MEDIA

Industrialization and the growth of technology in the twenty-first century mark a major advancement of humankind. Particularly in developing countries, the boom of technology and growing accessibility of the Internet mostly provide beneficial blessings. Online education, online healthcare, online businesses, online help centers, and a plethora of other online resources provide unprecedented means of learning, attaining medical help, and growing economically. In rural areas, such commodities may otherwise be unavailable. The implications of such progress mean huge strides in the promotion of global health, as well. Yet, the development of any novel arena often involves negative repercussions. The Internet, in all its resourcefulness, provides space for endless illicit activities, typically behind the barriers of anonymity and physical distance from law enforcement and victims. Of the many virtual perpetrators, online predators are a notable threat, and adolescents are their greatest targets. Such violence has reached India, as a recent case in Bangalore—neighboring Mysore in the state of Karnataka—reached officials on May 20th, 2017. The case, the dangers of adolescent Internet use, and the myths about online predators are discussed in coming detail in this critique.

In June 2016, a thirteen year-old boy began an Internet relationship with alleged twenty-one year-old “Thejal Patel” (Correspondent, 2017). Although their friendship was initially benign, Patel groomed the boy by slowly gaining his confidence and trust. Eventually, Patel sent the adolescent pornographic pictures and requested similar nude photos of the boy and, finally, of his parents. Tricked and misled, the boy complied. Shortly thereafter, the boy and his family received severe blackmail: Patel demanded 1 crore (million) rupees in return for keeping the family’s pornographic material offline. Undiscouraged, the father reported the abuses to the police, and the case is under current police investigation. Little is known about the true identity of the perpetrator, but the country’s Supreme Court intends to make the Internet companies equally liable under new legislation (Correspondent, 2017).

As a harbinger of the age of the Internet, media incidents constantly catch my attention. This case, however, seemed almost stereotypical. In the U.S., 89% of sexual advances towards children take place in online chat rooms (Kempf, 2017). Fifty percent of online sexual exploitation victims, similar to the boy in Bangalore, are between twelve and fifteen years old (Kempf, 2017). Comparable cases of grooming and sexual exploitation happen globally, with very recent cases occurring in El Salvador and the U.K. But scholarly research—though limited in this field—suggests that predators do not regularly wear the mask associated with them as that of violent tricksters (Wolak, Finkelhor, Mitchell, & Ybarra, 2008). Predator-victim crimes are most frequently cases of statutory rape, not of malicious blackmail and sexual coercion. Furthermore, the predators are rarely pedophiles, contrary to popular opinion. Admittedly molesters prey on vulnerable adolescents; but, certain extraneous risk factors may be involved that make certain adolescent groups more susceptible to inappropriate Internet advances from strangers. Questioning or homosexual boys, victims of physical or sexual abuse, risk-taking teenagers, and prolific Internet users are the most targeted populations of online grooming and exploitation (Wolak et al., 2008). To most, this information is likely unexpected. Elderly adults and parents of victims may question the academic evidence on predators, too. However, considering my familiarity with online communication platforms, similar crimes, and the evolution of long-distance communication, such information was not surprising. It did, nevertheless, provoke further questions.

Clearly a problem exists. Eradicating this problem may be likened to eradicating Internet crime altogether: a daunting, impossible feat. This problem also highlights an important fact: people globally face similar problems with the growth and progression of society. Hence, I question how psychologists, social workers, and global health advocates can contrarily use the Internet to teach against foreign, risky behaviors and communication online. The same platform used to perpetrate crime can instead prevent it. To date, knowledgeable voices in the community suggest the following approaches for educators and parents to minimize risky behaviors in adolescent Internet use: changing parenting approaches on lenient Internet use, marking the differences between pornographic and non-pornographic material, teaching appropriate roles of autonomy and romance, tailoring prevention programs for teenagers, recognizing changes in behavior, welcoming conversation about sexual relationships, and addressing at-risk populations. Ultimately, the same voices urge for supplemental data on the matters at hand. A noticeable lack of information exists on predator-victim relationships, perhaps because of the difficulty posed in tracking online offenders or the unwanted publicity of intimate cases. Nonetheless, I know that my time and resources would best be devoted to expanding the bodies of knowledge of this topic through research. After this exposure, such may be the focus of my future studies in global health.