Voyeurs 'R Us: What parents need to know about Stickam
My recent posting about child abuse concerns inherent in "$100 laptop" distribution in the developing world elicited strong responses both in favor and against my position. A new report about the ties between a live Webcam chat site, Stickam.com, and a large online pornography conglomerate underlines the seriousness of these risks, hitting us close to home here in the United States.
Child safety advocates have been concerned about Stickam.com, which allows its 600,000 users ages 14 and over to interact via unmoderated live Webcam chats. The New York Times reports in an article "Accuser Says Web Site for Teenagers Has X-Rated Link" that Stickam is owned by Advanced Video Communications (AVC), whose owner also runs DTI Services, a vast network of Web sites offering live sex shows over Webcams.
Common sense tells most parents that the whole idea of live video chats involving minors is a ridiculously risky business to start out with. As Stickam's corporate relationships are being untangled in the press, a parent's visit to the site reveals that there is already plenty to be worried about.
My first question is where did the "age 14 and older" guideline come from? What possible reason could there be for anyone under age 18 to interact in live, unfiltered audio/video chat with online strangers or "friends?" No matter where the age restriction is set, it is blatantly unenforced. Stickam's FAQ says, "While Stickam has established rules keeping children under the age of 14 from becoming a member, it is easy for children to lie about their age and thus gain access to content which may be inappropriate and unintended for them. It is up to parents to properly supervise their children's online activities."
The worries escalate from there, especially as one considers the possible uses of the videos put up on the site. Our known concerns about individual online predators now need to be expanded to include commercial interests. Stickam truly redefines the meaning of "public exhibition."
A close reading of Stickam's privacy policy suggests that the video content that users post to the site can be recorded, repurposed, and commercialized by anyone. To quote the policy, which spells out the agreement between the user and Advanced Video Communications:
"Any Personal Information (including video content) that you disclose on the Website (for example, on message boards or chat rooms, or within your personal profile page) becomes publicly available and can be collected and used by others. Your account name and other profile information (but not your email address) is displayed to other internet users when you upload videos or send messages through the Website, and you can be contacted by other users who send you comments. Any videos or other content that you submit to the Website (including any Personal Information contained therein) may be distributed through the internet and other media."
Does this mean that a 14-year-old's Webcast make-out session (or worse) can be incorporated into an "American Teens Gone Wild" video sold worldwide? Could Stickam channels be fed to paying customers on DXLive or other adult sites? Think of all the stupid things each of us did as teens that thankfully faded into the past. Now in a highly sexualized environment, young teens are giving up their personal privacy to create online videos that will live on indefinitely to be used by anyone, for any purpose.
It's hard to know how far the abuses of this technology and networked community could go. When I read the the Times report I was struck by the fact that Stickam is "free" to users and generates no apparent recurring revenue, while DXLive's sex shows generate $220,000 a day. What is the commercial purpose of Stickam? Where are the lines between these two businesses? And how far could our kids--any kids--get pulled into this web?
As far as protection goes, it seems that families are on their own. I will continue to follow this story as it develops, and I plan to follow up with additional commentary from privacy and security experts. I empathize with every parent's worry and the fact that it takes a lot of work to keep on top of new sites as they come online. Stickam has crossed a line that I believe warrants government investigation. We must not settle for a world where professional pornographers have unmediated access to children.
Amy Tiemann, Ph.D., is the author of Mojo Mom: Nurturing Your Self While Raising a Family and creator of MojoMom.com. She is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and is not an employee of CNET.
- Topics:
-
Media,
-
Security,
-
Digital Kids
- Tags:
-
Stickam,
-
online safety,
-
child abuse,
-
pornography
- Bookmark:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
pornographers have unmediated access to children."
True. Let's say we make it impossible for professional
pornographers to interact with children online (a virtually
impossible directive, but let's ignore that reality for now). How
are we going to prevent them from having access to children on
the street corners of your local town? Or meeting with them in
restaurants, or laundrymats, or ...
Making life difficult for professional pornographers is all well
and good, but does NOT replace the parents responsibility to
raise their children right. Period. Having sex is easy, everyone
does it. But raising a decent child is difficult. There are no free
lunches here. If you don't want the responsibility of raising an
intelligent decent child, then you shouldn't be having kids.
The internet, as well as the world at large, is a dangerous and
tricky place. It's not everyone else's responsibility to make it safe
for your spoiled rotten brats, it's your responsibility to raise your
kids to recognize that it's a dangerous world out there.
You wouldn't let your kids play unsupervised on a busy freeway,
so why do you let them play unsupervised on the internet?
If it were more serious about the NEWS aspoect of the above story, it would have invested in researching the story. Instead, we have what amounts to a long opinion piece based on the premise that "an owner of X company also owns company Y which facilitates streaming porn, therefore X company is, um,...well, I'll put the word "children" here and "porn" there and you "draw your own conclusion."
Not saying that the conclusion is wrong, but that CNet should be taken to task for not actually pursuing something like this with journalistic resources, instead leaving it to editorialists with no credentials.
Still, the most important thing is that parents SHOULD WATCH WHAT THEIR KIDS ARE DOING ONLINE. It's not that hard to limit access or install tracking software. Most kids aren't even savvy enough to erase IE history, so keeping tabs is simple. Chatting should be a no-no unless you've met the "friend" your kid is chatting to, unless you're the type who lets their daughter talk to 30 year old guys on the phone. In that case, you have deeper problems.
I don't ever recommend that any kid chats online with someone they don't know, but kids don't always make the safest choices. Yes, parents do need to be as watchful as they can. But read Stickam's so-called privacy policy for yourself. It states pretty clearly that there really is no privacy: all video goes into the public domain and can be used by anyone for any purpose. This is not an acceptable place for 14-year-olds to be hanging out.
OMG! Teenagers can talk on the Internet! Someone call the FBI;
no good can come of that.
But wait! It gets worse! Teenagers can talk to strangers in real
life, too! Better lock them up, never let them leave the ouse, and
never let them speak to anyone. After all, there's no telling who
they might talk to out there. And porn links are everywhere;
why, I hear that teenagers go to Blockbuster Movies, and
Blockbuster rents DVDs, and porn companies make DVDs! It's a
conspiracy to lure teens into porn. Think of the
chiiiiiilllllldreeeeeennnn!!!
</sarcasm>
I am surprised at some of the comments here, though, along the lines of "If you don't want the responsibility of raising an intelligent decent child, then you shouldn't be having kids."
Ah, well there's a thought--let's just all stop having kids? Generally speaking, intelligent kids have intelligent parents. But is everyone "intelligent"? What about people who don't have highly developed computer capabilities OR who cannot evaluate the legalese Ms. Tiemann has quoted us from the policy? I hope this is not what the commenter is saying: "If you are not particularly intelligent, you ought not to be having kids, and if you do, then so help you? And the KID!"
That seems a bit Pollyannaish to me. Even the smartest among us are having trouble monitoring our children on the internet. As an administrator a popular wiki with upwards of five million visitors per month, many of which are kids, I can tell you that parents have NOT A CLUE what their children are doing online. Let's get a dose of reality here and start thinking seriously about how this society is going to protect children from Electrons Gone Wild. Parents, even the smart ones, are daunted by the ginormous task of taming today's omnipresent techno-threats and are unequal to the job.
industry?Let?s now boycott Holiday Inn, largest distributor of
Porn in the United States (Ever hear of Spectra Vision?). And
General Motors?Ever hear of Use Direct? If we bash every
company that has a link to the Adult industry, we could have a
lot more posts here. As for the assertion that there is a link/
between this company?s various websites. Let?s consider the
source. A disgruntled employee, who ?gets a conscious?, after
four months and a failed attempt at a contract. As stated by his
camp, ?a disagreement over intellectual property ownership?.
Interesting to see now that the first partnership announced by
Mr. Becker?s new competing company is with Rauch Foxx, self-
professed ?Shock Jock?. It will be interesting to see what
legitimate companies will want to do business with Mr. Becker?s
company now that he has shown his desire to mediate his
differences in the press?As for Mr. Stone?s assertion that this
company had a responsibility to disclose its other holdings, I
wonder what we might find if we started to dig into the New
York Times ownership, The Ochs-Sulzberger family trust or the
trust board members, Daniel H. Cohen, James M. Cohen, Lynn G.
Dolnick, Susan W. Dryfoos, Michael Golden, Eric M. A. Lax,
Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. and Cathy J. Sulzberger. ?People who
live in glass houses??