AOL's Pedophile Chatroom Business

Watch your kids!

from JoeUser Forums

     Dharmagirl recently wrote an article dealing with her experience investigating online pedophiles in the Yahoo! chat rooms. I made a comment about the AOL version of this but I thought it warranted an article all it's own.

     AOL has been attempting to turn around its flagging fortunes by promoting itself as "the kid-safe internet provider". To this end it has many parent customizable features like the ability to turn of Instant Messaging, not allowing email with files or pictures, disallowing chat room access, draconian web page filters, and the like... of course when you take a look at the above list you realize very quickly that if a parent actually used all of these simultaneously on their child’s account then the child would not actually have Internet access. Parents realize this too (right after their child logs on and complains that they are blocked from doing *everything), so they usually leave some of these features enabled. Most of the time parents at least leave the email function enabled but perhaps without the ability to receive files or pictures in them. After a few months of this the child quickly tires of email's novelty and wants to be able to chat with their friends in near real-time via the now ubiquitous IM service or in chat rooms.

     Since these activities are obviously rather open-ended AOL has started a service to appeal to parents fears and ignorance. Enter AOL's Kid's Only areas. This area has thins like links to coca-cola animations, the newest Harry Potter news, and other "web-like" content that is supposed to appeal to kids. The *real* appeal for kids here are actually the Kids Only chat rooms. For the kids without the ability to send or receive IM's these rooms provide a method of near real time comms with their friends and with other kids they have not met yet. For kids with IM access they provide the same function with the added ability to converse privately one-on-one with others.

     The bright amongst you will already have alarm bells ringing in your heads. This "service" actually just herds all the kids of a given age group (according to AOL 9-14 year olds) into one easily defined cyber-space. Additionally parents are lulled into a false sense of security here. After all it is "Kids Only" right? That means they don't have to read over their kids shoulder! Who wants to read 30 minutes of adolescent chat about Hillary Duff anyway? So off they go leaving their kids to chat in the safety of Kids Only. This also adds to the kid’s own natural level of gullibility. They are led to believe by the service that only kids can chat there so they will breathlessly assume that whatever line of bullshit the pedo feeds them about being their age is the gospel truth. The danger in this area is palpable.

     The even darker side of this marketing ploy is it's unsubtle appeal to the pedophile demographic. AOL aggressively pushes ads regarding "KOL" to *every* account holder regardless of age or access (even to AOL instant messenger users who cannot get to KOL unless they have a paid account). AOL wants the pedophile "community to know about this area so that they will purchase AOL accounts. KOL is effectively a corral of sheep waiting for pedos to pick them off. There is no mechanism in place, (nor is one likely to ever be emplaced) to verify that the account signing in to a KOL chat room is actually a kid. Thus the wolves prowl unopposed.

     The bottom line is that if a child is using AOL's Kids Only service then they are likely being chatted up by a pedophile every minute of every hour they are logged on. As you can see from some of the anti-pedo sites on the web some of these folks are very patient and will wait building a relationship online with a child for months or even years before victimizing them. Be afraid and under *no* circumstances should any parent *ever* allow their child access to a chat room or IM services without reading over their shoulder or having a keyboard logger installed to read the logs afterwards. You can *not* afford the risk.

 

 

9,188 views 41 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

Good article.  People think that their kids are safe because they're in a 'kids only' environment, and that's simply not true.  You're also correct about pedophiles 'grooming' their victims....in fact I'll go write an article about that. 

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
As a parent myself I found this upsetting as AOL promotes their kids only site as safe . Most parents take their word for this and if parents were made aware of the dangers kids would never gain access to any form of online communication.
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

They should at least have somebody watching over the rooms.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

They should at least have somebody watching over the rooms.


Actually, some pedophiles will pose as chat room moderators in order to groom the kids they're preying on.


It's a very nasty, distasteful business.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
From this article I guess it would be safe to surmise that kids really shouldn't have chat rooms at all, anywhere. Really, really sad. Do you think it has always been like this, or has something changed over time? I remember going to the pool, sleepovers, cub scouts, etc., and I don't think pedophiles really ever crossed my parents minds. As a parent now, I don't think an opportunity like that passes that I don't weigh the chances. Even though we are more knowledgeable and aware of the crime, I still believe it is happening a lot more now. Troubling.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I've always had my girls accounts set up so they can't use chatrooms, can only email and instant message with specific people (family and friends)...and neither of them ever complains about it. As they get older (they are now 14 and 11), they will most likely get a little more freedom--but they will not get away from Mom sitting next to them, or at least in the same room with them. I have reasons from my own experience not to trust online personas.....
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
While I agree about the danger, and wouldn't want my children near chat rooms. I'd like to see some documented proof that specifically states that they are aggressively courting Pedophiles as a business model. Since you stated it in your blog, you must have either seen something to this affect or have some kind of documented proof. Otherwise, to take your argument, every time a city builds a new playground they are actively courting the pedophile community and providing a one stop shop. I can't stand Pedophiles nor can I stomach AOL but I also can't stand unsubstantiated fabrications either. They may be spamming everyone with the ads, but I seriously doubt their business model is to sign up pedophiles. I don't mind opinions but please state that it IS your opinion and not a fact.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
A sleazy young man who posts here as "Saiyan Robot" tried to seduce my underage daughter. Thankfully, she was too put off by his body odor, obesity, and greasy, patchy facial hair to be lured into his pickup. Still, I lay in bed at night and worry what might happen if a less repulsive pedophile were to try to victimize my daughter.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
a less repulsive pedophile

either that or a more sentient robot.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
I guess it would be safe to surmise that kids really shouldn't have chat rooms at all, anywhere

sadly, thats pretty much the truth. its possible to set up a chat with full-time qualified moderators, that logs all conversations and uses a client that permits fairly positive verification (based on system component physical seial numbers as well as ip# logging), but who'd pay for it? those checks would also presuppose a method of validating users' ages at signup.

I remember going to the pool, sleepovers, cub scouts, etc., and I don't think pedophiles really ever crossed my parents minds

i don't think there are more pedos today than previously; the issue wasnt discussed as openly in the past. i was approached by guys when i was a kid--one of whom tried to convince me to allow him to take my younger sisters (i was 9 and they were 7) for a ride in his car. i got his license number and he was arrested. every woman i know (and most of my male friends as well) had some sort of similar experience; about half the women i know were actually molested but never reported it to anyone at the time.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
documented proof that specifically states that they are aggressively courting Pedophiles as a business model.

it might be safer for kids if they were. the point is aol is actively promoting its kids only chats as being safe when they clearly arent.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
it might be safer for kids if they were. the point is aol is actively promoting its kids only chats as being safe when they clearly arent


I don't disagree with that. No "kids" chat room can be absolutely safe. I'm glad that my daughters aren't old enough to know anything about this. My only problem with the article was his statement that:

AOL wants the pedophile "community to know about this area so that they will purchase AOL accounts.
which basivcally states that AOL is purposely seeking to have children mentally and sexually assaulted. That is the statement I have an issue with, not the point of the article.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

AOL is purposely seeking to have children mentally and sexually assaulted

Atmos - either that statement is true (although my case is not that they wish anyone physical harm but more that they are definately courting this demographic for profit) or you would have me beleive that *I* am able to see the problems in this system and AOL can *not*. Which is it? AOL are either a group of business folks who don't care how they make their money (very likely considering their shrewdness overall), or they are slack-jawed booger eaters unable to see the massive dangers they are presenting to kids. Take your pick it is totally immaterial in either case. Do I think AOL should be forced to stop the service? Absolutely not! This is a parental responsibilty although if any of AOL/Time Warners/CNN executives had a shred of decency left in them (they do not) they would stop or drastically modify this service on their own.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

Shutup dumbass.

 

sigh... at least troll with a real user name please....

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
icuii is a vidchat that caters to an adult crowd. at any given time, youll find a fair number of people identifying themselves as police officers or firefighters. its not unusual to find one or more adults who claim in their description to be camming with their children and looking for similar users (also women with dogs, etc.) i dont know whether they are really as decribed but im presuming its very possible based on things ive actually witnessed. the company in question (to avoid any legal problems ill just suggest you type in icuii in google and youll easily find it--theyre quite litigious) is even more clearly profiting from the situation since they charge for the client software and executives are regularly prowling the directory.

i truly hope there are no kids there, but i also wonder why there are so many cops.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Another good example is Paltalk... I was introduced to this service as a means of OSINT (open source intelligence) but when I observed our attempts to use it as such there were routine incidents of obviously undrage boys and girls nude online. Did the service do anything to stop this? no way.. they were using it as a tacit *sales* technique. (hell i probably just boosted their business posting that fact)
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
yeah thats another one altho im not sure its still in existence. i only know of a couple that are actively moderated to prevent kids from appearing on cam. i would have considered paltalk to be a more likely means of osunint..
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
King - it does have or *had* a large quantity of Arab patronage both here at home and in the Middle East. Terror groups have latched onto things like this service as a virtually unbreakable private comms system. They simply get lost in the crowd.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

Should they be allowed online (without direct over-the-shoulder supervision) if they are too little to do so, Grey?

Umm no they shouldn't, that is the point I was making in the article. The Net as a people medium is *adult* when they are 16 or 17 and are regularly out of yoru control in the real world then let them chat. Before then unless you sit right there the whole time so they *know* up front that you are monitoring their chat they should not be allowed to use it as a chatting medium at all IMHO.

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Helix - I appreciate the support:)
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

Actually, some pedophiles will pose as chat room moderators in order to groom the kids they're preying on.

Additionally the ability to IM allows these folks to use a technique known a "decoying" the room. They will log into the chat room with one screenname and say nothing, simply watching the chat and noting which screennames are kids while using another screenname to IM or email the kids. This removes the "moderator"'s already pathetic control measures. Google for info on this topic and you will find a disturbing amount of info. There are even sites out there dedicated to teaching effective stalking techniques! (yes NAMBLA is one of them)

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
As for keeping track of what your child does on the internet, sure..go for it, warden. Children feel betrayed if they found out you read their diary, Or their email. When do you start to trust them to make the best decisions? Should they be allowed online (without direct over-the-shoulder supervision) if they are too little to do so, Grey?


As I've said on several other occasions over the weekend, I have two daughters who are 14 and 11....their chat capabilities are disabled completely on AOL, and their instant messages and email are set up so that they can only communicate with family and friends...and those preferences can't be changed without my knowledge, because I am the only one with their passwords, and after I sign them on, I sit right here with them, or at least in the same room where I can see the computer screen at all times. I did the same with my son, and began to ease the controls off when he turned 16, giving him total access somewhere after his 17th birthday. Now he's over 18, and I simply trust that all the conversations we've had, and the things he's seen happen to others, have been enough to keep him safe.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
you would have me beleive that *I* am able to see the problems in this system and AOL can *not*


Can't see the forest for the trees perhaps? I really don't know. I do believe that part of their business model is to attract more family business, but I can't believe that they are naive. Your points in the article are very good, don't get me wrong, I simply have a problem with your statement that they want the pedophile business.

or they are slack-jawed booger eaters


No comment. Maybe there is room for an investigative report onthis subject? Hmmm?

Shutup dumbass.


Trolls. Taste just like chicken.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

A sleazy young man who posts here as "Saiyan Robot" tried to seduce my underage daughter. Thankfully, she was too put off by his body odor, obesity, and greasy, patchy facial hair to be lured into his pickup. Still, I lay in bed at night and worry what might happen if a less repulsive pedophile were to try to victimize my daughter.


I had a feeling you'd say something, qpt. That'll teach me not to link you to where I venture!