IN907: Welcome!

Welcome!
by Per Godejord - Wednesday, 1 October 2003, 05:01 PM

Welcome to Nesna University College here at Mo i Rana, and the Forum “Gå inn i din tid!”
This afternoon we have the honour to welcome Andrew Vachss, an attorney working exclusively with children, and the author of more than a dozen novels. He is here to discuss the topic of child abuse with our students and staff.
As a department working in the field of Computer Science, our focus is on Information Technology as a tool for the abusers. But is this a sensible approach or are we just milling around on the wrong part of the battlefield?
Welcome to this discussion Andrew Vachss!

Re: Welcome!
by Andrew Vachss - Wednesday, 1 October 2003, 05:03 PM

I am honored to be here with you, and grateful for the opportunity.

Question
by Jann Ove Lillegård - Wednesday, 1 October 2003, 05:05 PM

Mr Vachss. You have written that "The liberal seeks the"hearts and minds"
of the electorate, while the facists laughs behind his predator's masks,.." in a sense
this project("Gå inn i din tid!") seeks the hearts and minds of ordinary people,
both students and computer professionals alike, but how can we use our education,
this project, computer tools, etc. to stop the facist laughing?

Re: Question
by Andrew Vachss - Wednesday, 1 October 2003, 05:10 PM

I was, in the passage you quoted, referring to the reality that political labels are meaningless. We know people only by their *behavior*. The task for the cyber-professional is to navigate the tricky waters between "privacy" and "protection." Because this is a war, and because the cyber-weapons are so varied, the first task is to define the mission. Only then can we select the correct tools for the job. So, first, we must focus, as narrowly as possible, on what we hope to accomplish. I have learned that, unless people are truly and deeply invested in their tasks, they will not perform them to the maximum.

MMS and childrens security
by JO-Andre Karlberg - Wednesday, 1 October 2003, 05:15 PM

Dear Mr Vachss

Do you see any problems with the new MMS technology and childrens security?

How are the laws in the area of MMS and children security in the USA?

How can we as students of computer science make any difference in the battle against child abuse?

Alpha team

Re: MMS and childrens security
by Andrew Vachss - Wednesday, 1 October 2003, 05:22 PM

Technology is neutral. It can (and will be) exploited according to the motivator of the user. Many young people seem to believe that the Internet was the greatest single boon to, for example, child pornographers. And the media concurs in this ridiculous judgment. When I was a caseworker, the Polaroid camera was an invaluable tool. We could document injuries to a child right in the field, and preserve them as evidence. That *same* Polaroid camera enabled freaks to create their own kiddie porn without (as previously) being forced to rely on others to develop the film. My point is: as students, your task is to develop expertise so that, when you join the battle against child abuse, your skills become a significant contribution. The laws in the United States (and elsewhere) are always evolving. And, because of the very nature of technology, will always lag behind. We must fight on *both* fronts.

Question
by JO-Andre Karlberg - Wednesday, 1 October 2003, 05:44 PM

Mr. Vachss

You have once said that it is a myth that the greatest danger to our children is from strangers. As students in Computer science we are naturally focused on technology as tools for child abusers, and ways we are naturally focused on technology as tool for child abusers, and ways we can combat that missuse of for instant the internet. And the thinking of the internet is naturally to assume the predators out there are strangers. But is that necessarily so, and is it wrong to focus on the use of thecnology when working to battle child abuse? (I use the word battle here as opposed to "stop", since depriving the abusers of thecnology hardly would stop them from abusing)

Alpha team

Chat
by Jann Ove Lillegård - Wednesday, 1 October 2003, 05:16 PM

Mr Vachss:
More and more kids are now using the Internet to chat . In your knowledge does there exist any
chat-rooms that are safe for children?
if not , do you have any thoughts about how make more secure?

Re: Chat
by Andrew Vachss - Wednesday, 1 October 2003, 05:28 PM

Your question is brilliant! As I have carefully explained ...

http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/testimony.html

... the danger of the Internet is not exposure of children to pornography (more on this later) but its capacity for direct access of victims by predators. This is back to the "privacy" vs. "protection" issue. There is no technology that can ever be created to perform magic -- you cannot "filter out" predators, you must watch them ... *closely*. Chat rooms can be made more secure by monitoring, targeting offenders who are clearly engaged in "grooming" practices, requiring registration and authentication (so that adults cannot pose as children) ... and many other techniques. But, note, all these require *human* presence. What computer professionals can (and should) do is develop tools to enhance the work of those humans.

Re: Welcome!
by Torbjørn Nilsen - Wednesday, 1 October 2003, 05:19 PM

Mr. Vachss, in Norway a study has shown that between 8-9 in the morning (during working hour), the most popular search words on the internet are "lolita", "pre teen", "teen" etc. Does this
indicate that there are more paedophiles out there than we could ever imagine, or are people
just curious?

Another question; Are there any constructive ways to make people understand that by clicking
on pictures of abused children, the abuse continues.

Re: Welcome!
by Andrew Vachss - Wednesday, 1 October 2003, 05:36 PM

You raise two questions of great significance. I wish we were talking in person! First, you must distinguish between "pedophile" (a state of mind) and "predatory pedophile" (a conduct). The reason you have so many people using the search terms you describe have nothing to do with being "curious" in an academic sense. People are "curious" about what *already* interests them, is that not so? Pedophiles tend to be obsessive. One single pedophile could consume tons of child pornography on his own. Do not confuse numbers with activity. When you say that clicking on photos of abused children continues the abuse, you are 100% correct. Many of these photos are used to "test market" the "product." And, so long as there is a market, it will generate production. The only way to produce child pornography is to abuse a child. Therefore, there is no "harmless" viewing. Typically, cyber-folk view the Internet as sacred, and any "interference" with it as heresy. That can only change when members of that very community stand up and speak out.

The shortcomings of Burke
by Olaf Havnes - Wednesday, 1 October 2003, 05:23 PM

My name is Olaf Havnes, and I believe none of the participants here - except Per will have heard of me, so an introduction is in order. I have written several fantasy novels for youths. I am also a programmer/designer. In Norway I have worked with many web projects for youths and children, both educational games and member sites. Some examples for those who are interested in doing background checks:

http://www.trafo.no/
Sponsored by the Norwegian Council for Cultural Affairs. A site for creative youths between 16 and 22 to apply for small grants and professional help regarding their creative projects (music, poetry, animations, images).

http://www.kharon4a.com/

Collaboration by Network for IT-Research and Competence in Education (ITU) - a game for 12-16 year old youths regarding biotechnological issues.

http://www.orgdot.com/abc

Web game for kids, where they can learn to draw the letters of the alphabet. Collaboration with Gyldendal Publishing House.

Apart from that, I have my own homepage:
http://www.havnes.com/
- and also the company where I am a partner:
http://www.orgdot.com/.

* * *

The reason I join this dicussion, is that I have worked with Andrew Vachss on several projects in the past. I am an admirer of his work, and I have interviewed him on two occations. So, since I am Norwegian, and know both our norwegian reality, and his work, I hope might be of use ... And thank you all for participating - let us hope this project will snowball!

* * *

The shortcomings of Burke

I know the books of Andrew Vachss pretty well, and I will first add a few comments for those who don't (I hope it is not beside the point for you IT-experts).

Maybe the most widely read of the novels are the Burke series. You might classify these novels as crime novels. At least there is no doubt that the novels are about crimes, that they are easy to read, and if so inclined, you can read them as "crime mysteries".

But there are some things that set Burke (the main character) apart from other crime "investigators" you will find in novels.

Burke is a hard man, and dangerous, but he will be described as impotent at times, and his shortcomings in relationships are not described as conquests, but as failures, as inability to love. It is not very often - in crime literature or other genres - that one finds in-depth portraits of a man that has been raped. But there was times when Burke knew nothing else. (Actually there are few novelists that will tackle such a psychological profile on the main character - such topics are invariably reserved for the sub-plots).

You all have to realize one thing: these novels start where most other novels about crime stop. In for instance a Hollywood movie, you might find the movie ending with a solution like this: the murder was committed by a person who has been severely abused as a child, and thus had developed a multiple personality disorder. And that would neatly explain the "locked room"-mystery etc.

Well, in the Burke novels, this is where the novel would start. And the abuse never serves to explain a clever crime puzzle. In fact, Andrew Vachss states that if he has one wish, it is that these novels were fiction.

Andrew Vachss describes these novels as "trojan horses": Information and messages deliberately packaged to enter places where that information would not normally reach. And he has repeatedly stated that if these novels do not provoke people enough to act "in real life", then they are failures. (And now it seems that this tactic is bearing fruits - if not, we would not have been gathered here at this forum ...)

Burke will take revenge, but he will not change the world. He is not a politician, a leader with a following. He only cares for that which touches upon his world, that which threatens the few people in his carefully chosen family. You can pay him to look into something. But his world is clearly defined. And his reach ends when it reaches the domain of the "good citizens".

My question to Andrew Vachss is this: Could you elaborate on the shortcomings of Burke? Where do his "methods" stop working? And do this point co-incide with the point where we should take over?

Re: The shortcomings of Burke
by Andrew Vachss - Wednesday, 1 October 2003, 05:44 PM

As always, my brother Olaf unerringly touches the nerve-center of the issue. Burke's shortcomings are that he may fight child *abusers*, but he does nothing about child *abuse*. Revenge has its place, but it does not make *change*. Burke is reactive, not proactive. And this is absolutely the place where the cyber-professionals must take over. Whether it is the interdiction of attempts to access children, the detection of those who traffic in the "product," the dissemination of *truthful* information, technical assistance to those who do "hands-on" child protective work, developing a moral perspective that can be applied to the Internet ... the list is endless ... if we are to achieve actual progress (which Burke never does), it will come from the "next wave" ... the students who bring their skills and commitments to the only "holy war" worthy of the name.

Question
by Peter Östbergh - Wednesday, 1 October 2003, 05:32 PM

These abusers seems to be connected in worldwide networks, technology is making it easier for them to swap "information". Do you think that "the tricky waters between "privacy" and "protection"" should be abandoned so those networks could be broken?
When is privacy more important then protection if ever?

Re: Question
by Andrew Vachss - Wednesday, 1 October 2003, 05:53 PM

The balancing act between privacy and protection is being sorely tested in America right now, as the government has acquired previously-unheard of investigative powers in the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. I feel that "probable cause" is needed to violate privacy, be it a search warrant or a wiretap. But for cyber-students, I think the burning issue is this: many people see the Internet in religious terms, holding it sacred. The pedophiles have been very good at the "first they came for the Jews" sophistry, and the public has, largely, accepted the lie. Bottom line: child pornography is not "speech," it is a photograph of a crime. There is no right to possess it, or to disseminate it. It cannot be "produced" without violating a child. So long as some countries hold that "private possession" of child pornography is not criminal, the market will continue to thrive. It all comes down to investigative techniques. As we improve our skills, we make the showing of "probably cause" easier for law enforcement. Because there is no right to "privately" commit a crime, especially against the most vulnerable beings on this planet.

	Question by Pål Bakkejord - Wednesday, 1 October 2003, 05:59 PM
	Mr. Vachss, understanding and knowledge are two keywords in our project "Gå inn i din Tid!". But has this any impact at all in the battle against child abuse? Our project will hardly convert any abusers, so does such a prosject have any importance at all?

Re: Question
by Andrew Vachss - Wednesday, 1 October 2003, 06:06 PM

When it comes to predatory pedophiles, the mission is not to "convert" them, something I maintain is an insane waste of resources and doomed to failure anyway ...

http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/disp_9301_a.html

... but to fight them, on every front. Knowledge and understanding are weapons in this battle. First, because they increase skills, and the skills will be needed in the fight. And, perhaps most importantly, because (genuine) knowledge and (actual) understanding are sorely lacking in much of the public ... the same public which sits on juries and elects politicians. The Internet is the greatest tool for dissemination of information yet invented, and its new warriors have a mighty task in teaching users how to distinguish content from context. Knowledge and understanding are critical, *especially* on the Internet, because of the phenomenon I call "cyber-chumps" ...

http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/disp_9701_a.html

...

We don't need to "convert" the enemy. What we need to do is make sure the truth is available, accessible, and powerful.

Vigilantes
by Peter Östbergh - Wednesday, 1 October 2003, 06:10 PM

Mr Vacchss
We recently had a seminar where a reseacher told us about two young boys who started to "hunt" the "predators". They pretend to be a young girls in chat -rooms and set up meetings with predators.
They have become some kind of cyber-vigilantes. Now they plan to photograph and publish them on the web.
How do you feel about this kind of action?

Re: Vigilantes
by Andrew Vachss - Wednesday, 1 October 2003, 06:18 PM

To be blunt, we receive an endless stream of emails at our websites from those who claim to be "patrolling" the Internet, and we wonder why, if the participants have so much time available, they don't volunteer to do *actual* child-protective work? This strikes me as a "hobby" for some people. They seem to be doing it as entertainment, because they cannot rationally believe they are actually capturing predators. The police are *already* in the chat rooms. They are far more skilled at impersonating "victims," and understand the legal procedures that must be followed in order to turn a conversation into a conviction. I doubt the vast majority of these "vigilantes" have the skills and the expertise to produce a viable effect, and this strikes me more as self-entertainment than a contribution to the cause.

Norwegian Vigilantes
by Olaf Havnes - Thursday, 2 October 2003, 01:21 PM

I will add a couple of comments here, Peter, as I strangely enough can shed a little light on this specific question.

You write:
"We recently had a seminar where a reseacher told us about two young boys who started to "hunt" the "predators". They pretend to be a young girls in chat -rooms and set up meetings with predators. They have become some kind of cyber-vigilantes. Now they plan to photograph and publish them on the web."

This might be a coincidence, but The Zero (Andrew Vachss's web site) did get a request from some Norwegian youths a couple of years ago.

Since I know Norwegian, I was asked to check up on them. I went to their web site, where they wrote about themselves and their methods. They had also published transcripts (in Norwegian) of chats where they had "captured" pedophiles. I read through most of the transcripts, and found that the "capturing" was little more than them pretending to be twelve year old girls looking for sex in chat rooms.

I did a little more research, and discovered that the identities and the pictures of the offenders (which they posted on their web site), in all likelihood NOT were pictures of pedophiles. A predatory pedophile would not post a profile with his own name and portrait in a chat room - he would of course falsify an identity and use a portrait of somebody else, maybe even somebody he wanted to hurt. I can promise you, Peter, that what these specific norwegian "vigilantes" did was at best useless, at worst a game they played for their own gratification.

There is one infamous site on the web, maintained by a self-proclaimed "child protector", who publish pages after pages of naked children. His alibi is that he is working to "identify" missing children, by patrolling kiddie porn sites and downloading pictures of children. Now, you decide if you want to buy that alibi ...

Individuals like these will of course fool many people. But this is where the true professional enters the picture.

Re: Norwegian Vigilantes
by Peter Östbergh - Thursday, 2 October 2003, 03:57 PM

It is a coincidence. This researcher was from Umeå, Sweden and is working on Youth Web Cultures. During interviewes with youngsters she met these guys who were 14 year old. They started, "just for fun", to impersonate a young girl and ........ They are now 18 and were talking about to publish photographs on the web. So this story is a completly different one.

And, no I don't buy that alibi!

mental abuse of child
by Jann Ove Lillegård - Wednesday, 1 October 2003, 06:12 PM

Mr Vachss:
Mental abuse of children are also a problem,
but does not get as much attention as child porn and sexual abuse- perhaps because
it is not on the Internet ? is too much focus on the Internet and computer technology and
to little focus on child abuse as such?
The tools are more interesting than the crime to media and others?

Re: mental abuse of child
by Andrew Vachss - Wednesday, 1 October 2003, 06:23 PM

You have touched something deep in my heart. I wrote a seminal article on emotion abuse in our widest-circulation magazine in America. You can find it here:

http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/disp_9408_a.html

... The article produced *thousands* of responses, from people who said that their pain was, for the first time in their lives, validated. Your point is especially well-taken: child pornography has been around for many, many years, but, as you so eloquently state: the tools are more interesting to the media than the crimes (!) Your question ties in with this entire discussion. If emotional abuse is (as I maintain) perhaps the most long-lasting of all forms of child maltreatment, if it causes horrible damage that is trivialized by others, why is this so? Perhaps you are correct. Perhaps this is because there is very little on this topic on the Internet. But this need not be so, not with the skills available. You see the path?

	Families vs school by Jann Ove Lillegård - Wednesday, 1 October 2003, 06:26 PM
	Mr Vachss: When so many families fail in taking care of their children, should schools have a greater resposibility for guiding our children through childhood?

Re: Families vs school
by Andrew Vachss - Wednesday, 1 October 2003, 06:33 PM

Schools should play a *major* role in child development. And, for that matter, in child protection. Teachers are on the front lines. They see their pupils every day, for many hours. They are in the best position to observe, and, if necessary, to report. I believe teaching is one of the most noble professions, and it disgusts me that we pay so little to those from whom we demand so much. So, yes, teachers should have more responsibility. But we too have a responsibility: to support and defend those to whom we entrust those we hold most precious. If we want the best for our children, we must commit ourselves to *active* support of the teaching profession.

	The end of session one. by Per Godejord - Wednesday, 1 October 2003, 06:28 PM
	It’s time to start thinking about ending this first session. I propose that we close the discussion at 1900 hours Norwegian time(in 30 minutes). Tomorrow, same time and same place, we’ll continue this discussion and perhaps even formulate some conclusions. Thank you all for participating! See you all tomorrow. PA

Re: Welcome!
by Peter Östbergh - Wednesday, 1 October 2003, 06:31 PM

Mr Vachss

It seems that many predators have been abused themself when they were young. Do you think that their sentence should reflect that?

Re: Welcome!
by Andrew Vachss - Wednesday, 1 October 2003, 06:38 PM

There is no one-size-fits-all answer to your question. This would depend, for example, on the age of the predator at the time he or she committed the crime, because experience has taught us that our chances to "rehabilitate" a predator drop off with age. Simply put: if we get them young enough, we still have a chance. However, in the larger sense, my answer must be an emphatic "No!" For every predator who can (truthfully) claim a childhood of horror, I can show you hundreds who were treated even worse, yet did not *chose* to walk the same road. Evil is not a destiny; it is a decision. Most abused children do not grow up to be abusers, and most of those who do abuse themselves, rather than others (see "emotional abuse," earlier). If we excuse the predator because he was abused as a child, we are degrading the heroism of those who were similarly abused, yet refused (remember, it is a choice) to imitate their oppressors.