The article is very sad, but also very overwrought. Statistically, most victims are murdered (and children abused) by people they know in "real life". In real life, trust can be and often is built on false premises - look at all the pedophile priests who were repeatedly protected by their Bishops - the Church established trust credentials for the very people whom children and parents should have been most wary of. That's why the abuse was such a huge betrayal, much worse than if some random stranger did it.

It's true that you can't tell much about someone you only interact with via text. (Video should help, but is not infallible.) But, if and when you do meet them in person, common sense and instinct come into play, or should.

I have met many people online, and some have become close real-life friends. I always take basic precautions, such as meeting them for the first time in a public place. (When I met Ian Mills at a coffee shop in Milton Keynes a few weeks ago, he brought along a friend in case I was a stalker. <grin>) I have no reason to believe that my people radar is particularly acute, but so far I've never felt uncomfortable with anyone I've met this way.

The closing argument in the article really goes overboard: "Since the internet is just getting started I suspect the nightmare stories we are now hearing about are just the beginning."

People have been interacting via text online at least since the early 1980s (I was on CompuServe chats in 1982). This is a mature medium. Bad things happen on the Internet, but they happen more in real life.  However, someone getting bludgeoned to death by her husband is not news, while someone being murdered by a guy she met on the internet seems new and exotic, so it's news, and that gives the impression that the internet is more dangerous than it is.

--
best regards,
Deirdré Straughan

www.straughan.com (personal)
www.tvblob.com (work)

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to