In article <email@example.com>, Kurt Eichenwald
> The 13-year-old boy sat in his California home, eyes fixed on a
> computer screen. He had never run with the popular crowd and long ago
> had turned to the Internet for the friends he craved. But on this day,
> Justin Berry's fascination with cyberspace would change his life.
> Weeks before, Justin had hooked up a Web camera to his computer,
> hoping to use it to meet other teenagers online. Instead, he heard
> only from men who chatted with him by instant message as they watched
> his image on the Internet. To Justin, they seemed just like friends,
> ready with compliments and always offering gifts.
> Now, on an afternoon in 2000, one member of his audience sent a
> proposal: he would pay Justin $50 to sit bare-chested in front of his
> Webcam for three minutes. The man explained that Justin could receive
> the money instantly and helped him open an account on PayPal.com, an
> online payment system.
> "I figured, I took off my shirt at the pool for nothing," he said
> recently. "So, I was kind of like, what's the difference?"
> Justin removed his T-shirt. The men watching him oozed compliments.
> So began the secret life of a teenager who was lured into selling
> images of his body on the Internet over the course of five years.
Am I alone in being *flabbergasted* that a 13 year old boy has that
kind of private time with a computer? Especially to the point that it
got that far?
Where were his parents during all of this?
No matter; this kind of thing has been going on forever -- where the
parents are totally oblivious to what's going on in their childrens'
This is no different than Columbine, for example. So it happened with
a computer instead of homemade bombs -- it's still a parental issue at
heart, and we as a society need to step up to the plate and scorn the
parenting styles that create this and the parents who use such
The computer was the tool or outlet in this particular case, but this
isn't about computers and the internet. This is about horrible
parents, plain and simple.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When that article first came across the
New York Times RSS newsfeed on Tuesday, that subject line 'Teenage Boy
Joins a Sordid Online World' got me to thinking; maybe one of his,
ummm ... 'patrons' had exposed or pursuaded the boy to read my blog
http://ptownson.blopspot.com or seduced him into reading
http://telecom-digest.org where he would see a picture or ten-minute
video of the Tin Hat Man as he caused embarassment and mortification
for all the 'right thinkers' on the internet.
But you are right, Ron; Columbine, and a few other such incidents such
as Justin Berry's case go right back squarely to the parents. PAT]
Date: 21 Dec 2005 06:18:42 -0800
From: Lena <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Dumb Question About "Do Not Call"
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 24, Issue 573, Message 11 of 13
This might work:
It's from Privacy Corps, but it costs $100.
It clams to block "anonymous and unidentified numbers" Been tempted to
try it, and then the telemarketers go away, so I forget about it.
There is also the configuration problem; how does it block all the
phones in the house. Can I mount it where the line comes in, and then
tie all the phones to it? They sell "remotes", but that drives the
cost up. Verizon has this "iobi" service that appears to have the
ability to block unwanted calls. It costs $4.95 per month when added
to a "Freedom" package ($7.95 without). More flexibility, it seems,
than the Privacy Corps Caller ID.