Morning:
10°c
If Facebook had its own profile on the social networking site, it would have lost a lot of friends over the past few days.
It was there that Peter Chapman — the now indelibly-named “Facebook murderer” — posed as a teenager and duped his victim, Ashleigh Hall, into meeting him.
Chapman, a convicted double rapist who signed up to Facebook under another name, engaged Ms Hall for hours on the site. In her innocence, the 17-year-old agreed to meet him. Chapman then revealed his true identity and raped and murdered Ms Hall before dumping her body in a ditch.
Her death was tragic, awful and terrifying. But despite the cacophony of critics saying otherwise, the fault cannot lie with Facebook.
I've been a regular user on the site since it first came to the UK in 2005. Like Facebook's 400 million other users, I've wasted an embarrassing amount of time flipping through virtual photo albums, and pausing to scan friends' status updates when I should be filing an article for an impending deadline.
But I'm sure I've never come across anyone grooming children for sex, because I've never allowed anyone I don't know to become my Facebook friend. So while my 400-plus haul of “friends” on the site are not all my nearest and dearest, I can be quite certain that none of them are fake aliases of Peter Chapman, or anyone like him. I have also set my privacy options high enough that my profile can only be seen by people I know.
In the aftermath of Ms Hall's death, online safety campaigners screamed that something must be done. The Home Secretary Alan Johnson seized the opportunity to announce that the Government was looking at ways to help police catch sex offenders online. But staff at the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (Ceop) agency already spend hours online pretending to be naive kids in a bid to dupe paedophiles at their own game. They are unlikely to catch them all.
Others suggested we should follow the US example, where sex offenders have to register their computer details and email addresses with the authorities. This may be a good idea but what police station will have the resources to continuously monitor what their list of registered sex offenders are doing online? I fear that wouldn't be enough to prevent the next Facebook murderer.
I echo calls for Facebook to include the Ceop “panic button”, which helps users access advice and report suspicious activity, on its site. Police can use information recorded from the button to build intelligence on suspected paedophiles and rapists. It's a simple step that could save lives.
But beyond that, the lesson we need to learn from the Facebook murderer is that parents should be teaching their children about the new form of “stranger danger”, and the importance of staying safe online.
This week, Ms Hall's mother asked parents to warn their kids to be careful on the internet. “We have learned a terrible lesson. Tell your kids to be careful on the internet. We don't want any other child to be a victim,” she said.
Let's heed her warning. You wouldn't take a child to a shopping centre and leave him or her in the hands of the security guards. Likewise, we need to take responsibility for the safety of children online.
Reader views (3)
we are always putting responsibilties on parents time & time again some parents are not even computer literate we all have to do our bit and also ashley is a child in the eyes of the law she could not drink drive or vote so we all have to be responsible for our children i only joined facebook to contact lost school friends some children use it has a social networking site and we all make foolish mistakes & they don't end up in murder or death as we have what they call bullying on line now so you do have to have some responsiblity even morally when you are young you are not wise you are naive and gullible
- Sandie Riley, merseyside, 11/03/2010 12:45
Report abuse
I was jeered at by a fellow Facebook user for only having 99 friends (at the time) versus her 400-odd. But I'd be prepared to bet a very large sum that I knew far, far more of mine personally.
- Michael, London, 11/03/2010 11:06
Report abuse
The technological genie is out of the bottle as far as our use of "networking" is concerned.
It is obvious that when unfettered mass communication is let loose on society their will be evil exploiters feeding off it.
The very nature of the innocent in a darkened bedroom hunched over a glowing screen and communicating with the unknown was BOUND to lead to an increase - no, an unleashing of this type of behaviour.
The porn industry before the Internet was thriving; there have always been perverts and evil people in society, the questions we should be asking, as guardians are these;
Should children be allowed unlimited and unbridled access to such a medium?
Do they really need it - if so, why?
How can we make parents assume responsibility for their children’s browsing habits?
How do we make the advertisers responsible for policing their own forums?
Slick advertising may be peddling relentlessly "It’s good to talk" - but we , as parents should be seriously considering,
"about What, to Whom, and When appropriate?"
- Darius, London, 11/03/2010 11:01
Report abuse
