The tragic story of a 19 year old Miami man who committed suicide while others watched via Internet web cameras was not an isolated incident. A nearly identical situation occurred in Phoenix, Arizona several years ago.
Occasionally the police receive information that someone in cyberspace is threatening suicide. Often the information is provided anonymously and with no follow-up information other than the screen name or email address of the suicidal person. Fortunately, while many people on the Internet contemplate suicide as a cry for help, only a few actually complete the sad act.
Law enforcement is unable to investigate all of the many cyberspace suicide threats. Police are hampered not only by the shortage of investigators but also by the lack of a law that gives them jurisdiction. Some states laws require that a criminal act must be under investigation before a subpoena can be issued to trace through the Internet service provider to the computer connected to the Internet. Suicide is not a crime in many places and many people believe that suicide by an adult is a personal choice that should not be legislated. In the case of adults it is difficult for law enforcement officers to prevent a determined person from suicide. Many suicidal persons are convinced by authorities to voluntarily surrender themselves to mental health counseling for treatment.
The situation is different when the person threatening suicide is a minor. Because of immaturity a minor is legally incapable of making an informed decision to end his or her life. For minors, law enforcement has a legitimate interest in preventing the suicide but still sometimes lacks the legal ability to investigate.
Suicide-prevention cyberspace emergency law is needed
In threatened cyber-assisted suicide cases investigators are caught between the mandate to preserve human life and the lack of legislation allowing them to effectively investigate. I recommend the creation of a law that would help the police locate and assist suicidal minors by mandating cooperation from Internet service providers.
Here is some draft language for legislators to consider:
If, while using electronic communications a person identifying himself as a minor threatens suicide, law enforcement may request subscriber information about the person from electronic communications service providers (also known as Internet service providers). The electronic communications service providers will provide subscriber information about the person threatening suicide when law enforcement states that there is reasonable suspicion to believe that the suicidal person is a minor. Internet service providers and electronics communications providers doing business in (name your jurisdiction) are required to comply.
Although the law probably would not have helped in the Miami nor Phoenix cases it may help law enforcement officers in the future when they are confronted with calls from citizens informing them of minors threatening suicide on the Internet.
—————————————————–
Kin outraged, distraught over teen’s cyber suicide
By Rasha Madkour, Associated Press, 11/2/09
Miami, Florida – The family of a college student who killed himself live on the Internet say they’re horrified his life ended before a virtual audience, and infuriated that viewers of the live webcam or operators of the Web site that hosted it didn’t act sooner to save him.
Only after police arrived to find Abraham Biggs dead in his father’s bed did the Web feed stop Wednesday — 12 hours after the 19-year-old Broward College student first declared on a Web site that he hated himself and planned to die.
“It didn’t have to be,” said the victim’s sister, Rosalind Bigg. “They got hits, they got viewers, nothing happened for hours.” Biggs announced his plans to kill himself over a Web site for bodybuilders, authorities said. He posted a link from there to Justin.tv, a site that allows users to broadcast live videos from their webcams.
A computer user who claimed to have watched said that after swallowing some pills, Biggs went to sleep and appeared to be breathing for a few hours while others cracked jokes.
Some members of his virtual audience encouraged him to do it, others tried to talk him out of it, and some discussed whether he was taking a dose big enough to kill himself, said Wendy Crane, an investigator with the Broward County medical examiner’s office.
Some users told investigators they did not take him seriously because he had threatened suicide on the site before. Eventually, someone notified the moderator of the bodybuilding site, who traced Biggs’ location and called police, Crane said. The drama unfolded live on Justin.tv, which allows viewers to post comments alongside the video images.
As police entered the room, the audience’s reaction was filled with Internet shorthand: “OMFG,” one wrote, meaning “Oh, my God.” Others, either not knowing what they were seeing, or not caring, wrote “lol,” which means “laughing out loud,” and “hahahah.”
His father, Abraham Biggs Sr., told The Miami Herald he didn’t want to watch the video. “We were very good friends,” he said. “It’s wrong that it was allowed to happen.”
An autopsy concluded Biggs died from a combination of opiates and benzodiazepine, which his family said was prescribed for his bipolar disorder.
“Abe, i still wish this was all a joke,” a friend wrote on the teenager’s MySpace page, which he described himself as a goodhearted guy who would always be available for his pals, no matter what time of day.
In a statement, Justin.tv CEO Michael Seibel said: “We regret that this has occurred and want to respect the privacy of the broadcaster and his family during this time.”
It is unclear how many people watched it happen. The Web site would not say how many people were watching the broadcast. The site as a whole had 672,000 unique visitors in October, according to Nielsen.
Biggs was not the first person to commit suicide with a webcam rolling. But the drawn-out drama — and the reaction of those watching — was seen as an extreme example of young people’s penchant for sharing intimate details about themselves over the Internet.
Montana Miller, an assistant professor of popular culture at Bowling Green State University in Ohio, said Biggs’ very public suicide was not shocking, given the way teenagers chronicle every facet of their lives on sites like Facebook and MySpace.
“If it’s not recorded or documented then it doesn’t even seem worthwhile,” she said. “For today’s generation it might seem, `What’s the point of doing it if everyone isn’t going to see it?’”
She likened Biggs’ death to other public ways of committing suicide, like jumping off a bridge. Crane said she knows of a case in which a Florida man shot himself in the head in front of an online audience, though she didn’t know how much viewers saw.
In Britain last year, a man hanged himself while chatting online.
Miami lawyer William Hill said there is probably nothing that could be done legally to those who watched and did not act. As for whether the Web site could be held liable, Hill said there doesn’t seem to be much of a case for negligence.
“There could conceivably be some liability if they knew this was happening and they had some ability to intervene and didn’t take action,” said Hill, who does business litigation and has represented a number of Internet-based clients. But “I think it would be a stretch.”
Condolences poured into Biggs’ MySpace page, where the mostly unsmiling teen is seen posing in a series of pictures with various young women. On the bodybuilding Web site, Biggs used the screen name CandyJunkie. His Justin.tv alias was “feels_like_ecstacy.”
Bigg described her brother as an outgoing person who struck up conversations with Starbucks baristas and enjoyed taking his young nieces to Chuck E. Cheese. He was health-conscious and exercised but was not a bodybuilder, she said.
“This is very, very sudden and unexpected for us,” the sister said. “It boggles the mind. We don’t understand.”
Associated Press Writers Jessica Gresko and Lisa Orkin Emmanuel and the AP News Research Center in New York contributed to this report.
Retrieved November 22, 2008 from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081122/ap_on_re_us/webcam_suicide
Dr. Frank Kardasz, November 5, 2008, updated January 16, 2009
Modern cell phones often come equipped with cameras that can be used to capture images. Young people use their cell phone cameras to snap pictures of friends, families and special occasions. Images taken with cell phone cameras can be easily shared between users who can quickly send images to one another or to wider groups of friends.
Unfortunately, cameras are also sometimes used to snap images of nudism or sexual exploitation. Often the images are part of the “sexting” process. Sexting is the act of sending sexual text or sexual images from one electronic device to another for the purpose of grooming another person towards a sex act. Sexual predators often groom intended victims by sexting.
An increasing number of complaints are being received by law enforcement involving improper or illegal images taken and trafficked via cell phone. What can be done?
Parents, please monitor your child’s use of a cell phone camera.
Young people, please think about the consequences of taking and sharing pictures taken with a cell phone camera.
Remember that once an image is released to others or into cyberspace, it is irretrievable. Pictures can be shared and duplicated across cyberspace and the image might not ever be erased.
Please think before you snap-a-pic.
——————————————————
The following story by Mike Brunker describes an incident in Pennsylvania.
‘Sexting’ surprise: Teens face child porn charges
6 Pa. high school students busted after sharing nude photos via cell phones
By Mike Brunker, msnbc.com, 01/15/09
In an unusual case arising from the popular practice known as “sexting,” six Pennsylvania high school students are facing child pornography charges after three teenage girls allegedly took nude or semi-nude photos of themselves and shared them with male classmates via their cell phones.
The female students at Greensburg Salem High School in Greensburg, Pa., all 14- or 15-years-old, face charges of manufacturing, disseminating or possessing child pornography while the boys, who are 16 and 17, face charges of possession, according to WPXI-TV in Pittsburgh, which published the story on its Web site on Tuesday.
Police told the station that the photos were discovered in October, after school officials seized a cell phone from a male student who was using it in violation of school rules and found a nude photo of a classmate on it. Police were called in and their investigation led them to other phones containing more photos, it said.
Police Capt. George Seranko was quoted as saying that the first photograph was “a self portrait taken of a juvenile female taking pictures of her body, nude.”
The school district issued a statement Tuesday saying that the investigation turned up “no evidence of inappropriate activity on school grounds … other than the violation of the electronic devices policy.” The statement also said that school officials didn’t learn of the charges against the students until Monday.
In the WPXI story, which included contributions from the Associated Press, Saranko indicated that authorities decided to file the child pornography charges to send a strong message to other minors who might consider sending such photos to friends.
“It’s very dangerous,” he said. “Once it’s on a cell phone, that cell phone can be put on the Internet where everyone in the world can get access to that juvenile picture. You don’t realize what you are doing until it’s already done.” (Seranko could not be reached for comment on Thursday, and a woman who answered the phone at the Greensburg Police Department said, “Our department is not doing any more interviews on the case.”)
But Patrick Artur, a Philadelphia defense attorney who by his reckoning has handled at least 80 child pornography cases, said the prosecution of minors for photos they took themselves runs counter to the purpose of both state and federal child pornography laws: Preventing the sexual abuse of children by “dirty old men in raincoats.”
“It’s clearly overkill,” he said. “… The letter of the law seems to have been violated, but this is not the type of defendant that the legislature envisioned” in passing the statute. Artur said that because there is no mandatory minimum sentence under Pennsylvania’s child pornography law, unlike the federal statute, the students would not necessarily be incarcerated if they are found guilty. But he noted that convictions would have “serious, serious implications,” including forcing them having to register as sexual offenders for at least 10 years. While Artur said the prosecution of a juvenile for allegedly creating and distributing child porn was new to him, a quick review of federal and state statistics showed there have been a handful of similar cases, and several convictions.
While few minors have found themselves in court for e-mailing or posting sexy photos of themselves, there is little doubt that ubiquitous cell phones and easy access to computers have tempted many to push the erotic envelope.
The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy reported last month that a survey of 1,280 teens and young adults found that 20 percent of the teens said they had sent or posted nude or semi nude photos or videos of themselves. That number was slightly higher for teenage girls — 22 percent — vs. boys — 18 percent.
Retrieved January 16, 2009 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679588/from/ET/
——————————————————
The following story by Laura Legre also discusses the situation nationwide.
Students trading nude photos not isolated incident
By Laura Legere. The Times-Tribune.com. 11/12/08
Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania area students caught trading sexually explicit pictures of classmates are part of a growing trend. But unlike many teenage fads, what may have seemed like a harmless act could leave them facing life-altering legal consequences.
Incidents of similar trading of nude images by high school students — either by cell phone, e-mail or social networking Web sites — have been reported in at least 12 other states, including New Jersey, Ohio, Illinois, Texas, Wisconsin, Utah and Georgia.
John Shehan, director of the exploited children division of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said this year alone his organization has received more than 100 reports of child exploitation involving a cell phone. That number includes cases of exploitation by both adults and minors.
In Tunkhannock, police confiscated five cell phones from students between the ages of 11 and 17. One of the phones contained about 100 pictures, according to Wyoming County District Attorney George Skumanick Jr. He said “some of the girls” in the pictures were also taking the photos, which likely showed females between the ages of 14 and 16.
The punishment for teens taking, sending or receiving such photos can often be very adult. In Texas in October, a 13-year-old boy was arrested on child pornography charges after he received a nude picture of an eighth-grade student on his cell phone.
In Utah, a 16-year-old boy was charged with a felony for sending nude photos of himself over a cell phone to female classmates.
In May, a Wisconsin teen who posted nude pictures of a 16-year-old girl on his MySpace page was charged with possession of child pornography, sexual exploitation of a child and defamation.
Pennsylvania students who trade nude images could be charged with sexual abuse of children, unlawful contact with a minor, or criminal use of a communication facility, all of which are felonies punishable by up to seven years in jail.
That point was made repeatedly to the ninth- and 10th-graders gathered in the Abington Heights High School gym Wednesday to hear about the dangers of such behavior. Although there have not been any reported incidents of students trading nude photos in the district, assistant superintendent Thomas Quinn, Ph.D. said, “It certainly would be naive to think it couldn’t happen here.”
Lackawanna County Deputy District Attorney Frank Castellano told the teens that taking, possessing or distributing pictures of people under the age of 18 constitutes child pornography in Pennsylvania, whether or not the person taking the photos or sharing them is a minor. “Please don’t think that you are immune from this type of prosecution or this type of arrest simply because of your age,” he said. “It makes no difference.”
Assistant District Attorney Robert Klein said students who receive nude images should immediately delete them. He emphasized images conveyed by cell phone often end up on the Internet and are spread widely. The legal and social ramifications of such an act can limit a person’s ability to get into college, join the military or get a job for the rest of his or her life, he said.
High School Assistant Principal Michael Beamish put the possible repercussions in even more personal terms, referring to the “tarnish” a pornography charge would have “on your family name.” “Everybody, take a minute and think about what your grandparents would feel if you were in court being prosecuted as a sex offender,” he said.
Nils Frederiksen, spokesman for the state Attorney General’s Office said law enforcement and prosecutors determine the charges to file when teens trade nude photos based on the individual circumstances of each case. But, he cautioned, “If you are sending sexually explicit material to someone under the age of 18, you are facing a potential felony charge.”
Mr. Shehan, of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said prosecutors’ dilemma whether to “prosecute or try and educate or seek counseling” is very difficult, and will become more prevalent as the issue continues to spread. “A lot of damage is done when an image like that is taken and shared and essentially becomes available to the world,” he said. “Teenagers have a different mentality than adults do. A momentary lapse of judgment can have a lifetime of repercussions.”
But Daniel Macallair, executive director of the California-based Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, a nonprofit that advocates alternatives to juvenile incarceration, said the focus on the strictest criminal punishments is not the best way to address the issue. “Labeling some teenager who does something stupid as a lifetime sex offender solves no problems,” he said. “It will create more problems than it will solve.” He encouraged a community-wide response to the incident that involves parents and schools, but not the criminal justice system. “Are you trying to push someone to the margins of society for the rest of their life, is that the goal here?” he said. “And have we really thought this through?”
