DOPA Unthinking and Thinking

Technorati Tags: DOPA, Congress, Web 2.0, Social software, technology ban

Not much is happening on the DOPA front, from a legislative point of view.    (Previous DOPA posts: Suburban Agenda,  then Suburban Caucus, then my letter,  The Anti-DOPA Wiki)

Somebody who blogs as Rohan Pinto  (who has a track record of not thinking) does the knee-jerk BAN IT!! response.  Dang, and this guy is a technologist.

I am not against social networking, but I have kids, and I am concerned… especially when I’m aware that kids today do things without thinking of the consequences. I do not see this move as a bad move by the feds. It may very well turn out to be good.

So Rohan Pinto doesn't think.  Happily we have skeptics. In Predator Panic: Reality Check on Sex Offenders By Benjamin Radford

Most people believe that sex offenders pose a serious and growing threat. According to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, "the danger to teens is high." On the April 18, 2005, "CBS Evening News" broadcast, correspondent Jim Acosta reported that "when a child is missing, chance are good it was a convicted sex offender." (Acosta is incorrect: If a child goes missing, a convicted sex offender is actually among the least likely explanations, far behind runaways, family abductions, and the child being lost or injured.)

On his "To Catch a Predator" series on "Dateline NBC," reporter Chris Hansen claims that "the scope of the problem is immense" and "seems to be getting worse." In fact, Hansen stated, Web predators are "a national epidemic." The news media emphasizes the dangers of Internet predators, convicted sex offenders, pedophiles, and child abductions.

Despite relatively few instances of child predation and little hard data on topics such as Internet predators, journalists invariably suggest that the problem is extensive, and fail to put their stories in context.

[snip]

One in five?

According to a May 3, 2006, "ABC News" report, "One in five children is now approached by online predators."

This alarming statistic is commonly cited in news stories about prevalence of Internet predators. The claim can be traced back to a 2001 Department of Justice study issued by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children ("The Youth Internet Safety Survey") that asked 1,501 American teens between 10 and 17 about their online experiences. Among the study's conclusions: "Almost one in five (19 percent)…received an unwanted sexual solicitation in the past year." (A "sexual solicitation" is defined as a "request to engage in sexual activities or sexual talk or give personal sexual information that were unwanted or, whether wanted or not, made by an adult." Using this definition, one teen asking another teen if her or she is a virgin—or got lucky with a recent date—could be considered "sexual solicitation.")

Not a single one of the reported solicitations led to any actual sexual contact or assault. Furthermore, almost half of the "sexual solicitations" came not from "predators" or adults but from other teens. When the study examined the type of Internet "solicitation" parents are most concerned about (e.g., someone who asked to meet the teen somewhere, called the teen on the telephone, or sent gifts), the number drops from "one in five" to 3 percent.

This is a far cry from a "national epidemic" of children being "approached by online predators." As the study noted, "The problem highlighted in this survey is not just adult males trolling for sex. Much of the offending behavior comes from other youth [and] from females." Furthermore, most kids just ignored (and were not upset by) the solicitation: "Most youth are not bothered much by what they encounter on the Internet…Most young people seem to know what to do to deflect these sexual ‘come ons.'" The reality is far less grave than the ubiquitous "one in five" statistic suggests.

Thank you, Benjamin Radford, for the voice of reason.

Comments

[Rohan Pinto]

Hi,

just because I am a technologist does not mandate me to think alike all others does it ? I blogged about what I "feel" regarding the ban, does that make it wrong ?

There are a huge population of folks who are against the ban who voice their opinions, and all of them are "considered" "thinkers", and when someone feels otherwise, we call them names, point to irr-relevant instances from their pasts, and try to demean them. is that fair ?