We Need to Address Dangers on the Internet

By MIKE KELLY

LET’S ASSUME that Lisa Smith is telling the truth. She is the mother of Evan Smith, one of 41 New Jersey residents caught in a state child pornography investigation that stretched into 15 of New Jersey’s 21 counties and nabbed such a diverse array of suspects as a girls’ volleyball referee, a volunteer firefighter and three juveniles, including a 14-year-old.

Evan Smith of Little Falls is 18. He was charged with possession of child porn with intent to distribute after a state police raiding party broke into his family’s home and discovered Evan had allegedly downloaded quite a lurid file into his computer.

But his mother insists her son is innocent and offered an intriguing explanation when contacted by Record reporter Richard Cowen.

“He’s a victim of the Internet,” Lisa Smith said.

Don’t be surprised if she turns out to be correct.

It needs to be said here that it’s too early to judge Evan Smith’s guilt or innocence – the evidence has not been presented yet. But his mother’s concern raises a key question about the lack of controls on the Internet even as cops find that computer networking has become a key tool for child porn purveyors. Indeed, New Jersey’s latest child porn arrests again remind us that our nation is far behind in facing the problems of the Internet.

*

Posting warnings

If you doubt that, consider a seemingly simple request by New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram.

Midway through the investigation, State Police detectives told Milgram that many suspects participated in “peer-to-peer” file sharing networks. State police traced porn files to the suspects by analyzing “digital fingerprints” left by computer users as they cruised the Internet for porn.

As worrisome as that kind of Internet cruising is, investigators discovered something even more shocking: Seventeen of the 41 suspects had posted personal information on such popular Internet sites as MySpace and Facebook.

Authorities don’t think the suspects used MySpace, Facebook or other networking sites to actually share porn. But porn users – and distributors – can use such sites to post cryptic hints to others interested in their creepy world.

Not long ago, MySpace conducted an internal investigation and discovered that 29,000 members of its networking site were convicted sex offenders. At least 269 of them were from New Jersey.

Maybe it was just a coincidence that all these sex offenders joined an Internet networking site. But law enforcement officials fear something far worse – that these networking sites offer the kind of secrecy that sex offenders need to find new victims. Child porn customers crave the same secrecy.

So Milgram had an idea.

Why not ask MySpace, Facebook and other networking sites to warn users about porn or unwanted sexual overtures?

*

Resistance

A half-dozen sites, including myYearbook.com, agreed to join the system suggested by Milgram. But as of last week, when cops announced the 41 porn arrests, the most popular sites – MySpace and Facebook – had not yet replied to Milgram. Maybe now, they’ll get the hint.

Milgram’s request was hardly intrusive, certainly not a violation of First Amendment rights of free expression. She merely asked that these networking sites post “Report Abuse” icons that encourage legitimate users – especially teenagers – to alert authorities to possible illegal invitations to receive porn or sexual advances. Think of it as an electronic version of those anti-crime subway signs that say, “If you see something, say something.”

In other words, all Milgram wanted was for the networking sites to encourage users to be good citizens and report possible crimes.

But Milgram could not even get that far. At issue is space on the networking sites. The “Report Abuse” icon would take up space that could be sold for advertising. Translation: Money talks.

If Milgram could not even get MySpace and Facebook to make that small sacrifice, you can only imagine the sort of cooperation Milgram would get if she asked MySpace and Facebook to voluntarily open up their files.

*

Adapting to new technology

America has been trying to grapple with the societal implications of the Internet for almost two decades. But little has been accomplished. Internet advocates fear government control – a legitimate concern, in some cases.

But Milgram wasn’t attacking anyone’s rights. She just wanted the Internet site to instruct users how to find help if they felt threatened. Isn’t that a right, too?

In the case of Evan Smith, we don’t know if a warning would have helped stop an embarrassing arrest. His parents explain that Evan was using a file-sharing network called LimeWire.

According to his parents, Evan typed in some sort of key word – they did not say what – and received a set of files. At least one of those files contained child pornography.

After receiving the porn, Evan should have contacted police. Maybe he was afraid. Maybe he just thought the files were secret – with no digital fingerprints for cops to trace. Maybe he really wanted those files.

Hopefully, we’ll learn those answers in time.

Meanwhile, Evan Smith’s arrest and those of other child porn suspects again raise questions about one of our most important tools – the Internet.

We have no problem accepting safeguards on all manner of common tools for our lives, from automobiles to desk lamps.

When are we going to face up to the dangers of the Internet?

* * *

Mike Kelly is a Record columnist. Contact him at kellym@northjersey.com. Send comments about this column to The Record at letterstotheeditor@northjersey.com.

(c) 2007 Record, The; Bergen County, N.J.. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.