and real worlds that people reside in.

Background Child predators can be prosecuted for attempts to “knowingly persuade, induce, entice or coerce any minor to engage in any sexual activity” according to Christenson (2011) of Duke Law School. With this in mind, prior to computer based communication the predator would have to have a way to be close enough to the potential victim in order to commit or attempt a sex crime. With the expansion of computer based communication the ability to contact, and in turn persuade or entice, a minor has expanded to include the virtual world as well as the physical world. Lawmakers have recognized the issue of online predators and begun to take an initiative against their presence as well as their actions online. Many state laws have been passed to ensure that sex offenders are not allowed on specific internet social networking sites such as MySpace, Facebook, etc. (Wynton, 2011). In accordance with their sentences if the convicted predators are found to be using these sites it is considered a direct violation of their release and they will be sent back to prison similar to any other criminal that violates the terms of their release. The complete shutdown of someone’s use and exposure to the internet is not agreed upon as a preventative measure by all people. Preventing the use of these sites as well as the use of other publically available resources has raised the question on whether or not the First Amendment rights of a sex offender are violated during their restriction of use. Ekblaw (2011) explains that many activist of the First Amendment believe that the goal of protecting children can be reached through other means that are not as speech restrictive and thus do not restrict the First Amendment. With this argument in place not all laws and restrictions have been adopted by every state and therefor still creates a space in which child predators are able to prey upon their potential victims without the same consequences.
With the increase in the availability of internet and cellular telephones, with access to both text messaging and internet to children, increasing the exposure to potential predators and threats has also increased. In 2007, approximately 74% of children 13-18 years old owned cellular telephones and 26% of 6-12 year olds owned cellular telephones (Knapstein, 2007).The ability to access information about an individual has increased as has internet and online usage amongst children and adults (Mitchell, Lebow, Uribe, Grathouse, & Shoger, 2011). With this increased risk there must be lessons taught to children to help prevent and curb the chances of a predator coming in contact with a child of any age.

Increased Risk and Exposure Technology has opened new gateways in both positive and negative experiences. The fact that children are able to access the internet from points that are not fixed, such as a home computer, where parents can easily monitor their activity has increased the need to teach children about the risk of potential predators. Children have also grown up using computers and may be able to access sites and tools that their parents are not aware of or have the knowledge to prevent access to from their children. According to a study done by Kite, Gable, and Filippelli in 2010, middle school students were asked about computer related interactions and knowledge. 62% of the students agreed that they were better with computer software than their parents, 71% did not know or believe that a predator would contact them based off from information on their website, and 63% did not know or believe that a predator could contact them based off from posted information. The same study showed that only 59% of the students surveyed possessed the necessary information to avoid predators or prevent contact with people they did not know. The fact that the majority of students believed they were better at using computers than their parents could potentially increase the ability to hide their actual usage or not allow for parents to know what their children are doing online. 74% students agree that the majority of their friends had some sort of social networking website (Kite et al., 2010). With this high of a percentage of participation in social networking the involvement and knowledge of the parents must be present so that parents can assist in preventative measures.

Preventative Measures Laws and software have been created to help prevent the access that predators have to children online as well as how knowledgeable a parent may be to a potential threat within their area of residence. One of the original laws passed to protect children online was the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) which has been reformed to include the Delete Online Predators Act (DOPA) (Essex, 2009). In these acts public libraries and other structures which would allow children to access the internet would have to provide a filtering, or blocking program that prevents access to certain sites in which children may be exposed to inappropriate material or predators, program on all of their computers. In the passing of these laws Congress cited a recent study that showed 67% of students do not share their internet activity with their parents, 30% actually made an effort to hide their activity, 31% of the children have the ability to bypass the software that would be used in accordance with DOPA, and that 12% has actually had face to face interaction with someone they met online (Essex, 2009). The use of filtering software associated with DOPA must also be used in accordance with the teachings of parents and schools to help prevent access to the children by the predators. Essex (2009) also showed that 61% of parents wanted to be more involved in the content and internet activity of their children but 47% felt that their abilities to limit and monitor their children’s activity was limited due to schedules or knowledge. The parents cannot rely on monitoring by a computer based program as many of the students were able to circumvent these programs. The involvement of the parents in the activity of their children online becomes even more important to preventing contact between a predator and a child. The typical adult involved in online sexual activity (OSA) is a married, professional, male, in their early thirties (Atkinson & Newton, 2010). This profile is likely going to be similar to many of the role models in a child’s life and not necessarily considered a threat or a predator in the child’s eyes. Parent’s must inform and ensure their child knows that familiarity is a key to preventing outside predators from creating a threat towards the child. Online predators are more likely to gain the attention of someone who is not directly involved in their social interaction and create a new base of victims than that of family friends, family members, or other close children in their lives (Atkinson & Newton, 2010). Parents must instill into their children that it essential to their safety and well-being that they avoid strangers. Technology has also been able to work in the favor of preventing or educating parents of potential threats in their area to ensure they know about people with past offenses that are located in their physical area. The United States Department of Justice has been able to create National Sex Offender Public Website (NSOPW) (2012). With the use of this site as well as others that are locally based parents are able to find information about registered sex offenders. With the local laws of disclosure that a sex offender must follow as well as the posted information online about them, parents are able to remain informed about who may be located near their residence or schools. Tools and websites such as these can also help to determine if the offender is a threat or if their arrest was based on something that was not related to a minor. Sex offender laws are not designed to separate the crimes into different categories at first glance by an outside source. Sites such as NSOPW and local sites allow for parents to retrieve information about an offender who may be considered a sex offender for an offense such as urination in public as opposed to sex with a minor under the age of 13 (USDOJ, 2012). Parents are then able to have the information about the people who may reside in their community and are able to inform their children through the use of pictures that are posted in the registration sites. However, online anonymity is something that gives the predator an advantage when meeting the victims online. Predators that use the internet as their main tool of attracting potential victims are able to use identities that are not theirs and can pose as someone who the child either is attracted to, not afraid of, or is willing to share information with. If a child does understand that these predators are online or they are not made aware of the potential that someone may not be telling them the truth online it can easily leave them more vulnerable to attacks by predators. The assumption that laws such as DOPA and programs that filter certain sites will be able to prevent a child from being attacked is something that parents and guardians must understand as preventative measures they must understand that knowledge is the only way to potentially avoid these predators or at least slow their movements towards the children.

Moving Into the Future Parents and guardians that believe that the only way to protect children from predators is to completely avoid the internet and potential threats may look at preventative measures that do not inhibit the growth that a child technologically. Emily Bazelon (2011) examines the reaction throughout time to technology and the ability for parents to completely protect their children from technology as it grows and creates issues that may not have been present in the years prior to its invention. Bazelon looks at the violent video games and the preventative measures that were taken to prevent children from committing violence based on the video games they play and how there was no substantiated proof that the playing of violent video games caused violence. The same can be said with the introduction of social networking and the opening of an online environment to predators looking for children. It has not been proven that because someone uses social networking or the internet as a child that they are any more prone to the threat of a sexual predator. In actuality, according to the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire (Bazelon, 2011), the number of child sex crimes and teenagers having sex is down from a similar study conducted in the early 1990’s. The evolution of technology over this period has increased the amount of available internet sites that predators could potentially prey upon as well as the technology usage of children. The evolution of technology has increased the need for awareness that in turn creates the amount of information that people are subject to concerning internet child predators. Sex offender crimes have also changed to include other less serious crimes that are still considered a sex crime. A need to reclassify certain crimes such as sexting, or the use of a cellular service to text sexual messages, has raised an awareness that general assumptions cannot be made about sex offenders and their threat to children (Bazelon, 2011) and that the laws based off from these assumptions may not always be the correct measures to prevent future issues and crimes. The laws and regulations regarding sex crimes, sex offenders, the classification of these people and their actions has to be able to change as scenarios, threats, and tools change. It is not always easy for laws and regulations to keep pace with technology and this fact can create issues that nobody may have thought about until after something happens and raises questions or concerns.
Conclusion
Child predators have been able to use online communication tools such as chat rooms, social networking sites, and online forums to expand their potential victim base. Children have had an increased exposure to technology including but not limited to smartphones, home computers, tablets, and other communication devices that are able to connect to the internet on the go and at any time. The increased need for parents to educate their children about inherent risks of online predators, and the use of these tools to reach out to them has become even more important to the prevention and safety of the children. Laws regarding online predators are beginning to take form and initiate a movement towards creating safer online environments for children and other users. However, as laws take form and technology grows the ability for the laws to keep up with the evolution of technology become even more difficult for parents, lawmakers, and other members of society. With the term “sex offender” representing multiple different crimes including violent and non-violent, minor and adult, non-threatening and threatening the ability to institute laws that represent all of the offenders is difficult and often challenging. While the expansion of online technology and communication tools does not necessarily increase the number of predators or offenders it does provide a new point of access to victims that must be monitored and regulated. Parents and guardians who are involved with their children and are able to pass on knowledge regarding safety and the potential threat of predators are able to help prevent issues. While not everything is guaranteed to provide the service or prevention that it is supposed to there are steps that parents can take to ensure that their child is aware of issues and problems that may occur.

References
Atkinson, C., & Newton, D. (2010). Online behaviours of adolescents: Victims, perpetrators and Web 2.0. Journal Of Sexual Aggression, 16(1), 107-120.
Bazelon, E. (2011). The ninny state. The New York Times. June 24, 2011. Retrieved from, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/magazine/the-wrong-response-to-online-predators.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Christensen, K. J. (2011). Reforming attempt liability under 18 u.s.c. § 2422(b): an insubstantial step back from United States V. Rothenberg. Duke Law Journal, 61(3), 693-730.
Ekblaw, J. (2011). Not in my library: an examination of state and local bans of sex offenders from public libraries. Indiana Law Review, 44(3), 919-956.
Essex, D. (2009). From deleting online predators to educating internet users. Young Adult Library Services, 7(3), 36-45.
Kite, S. L., Gable, R., & Filippelli, L. (2010). Assessing middle school students’ knowledge of conduct and consequences and their behaviors regarding the use of social networking sites. Clearing House, 83(5), 158-163.
Knapstein, K. (2007). Cell-phone-savvy kids. Scholastic Parent & Child, 14(6), 62.
Mitchell, M. E., Lebow, J. R., Uribe, R. R., Grathouse, H. H., & Shoger, W. W. (2011). Internet use, happiness, social support and introversion: A more fine grained analysis of person variables and internet activity. Computers In Human Behavior, 27(5), 1857-1861. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.04.008
US Department of Justice. (2012). National sex offenders public website. Retrieved from, http://www.nsopw.gov/Core/Portal.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
Wynton, J. S. (2011). Myspace, yourspace, but not theirspace: the constitutionality of banning sex offenders from social networking sites. Duke Law Journal, 60(8), 1859-1903.