Last week, the New Jersey attorney general’s office announced the arrest of sixteen individuals as part of “Operation Home Alone”. These individuals, which included a police officer, minister a teacher and other professionals were allegedly speaking with people they believed to be minors via social media sites, who turned out to be police posing as minors.
According to the news reports, “The social media platforms involved in Operation Home Alone include Kik, Skout, Grindr, Tinder, MeetMe, and Adam4Adam.”
When reviewing the terms of service for all of the social media sites involved in Operation Home Alone, 5 out of 6 platforms utilized in the sting supposedly prohibit people under the age of 18 from using it’s site (Kik is the exception).
- Skout: “The Service(s) are not intended for use by persons under 18 years of age. By accessing or using our Services, you agree that (1) you are age 18 or older”
- Grindr: “AGE RESTRICTIONS AND SAFETY. THE GRINDR SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE ONLY FOR ADULTS (INDIVIDUALS AGED 18 YEARS OR OLDER). NO USE BY UNDERAGE PERSONS. NO PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS (TWENTY-ONE (21) YEARS IN PLACES WHERE EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS IS NOT THE AGE OF MAJORITY) MAY DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY VIEW, POSSESS OR OTHERWISE USE THE GRINDR SERVICES. YOU MUST BE A LEGAL ADULT. YOU HEREBY AFFIRM AND WARRANT THAT YOU ARE CURRENTLY EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS OF AGE OR OVER (TWENTY-ONE (21) YEARS IN PLACES WHERE EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS IS NOT THE AGE OF MAJORITY) AND YOU ARE CAPABLE OF LAWFULLY ENTERING INTO AND PERFORMING ALL THE OBLIGATIONS SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT.”
- Tinder: “Eligibility. You must be at least 18 to use the Service and not prohibited by law from using the Service.”
- MeetMe: If you are under the age of 18, you may not download or use MeetMe.
- Adam4Adam: Our services are not available to anyone who is not at least 18 years of age. If you are not at least 18 years of age, you are not permitted to become a Member or use our services.
So if most of these sites expressly exclude children, how can they be considered portals for child predators and if, in fact, children are being solicited on these sites (as opposed to officers pretending to be children), what responsibility do the social media sites have to prevent it?
Other perceived dangers to children are regulated. As of June 22, 2010, the FDA made it a federal violation to sell tobacco products to a minor. Business owners and employees can be convicted of a felony for serving alcohol to minors. The EPA has laws to protect children from environmental hazards. A teacher was even convicted for showing an R rated movie to her class, under an Ohio law that states, “No person, with knowledge of its character or content, shall recklessly … disseminate, provide, exhibit, rent, or present to a juvenile, a group of juveniles … any material or performance that is obscene or harmful to juveniles.”
Since the sale of “adult-oriented” products such as gaming and wine has become more prevalent online, services have existed that screen website users for age and identity. For example, electronicverificationsystems.com claims, “Using premium data source providers, our system verifies consumer-provided name, address, and date of birth along with additional optional data points including phone number, e-mail address, and Social Security Number. Clients that want more thorough confirmation of age can verify the identity of the consumer through phone authentication via SMS or programmatic voice, or through dynamic Knowledge-Based Authentication (KBA).”
So if these social media sites are actually so dangerous to children and technology exists to prevent children from accessing them, shouldn’t the companies behind them bear some responsibility in ensuring their terms and conditions are adhered to and children are denied access?
Also, as a side benefit, users of these sites will have the comfort of knowing they are engaging with an actual adult and not becoming the victim of a bait and switch “sex sting”.
There is no logical reason for law enforcement to be looking and supposedly “catching child predators” on adult sites. This is only done because this makes it easy for them to trap people and label them as what they need them to be, to make it look like law enforcement is “doing their job”. They target vulnerable and naive people who are not child predators and label them as that. They do it to drive up their number of arrests. It’s very money driven.
In Midland, TX even criminal defense attorneys are a part of this scam and corruption. They use a lot of gaslighting to make sure that everyone they catch is convicted. They don’t want to be exposed for what they are doing (posing as teenagers who are volunteering free sex to random adult strangers on adult sites and really pushing to get it, for self serving purposes). Teenagers volunteering free sex to random adult strangers on adult sites (and giving their actual age) is not an actual problem that exists. That is why vulnerable people keep falling for it. It’s shocking to come across a teen on an adult site volunteering free sex to adult strangers. It’s something they’ve never seen before. It catches them off guard, making them much more vulnerable for falling for the scam. Most are just curious about who would be doing something like this. Some don’t believe that it’s an actual minor. Some want to help by keeping this reckless teen from moving on to others they’re going to come across on a site like this. Unfortunately, claiming that truth will only be used against you. Once caught in their trap, they treat them all like actual child predators and they won’t believe any truth that does not fit what they want to hear. They’ll demand the truth, and if your truth is that you are not a child predator and did not intend on having sex with a minor, it’s just too bad because they don’t want to hear it. They want you to lie for their sake (to make themselves feel and look good). They want you to play along with their sick game and pretend to be the child predator they need you to be.
There needs to be accountability on those who are conducting these sex sting operations for self serving purposes (scams). The adult social websites, as well as the government itself, need to hold these individuals accountable for misusing the system and resources, for lying to the public, and for abusing people, all for self serving purposes.
I was arrested in a craigslist sting back in 2011 for the very same reasons you mentioned. I had used the site for 5 years and NEVER came across teens looking for sex on there. When I saw the age I thought it was a typo because the picture looked like a 19 or 20 year old. Again, like you said it’s one big scam. All you have to do is go look up US Code 42 in the federal laws and itll show you all the millions of dollars in grant money that is promised to states that create task forces and it literally says as a condition to get the money they have to increase the number of child sex crimes prosecuted. And as you say, it really isn’t a real problem, so they have to create it to get the results they want and label you a child predator. And since sex offenders are under the thumb of law enforcement for life, you’ve therefore created easy job security for fat, lazy ass cops. And that’s all it amounts to. Easy, lazy policing. Anyone can sit behind a computer screen with a badge and pretend to be a teenager and lure some unsuspecting horny young adult into committing a crime. How about go into the “hood” and fight some real crime why dont you? Or how about go over to Europe into the Muslim no-go zones and try to do some police work? Our govt, law enforcement, and legal system are out of control and need to be stopped. But the problem is, we’ve let it get way too big and now it’s too late. If Donald Trump cant stop the deep state, what makes you think we can? Our entire country has become one big police state that is just trampling on the Constitution and our individual rights and we just continue to bend over and let em give it to us again and again and again.
Dear MJ, you posted “All you have to do is go look up US Code 42 in the federal laws…” That is an incomplete code. Do you have the actual title and section? It should read something like Title 18 USC section 42 as an example. Or an abbreviation is 18 USC 42. Btw, 18 USC 42 is a criminal code regulating “shipment of injurious mammals, birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibia, and reptiles; permits, specimens for museums; regulations.” Thanks.
When I saw the age I thought it was a typo because the picture looked like a 19 or 20 year old…
…so you ask the person, 10 times if you have to, how old they are and if they are not of adult age YOU STAY AWAY. If you are not sure of their age, YOU STAY AWAY.
I thought it was a typo is not a defense. You are the adult, it is your job to make sure you are with an adult and not a child.
Since grant money is available to communities that prosecute more sex crimes, the incentive is to create more sex crimes that can then be prosecuted. This is why the new law being passed is to insure that sex-trafficking pimps get a database of potential customers.
Yes teens now days go on different sites and yes they lye anyone can fiqure out a date actually year to make them over 18 so mean while the sex stings are going on those innocent ones are getting the bad end jail prision sex probation registery but young kids go on those sights where are the parents for that so they need to stop and drop all the ones who were arrested from a sex sting with no actual victim
I know some heads will explode when I make this point, but here goes…
The responsibility for keeping minors off of adult-oriented sites should lie solely with parents. Not the platforms, not the government, both of which are extremely poor substitutes for rational, responsible parenting.
If social media of any kind is so dangerous, it’s simply a matter of responsible parenting to keep kids off of it in the same manner as keeping them out of bars or certain areas of town. That means watch what the kids do on line and stop it if not appropriate. That means taking access away from the kids if they go to inappropriate sites or have inappropriate apps, just as they would drugs or alcohol or cigarettes.
Someone please explain how most people complain about what inept morons their elected officials are, yet trust and demand of these same inept morons to protect their own kids so they don’t have to?
Dustin – Using the illustration in our post; yes, a parent can teach their children the dangers of cigarettes and prohibit them from smoking, but unless they follow them around all day, it’s very difficult to monitor.
I’m not suggesting criminalizing the sites (like they do for the sale of alcohol or tobacco to minors), but I’m suggesting that if there are simple and inexpensive methods that a website could take in order to prevent potential harm, they should take it.
FAC,
They already restrict minors. They have no control over minors (or anyone else) who input false information to gain access to their sites or apps. Some require credit cards, but anyone can get a prepaid card. Exactly what other steps would you propose?
Once again, it all comes down to parents keeping a better eye on what sites their kids access, or even eliminating internet access at home if necessary. Checking internet history isn’t rocket science. There are apps for parents to GPS and internet history track their kids’ cell phones that are free or cost little (I’ve often wondered why POs don’t use those instead of the costlier ones till I realized that the higher cost is most likely the reason they want registrants to use them).
Thats so true look all what they did for minors buying tobacco well now its time for parents to stat parenting their kids like parents did before phones computers internet they gives these kids phones at age 9 or 10 kids now days will click on everything start comming down on parents
These social media sites are probably hiding behind the Communications Decency Act, which basically keeps websites immune to any legal action from content posted to their sites by a third party.
That’s unrelated
It is, if you look at it this way. The police posting as minors are the “third party”, the operators of the site aren’t responsible for what the “third party” is posting. (I.e., fake accounts posing as minors) A great example of those hiding behind this law is the case concerning Backpage.com
capt.. you already know the answer.. it’s Floriduh , anything it takes, legal or not .
Whatever happened to entrapment?
Well it’s all about who speaks first. Hopefully these guys won’t freak out at the embarrassment of it all and take a plea deal. I have been on these sites before as well as millions of others and anyone will tell you that the presence of a minor or someone posing as a minor is not tolerated in any way and their profile is quickly banned. The fact that these cops were allowed in there and were allowed to stay only made them look like a joke and wouldn’t have been taken seriously. The case is total bull and the public should be outraged that we have cops going online to adult chat sites for gay men trying to catch child molesters. In 2019, it says more about the curiosity of the undercover cops than anything. I have a feeling the judges in PA aren’t so easily fooled by this “posing as a minor” bull. Posing as a minor or did a sarge get caught in Grndr by his captain?
The phone system in this country today is so out of control that I have pretty much gotten to the point that I let my caller ID and my phone answering machine sort out the ‘fake’ calls. One day I tried calling back a phone number that identified as being local…I was going to provide them some choice words…only to find out that after 30 seconds the number was not in service. When you pick up the phone you have no idea who is on the other end. My policy…never discuss sex in any manner on the phone…even if it is to discuss the fit of ‘Depends’.
A different question,
How many adults have met minors using these sites prior to these stings?
Do the numbers warrant an untenable number that law enforcement is justified with the sting operation?
Where can we, the public, find these numbers that show how often an adult has used an adult site geared at meeting other adults to meet with minors?
Sc: This is exactly what I want to know.
This is the question every defense criminal attorney should be asking law enforcement and prosecutors in these cases, but they don’t because they want to keep the fact hidden that it just doesn’t happen.
I want to know if it really is common for teens to go onto adult sites and volunteer free sex to random adult strangers, while giving out their actual “minor” age. That would be the only reason why law enforcement should look for these supposed “child predators” on adult sites. I’ve never heard of any real case like this. It just doesn’t happen. If it has ever happened, it would be extremely rare.
I was arrested in a CL sting in 08 at the time I had been using the site for about 1-2 years occasionally coming across a internet troll every now and then when I first encountered law enforcement that’s exactly what I believed another troll because even though he declared himself to be a minor 3 things that didn’t sit well with me 1 Their grammar complete with punctuation didn’t match the age they were claiming to be 2 I believed that the sites terms of service were sufficient enough to be legally binding and 3 Each time I had contact with said troll it was initiated by them not me. So I played along for awhile then I got tired of the games and ended it. Then they hit me with a sob story and invited me to lunch I went ( stupid I know) where I was arrested I had a traveling to meet which they had to drop for a couple of reasons the only charge they could make stick was Soliciting via the internet because of strict liability I had to take a plea. My point is either terms of service means something or it doesn’t if a minor really wants to have sex with a adult all they have to do is go to school church or dance class. Social media stings ruin people’s lives
Sc:
Damn good questions. Maybe you should ask a reporter to pose them to some government or LE official and watch them tap dance around them. Guessing the answers are: None, highly doubtful, and non-existent, respectively.
Do a records search in whatever county of your choice for either 847.0135(3) or 847.0135(4).
I did.
From the year 2007 to 2011 there were 4 arrests for violations of 847.0135(4).
That’s right… 4.
Within the first 3 months of 2012 there were 51.
And yes, all 51 were the result of 2 police stings.
Was there an unmanageable number of these crimes taking place in that county? No.
When a request was made as to how many investigations were opened for either of these crimes I was told that was confidential information.
Indeed.
Four arrests over almost a 5 year period is hardly justification.