A long awaited report from the Internet Safety Technical Task Force concludes that children and teens are less vulnerable to sexual predation than many have feared. The report also questions the efficacy and necessity of some commonly prescribed remedies designed to protect young people.

The task force was formed as a result of a joint agreement between MySpace and 49 state attorneys general.

Over the past couple of years, several state AGs have been looking into potential dangers to youth, and some have called for social-network sites to use age verification technology to confirm the ages of users in an attempt to prevent adults from or interacting online with minors. The task force includes representatives of Internet and social-networking companies, security and identity authentication vendors, and nonprofit advocacy organizations. It’s chaired by John Palfrey of Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society.

Disclosure: I served as a member of the task force, representing ConnectSafely.org, a nonprofit internet safety organization I co-founded along with Anne Collier. ConnectSafely receives financial support from MySpace, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and other Internet and social-networking companies. I am also founder of SafeKids.com and am on the board of directors of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which is represented on the task force.

Based on data analyzed by its Research Advisory Board, the task force concluded that “actual threats that youth may face appear to be different than the threats most people imagine” and that “the image presented by the media of an older male deceiving and preying on a young child does not paint an accurate picture of the nature of the majority of sexual solicitations and Internet-initiated offline encounters.”

While the task force found that youth risk from predators is a concern, the overwhelming majority of youth are not in danger of being harmed by an adult predator they meet online. To the extent that young people have received an unwanted online sexual solicitation, data from a 2000 study and a 2006 follow-up from the Crimes Against Children Research Center concludes that “youth identify most sexual solicitors as being other adolescents (48 percent in 2000; 43 percent in 2006) or young adults between the ages of 18 and 21 (20 percent; 30 percent), with few (4 percent; 9 percent) coming from older adults, and the remaining being of unknown age.”

What the task force did find is that “bullying and harassment, most often by peers, are the most salient threats that minors face, both online and offline.” Partially because researchers can’t agree on a definition of bullying and harassment, the actual risk is hard to quantify, but it is clearly much higher than the risk of being harmed by a predator. Some studies suggest that as many as 49 percent of youth have experienced some type of bullying or harassment. In many cases no serious emotional or physical harm occurred. However, a study by Michelle Ybarra and Janice Wolak found that “39 percent of victims reported emotional distress over being harassed online.”

There is also a widespread belief that deception is often involved where adults pose as teens to engage with young people, but research shows that that’s rarely the case. The report found that “although identity deception may occur online, it does not appear to play a large role in criminal cases in which adult sex offenders have been arrested for sex crimes in which they met victims online.” Interviews with police show that “most victims are underage adolescents who know they are going to meet adults for sexual encounters.” This does not imply that such relationships are healthy or safe, nor that we should blame the victims or tolerate the actions of adults who engage in sex with minors. But it does suggest that child safety advocates need to take a more proactive role in helping teens understand the risk of seeking engaging in relationships with adults.

Importantly, the task force found that online risks “are not radically different in nature or scope than the risks minors have long faced offline, and minors who are most at risk in the offline world continue to be most at risk online.” For example, “a poor home environment full of conflict and poor parent-child relationships is correlated with a host of online risks.”

The attorneys general who called for the task force were anxious for us to study the efficacy of using age verification to help limit inappropriate contact between adults and children online. To help in that job, the task force formed a technical advisory board (TAB) composed of technology experts from Harvard, MIT, Dartmouth, University of Massachusetts, University of Utah, Rochester Institute of Technology, and Bank of America. This board looked at a wide range of technologies including age verification and identity authentication, filtering and auditing, text analysis, and biometrics.

What the TAB found was that age verification technology can be used to identify adults and therefore help prevent minors from engaging in adult-only activities such as accessing adult content or purchasing alcohol or tobacco. There were several technologies submitted by companies that could identify adults based on accessible records such as credit reports, criminal history, and real estate transactions, but these relatively automated systems cannot reliably identify or verify the age of minors because, as the TAB concluded, “public records of minors range from quite limited to nonexistent.” Documentation about young people such as birth certificates, passports, and school records are restricted by federal law for some very good privacy and security reasons.

Age verification options presented by some companies would allow parents to request that their child’s school verify his or her identity and age, but these proposals have their own critics including those who worry about the cost, the possibility of privacy or security leaks, and the financial model presented in some cases that includes providing marketers with information about kids.

The TAB also looked at “peer-based” verification schemes that “allow peers in a community to vote, recommend, or rate whether a person is in an appropriate age group based on relationships and personal knowledge established offline” but worried that with these methods “users can vote as many times as they wish to artificially raise or lower a peer rating.” There were concerns that “minors might organize against another minor in their ratings or recommendations in an online form of bullying.”

At one task force meeting, a company presented technology that tries to distinguish between an adult and a child by analyzing the bone density of the person’s hand. Another tool attempts to identify an individual through facial recognition to match that person against a database of registered sex offenders.

Although the TAB expressed “cautious optimism” about the possibility of using technology to protect kids, it concluded that “every technology has its problems” and that “no single technology reviewed could solve every aspect of online safety for minors, or even one aspect of it one hundred percent of the time.” The bottom line was that “technology can play a role but cannot be the sole input to improved safety for minors online” and that “the most effective technology solution is likely to be a combination of technologies.”

But even if these technologies can be employed effectively, there remains the question of whether they are necessary or helpful. Using technology to separate kids from grown-ups doesn’t address the fact that kids are far more at risk from other kids than from adult predators.

Another danger is that age verification or new rules could be used to keep kids off of social networks or require parental consent. But before issuing rules about this, authorities should explore possible unintended consequences such as isolating kids, causing them to go underground, failing to serve kids from dysfunctional families, and preventing kids from accessing vital services such as the Suicide Prevention Hotline or one of the many online self-help groups.

The task force report will have its critics, including possibly some attorneys general and others who feel that it underestimates the risk of online predators. Indeed, sting operations from law enforcement (as well as the TV show To Catch a Predator) demonstrate that there are plenty of adults who, if given the chance, would engage in sex with youth they meet online. But, based on the research presented to the task force, it appears that the vast majority of young people are savvy enough to avoid such encounters.

Still, there remains a minority of youth who–for a variety of psychological and social reasons–are vulnerable both online and offline. More research needs to be done to identify these young people and provide them with resources and protective services. The fact that most kids are safe is reassuring but it’s not sufficient. If even one child is in danger, then there is work to be done, and that is one thing everyone who cares about this issue can agree on.

Street view of home with bedroom window

As if the TV series “To Catch a Predator” wasn’t enough paranoia, now there’s a campaign to protect our children against predators who use Google Street View.

I admit, there may be some privacy concerns as a result of Google taking pictures of homes and businesses around the country but StopInternetPredators.org’s “campaign to highlight child safety concerns over Google’s ‘Street View’ strikes me as absurd. The organization, which is headed by Stacie D. Rumenap, former Deputy Director for the American Conservative Union, argues that Google Street View “can be misused by child predators to target children.”

In a video that appears on the site, Rumenap says that it’s “frighteningly simple” for anyone “to find out detailed photographic information about you and your family.” The video and accompanying text make it seems as if Google Street View is a predator’s best friend for targeting children for abuse. Rumenap calls it “an entirely new threat to our families and children” that “makes it simple to map the most likely route your child walks to school… view entrances to community parks and even find the location of your family’s bedroom windows.” She wants people to “urge local leaders to ban Street View in your neighborhood until the technology is safeguarded.” She does, however, admit that “banning Street View might not safeguard our children 100% from child predators.”

I don’t know where to start with this. To begin with, Google Street View would be a very inefficient way for a predator to find a child victim. It would be much more effective to simply walk or drive around the neighborhood. It’s not as if you need the Internet to find parks, schools and homes where children live and play. There are schools, parks and homes with bedroom windows in just about every neighborhood.  And, statistically, the vast majority of predators know their targets anyway — in real life, not online.

Instead of banning Google Street View, maybe we should put up walls between streets and sidewalks so that predators can’t see children walking home from school. And while we’re at it, let’s ban public outdoor parks and recreation areas or at least find ways to hide the children playing there. Or just keep children away from churches, schools, scouting and other places where pedaphiles have been known to operate.

Second, it completely distorts the way predators operate – at least those who are “successful” in finding actual victims. There is plenty of research to show that trolling online for victims is not the way that predators typically find young people to exploit. In about 80% of child sexual abuse cases, the victims and the perpetrator know each other in the real world either through family ties, friendships, schools, youth groups and situations that bring kids and adults together.

Based on what we know from arrest records, survey research and other data, the actual danger of Internet predators, strangers harming victims that they find online has been greatly exaggerated and this campaign simply adds fuel to that fire. If a child is to be harmed online, it is much more likely because of bullying or harassment from a fellow young person, something inappropriate the child posts online or by taking extraordinary risks in a chat room or other public forum.

If anything, campaigns like this actually increase danger to children by alarming people unnecessarily and distracting us from dealing with real risks.

I’m not suggesting that Google Street View doesn’t bring up some privacy concerns. It’s probably a good idea for people to look up their own address just to make sure there’s nothing posted that could be embarrassing or a possible security threat. But finding a serious security risk is pretty unlikely. A Google spokesperson said that “if you are not comfortable with the imagery available on Street View, we have easily accessible tools for flagging sensitive imagery for review and removal.”

And, of course, it’s essential for parents to talk with their children about safety. Adults should study the child safety tips from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and remind kids to follow some basic guidelines like “Always check first with a parent, guardian, or trusted adult before going anywhere, accepting anything, or getting into a car with anyone,” “Do not go out alone. Always take a friend with when going places or playing outside” and “Say no if someone tries to touch you, or treats you in a way that makes you feel scared, uncomfortable, or confused. “ That, along with age appropriate parental supervision, is what will protect our kids – not going ballistic about the possible safety implications of every new piece of technology that comes our way.

(Disclosure: I serve as co-director of ConnectSafely.org, a non-profit Internet safety organization that receives financial support from several Internet companies, including Google.)

© 2008 – Larry Magid