So Lori Drew will be acquitted of charges related to the suicide of Megan Meier. In my view, she should have been charged as a sexual predator.
For those people who may have forgotten this iconic case of cyberbullying, Megan Meier, an emotionally troubled 13-year-old, committed suicide after a fictitious online boyfriend IM’d her that the world would be better without her. The boy was actually Lori Drew, the mother of one of Megan’s classmates, and a couple of co-conspirators seeking revenge because Megan allegedly called Drew’s daughter a lesbian.
There were supposedly no local laws that allowed for prosecution of Drew for her actions, so federal prosecutors stepped up and charged Drew for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by violating MySpace’s terms of service.
Drew was found guilty; and now the judge intends to overturn the jury’s verdict.
While laws that criminalize some acts of bullying don’t go far enough and are rarely enforced against the schoolchildren who usually perpetrate these crimes, the judge’s troubling interpretation of the verdict in the Drew case brings up another issue: The judge apparently doesn’t want to criminalize violations of terms-of-service agreements.
Services like MySpace provide the general public with a free service, and in exchange they expect people to adhere to the terms of service. The common repercussion for violating the TOS is cancellation of the account, and then the offending party just opens up a new account. However, unless there is a clear violation of the law, and law enforcement chooses to get involved (which is the biggest uncertainty), the judge’s opinion in this case leaves the service providers helpless.
Theoretically, Megan Meier and her mother Tina Meier could have been charged for the same crime that Drew was found guilty of, since Megan Meier violated MySpace’s terms of service by being under the age 14 limit required for site users. Additionally, Tina Meier knew that Megan lied about her age, but she thought it was OK, because, as she told many interviewers, she was monitoring Megan’s actions.
I have to admit that I was troubled by this conviction. However, by voiding the jury verdict, the judge is essentially saying that law enforcement has no discretion to go after people who are doing something heinous when abusing free Internet-based services. This doesn’t just hurt users of free online services, but all Internet users.
The Drew case identifies a number of loopholes that need to be closed. Regarding cyberbullying, there needs to be some law on the books that any jurisdiction can use to prosecute the intentional infliction of emotional harm using the Internet. There are some laws, but clearly not enough.
Likewise, if the judge says that violating terms of service for online services like MySpace cannot be prosecuted under current laws, then a law needs to be put in place to close this loophole. I know that everyone at some time violates terms of service, but there needs to be some ability to prosecute egregious behavior that falls otherwise within a legal void.
Most importantly, there has to be a will to prosecute these crimes. Sadly, bullying of all forms is mostly ignored by authority. Law enforcement tends to step in long after the damage has gone public. The effects of the bullying are then well engrained. Part of the problem is that school authorities are hesitant to charge schoolchildren, who are typically the perpetrators of these crimes, even when they claim to have a “zero tolerance policy” on bullying.
Also, prosecutors overlooked the sexual nature of Drew’s messages. Drew reportedly told Megan Meier that she was “sexi” and engaged her in an online relationship. It is clear that Drew used the enticement of a sexual/romantic relationship to mentally abuse the girl. That makes her a sexual predator in my eyes, and she should have been charged as such.
The nature of Lori Drew’s crime was evoked by the recent story of a woman who posted the contact information for a 9-year-old girl’s mother in a Craigslist advertisement for sexual meetings. In this case, there is a local law that will apply.
But we need to make sure that we have laws that account for these violations and their sexual nature even when the Internet is the tool and local laws don’t cover the crimes. Most importantly, we need law enforcement to have the will to apply the law.
— Ira Winkler, Former National Security Agency analyst and author of Spies Among Us
Mashka, that was cold and without understanding. Teens are messed up individuals by their nature of growht, changing levels of hormones, and lack of perspective. You're dimissing the poor kid as a lost cause without ever having to gotten to know her or establish an informed psychological profile. There could be a lot of extra circumstances that influenced her mental condition at the time.
Let me put it this way: The story reads that someone drowns because someone else dowsed them with a large bucket of water. What the story didn't tell you is that the drowning victim was already up to her nose in water in an enclosed space. Not that the story is trying to be misleading, but that the facts weren't available. I highly doubt that Lori was the girl's only problem at the time.
Another thing to keep in mind here is the generation gap. Everyone has their own persceptions of what is real and what matters. To some people, online matters a LOT.
We're at a societal/technological point where a single person now has the capacity to do a LOT of damage with a minimal amount of effort, and its changing at a speed the law can't keep up with. I don't think murder charges fit, I don't think the correct charges have been defined yet. Thanks the publicity of the case, a part of one person's true nature has been exposed and its social impact is ironically fitting punishment for the social crime.
What would you say is the correct ruling? What should be enough for the mother to be accused/sentenced of? Murder? I would think that is too harsh, attempt to murder?
I could not agree more with your statement about burdening the public with more laws and regulations.
It seems like the same public who is often clamoring for more laws is unwilling to make personal judgements where this mother is concerned.
I don't understand how this has not already happened to her when as you put it, lots worse has happened to folks who deserved it far less.
I also agree that the whole blame for the suicide probably doesn't lie simply with this idiotic mother who went to great lengths to establish an online relationship with the teen who committed suicide. Many factors no doubt were contributors, but the actions of the bullying mother were not normal, and NOT acceptable.
I have no problem with vigilance if the result is publishing names (and perhaps photos) of people like Lori Dew, whose actions were reprehensible. I don't think that adding more laws to an already overburdened and overcomplicated legal system is any sort of answer. If Lori Dew, or the lady soldier you mentioned, becomes unemployable, so be it. That's happened to a lot of people who deserved it far less.
Vigilanteism is not exactly what I am suggesting, but it certainly would be nice to point out to the public at large the suggestion to be vigilant when dealing with this person because her actions although not legally actionable certainly contributed to the victim's taking of her own life.
A couple weeks ago, I read an article about how the lady soldier who posed for pictures of detainees at guantanamo has not been able to be hired since her return from military service because the pictures make her identifiable to the public.
Is that vigilanteism? Is it lawful for this girl to be unhirable? Probably no law exists there either, but she is certainly paying for her actions even if they don't eventually prove actionable by law.
Perhaps facebook or myspace should start a group to show support for the victim's family?
Ira! Everytime when I read about this story I am shocked. I am shocked about the whole stupidity of the case. What a baby should be Lori Dew, so when her child was called a lesbian she found time, met Megan on-line and developed the whole relationships. This is not what adults do,come on!And Megan. To blame Lori Dew for her suicide? For the suicide of unstable teenager who commited suicide because her ON_LINE!!!! boyfriend broke up with her?People, this is ridiculous. Ok, I am telling you , if she didn't commite suicide that time, her next try would be because somebody told her that Mel Gibson or Tom Cruise don't love her, so they would go to jail and many people would be happy:))))Yeh, of course, Lori wasn't right, but according to her behaviour she needed serious psychiatric treatment!
The thing we all have to remember, Ira, is that we're well ahead of the curve for knowledge of the internet. Parents have just as much difficulty as the judicial and legislative systems in keeping up with the changing technologies of the last decade plus. Particularly when they have to keep up with all the other changes of life.
I can't begin to tell you the number of my customers, and the parents of my daughter's friends, who thought MySpace was just a cool hangout for kids before this happened - that it was safer than a trip to the mall, or a day at school. And, it is. They may face emotional hazards online, but they do not equate to the emotional and physical hazards they face in public, in real life.
Having known parents of troubled teens, I also know that they tend to grasp at straws to find anything that brings them out of their funk, that brings even a smidgen of life back into their child's eyes. I can easily imagine Tina feeling a modicum of joy and relief when Megan first found her "boyfriend" - when she first exhibited that bubbly enthusiasm for something.
Unfortunately, there is no magic formula for parenting. Hazards await our children around every corner. As a parent, you do the best you can, and hope you don't screw up too bad. Sometimes you fail.
Actually the judge is not ruling by the law, but adding his own interpretation of the implications.
The judge is basically saying that if I let the ruling stand then this means that it is a crime to violate a terms of service. I disagree as the violation of the terms of service provided Drew with access to minors that adults are not given to protect the minors. The judge made a broad ruling, and ignored all of the implications of his ruling.
Likewise as my article addressed, the prosecutors did a horrible job trying to determine what crimes to charge Drew with. Again, I was never in favor of the charges they used. But if a jury found her guilty, the judge should let it stand.
I think the major issue to consider is that Tina Meier, Megan's mother, knew that Megan had issues. Whether or not there is a "boyfriend" involved, the Internet is not a place for a troubled person, maybe except if the mother was sitting next to her every minute she is on the computer.
The issue to me is not whether there was a boyfriend or not, but that anything could have come up. It could have been a BIFF who pushed her over the edge. If I remember correctly, I think I read that Megan left her school because of problems. The Internet opens up a 13 year old to a much bigger world, with much bigger issues, than a middle school.
All that being said though, I still think Lori Drew should still be charged as a sexual predator.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
In his recent Congressional testimony, Dennis Blair, the U.S. director of national intelligence, stated that the U.S. is "severely threatened" by cyber attacks and that the recent Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) attacks should serve as a wake-up call.
I keep telling people that if they do everything right, they will be generally secure. I like to think I do everything right myself to minimize the likelihood of being hit by malware. I avoid going to unusual sites. I don’t click on links in strange emails. When reading normal emails, I verify any embedded links, just in case.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is going on a hiring spree. They intend to hire more than 1,000 cybersecurity experts over the next three years.
Given all the issues we have with cybersecurity, it amazes me that every time there is a government effort to improve security, it always involves calls for more research. Such is the case with the proposed Cybersecurity Enhancement Act.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
Steve Saunders talks about the risks inherent in uncontrolled, widespread profiling of Internet users, and how one day this practice could form the basis of a new industry, the Outernet, which in economic terms will have outgrown the commercial value of the Internet itself.
Search companies and social networks are collecting incredibly detailed information about their users, says Steve Saunders, who predicts that these 'profiles' could one day become commodities to be bought and sold by companies on 'profile markets' or 'identity exchanges’ – the digital DNA equivalents of the financial and commodities exchanges on which stocks, oil, and gold are traded.
One of the most important Internet issues of all time is being ignored by the media. In this three-part video series Steve Saunders explains how search companies are turning the tables on their users by creating user profiles for financial gain, and how soon this trend will explode into full scale profiling.
More companies are trolling social networks to find and vet potential job candidates. Beware the pitfalls of blurring the line between personal and professional lives.
It is 20 years since the invention of the World Wide Web, and the Internet has changed beyond recognition since then. Steve Saunders peers into the future to predict what the Web will look like in another 20 years time – and he doesn’t like what he sees.
Research shows that the youth of today like Facebook – but not blogging or Twitter. Does that mean Facebook has won, or just that it's not yet out of favor? Will all the services we see today fade into Ovaltine-or-Wheaties status in just a few years?
Data mining of social networks means people might face unforeseen consequences as a result of their seemingly innocuous personal choices and associations.
Research shows that the youth of today like Facebook – but not blogging or Twitter. Does that mean Facebook has won, or just that it's not yet out of favor? Will all the services we see today fade into Ovaltine-or-Wheaties status in just a few years?
What kinds of companies are doing the most innovation in the data center? Turns out it's midtier enterprises that are taking the "Just Right" approach.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
