Parents plant spyware to snare sex predator A 38-year-old Briton has been jailed for an underage sexual relationship with a 15-year-old girl after her father uncovered evidence by planting monitoring software on her PC. Nicholas Lovell, from Guildford, Surrey, coached the teenager while working as an ice hockey teacher in 2006. The relationship between the two raised …
Great... now it's okay for parents to monitor their child's activities "in their best interests" and, of course, "if they've done nothing wrong then they have nothing to hide". I can only look forward to the day when all of my activity is monitored and held in a database so that I can feel protected.
I for one welcome our activity monitoring overlords.
so, one more paed behind bars. well done? there's a serious question of morality here, i feel...
although i understand *why* the parents did what they did, i can't help feeling that their actions are not a great example for the child, viz. it's okay to do something behind someone's back as long as it's in their own "interest".
one can never know the ins and outs of another family's life but there must be better ways to catch a guy than lying to and spying on the victim (who also happens to be your own child...)
paris, coz if i'm confused about this...
Glad the child saw sense and is (hopefully) no longer p'ed off with Mum and Dad. Whilst I'm normally anti-surveillance, I think in this instance Ma & Pa were right.
I'm just surprised that NuLab's tame Plod passed up on the chance to arrest & crucify the parents (par for the course).
I'm sure Cherie's beloved-by-all Human Rights Act contains a multitude of provisions under which they could have acted, with a little effort & initiative.
it's NOT ok to spy on your own kids whilst you're raising them and trying to make sure they stay on the straight and narrow? Erm, sorry...if it was my sprog I would have been spying if I had been suspicious, but I sure would have neutered that coach and left the parts of him in 42 counties.
So you're upset that the parents spied on their child. So you're upset that parents, who thought their child was in danger, actually took some responsibility and acted to protect their child.
There is a *huge* difference between spying on a grown adult for dropping a chocolate wrapper in the wrong place, and spying on a vulnerable person (e.g. child or someone with learning difficulties) because it is strongly suspected that they are in grave danger.
There are often comments about parents not bothering to understand what their children are doing on computers that the one time a parent *does* take an interest, you criticise the parent.
The spying on people debate is not a black & white issue. Each instance needs to be looked at separately and judged on it's merits, and I vote that spying on a child to catch a paedo is well near the top of the list of acceptable things to do.
My children (who are very young) will grow up knowing that we as the parents will have full access to everything they do on a computer (e-mail, chat rooms, IM everything) until the age of 17.
They will be told this repeatedly throughout their life, so it will not be a big suprise to them if a little snooping takes place or if monitoring software needs to be installed because we as her parents suspect something is wrong.
The reason for this..... IT IS OUR JOB AS THEIR PARENTS.
matchbx
... why people are p'ed off about this.
Parents regularly interfere in their children's lives. It's in the job description. And it's right. Kids should slowly have the leash let out untill they are grown up and fly the nest.
If you think this was wrong, wheres the difference between that and, say, searching the kids room for drugs because they have been acting suspiciously? Or checking that they have done their homework by a quick rummage through their school bag? It has been done by parents since the beginning of time, and parents NOT doing it is part of the reason we have so many little scroats on the streat now (that and the govt taking away all the parents rights to punish their kids.)
I had no idea that the reg had so many readers who still live with their parents (or are 15).
"now it's okay for parents to monitor their child's activities "in their best interests""
Yes. The computer is most likely the property of the parents. These are Parents, not the government... Parents generally do love their children and do act "in their best interests".
Be more concerned with the cameras in your streets. Your parents (generally) are not out to get you, or trying to ruin your life.
Waiting for the reg article about 8yr old being sent to room (by parents) for using foul language... Then the comments regarding: false imprisonment, tyranny, lack of a trial, where's the appeal process, violation of the 8yro's freedom of speech, etc.
Perhaps the gov should put cameras in all homes, to make sure that parents are not out of line.
I am completely against government monitoring activities, and am regularly shocked at what I see happening in the UK (I'm a 'merkin, so we've got our own issues to deal with here...).
But, the girl was 15. I'm not saying it's ok to monitor all activities of a 15 year-old covertly, but it is the job of parents to monitor their kids to keep them safe, as well as to, over time, teach them to live on their own without monitoring. Anyone have a problem with parents monitoring, overtly or covertly, the computer use of an 8 year-old? Or the use of scissors by a 4 year-old?
I don't know the specifics of the situation, but I see nothing in the story that looks like the parents were using appropriate montioring, and on the face of it their actions were reasonable. They appear to only have acted AFTER they had very reasonable grounds to suspect their underage (I assume for the UK) daughter was in a relationship with someone in appropriately older.
(anonymouns 'cause I don't want my daughter finding this post :-)
All parents do it all the time. If technology help the child to dissemble, it also helps the parents monitor. As long as she's under 16 (or whatever your local laws state) it's entirely normal. In fact, if she was having an underage sexual relationship, the parents could be found guilty of neglect.
I use VNC to monitor my 13yo step daughter. She knows it is installed and what it enables me to do (if she sees something cool she shouts me to look at it). Every now and then I view her desktop to see what she is up to. It is no different to getting up, going in the other room and looking over her shoulder - it just takes fewer calories.
I can only assume that people who think the reported behaviour is unacceptable spying don't have kids. I don't let my kids wander around town on their own, and I don't let them wander round the net on their own either. When they are old enough to do the former, they can do the latter. If these parents had brought action against, say, a 17 year old boyfriend, that would have been a somewhat greyer area, but this was against a man who is nearly 40!
The only times I am ever shocked rigid by my VNC 'spying' are when she is visiting Bebo pages of her friends. 13 yo boys who claim to be 17 and whose pages are titled 'English and Fukin Proud' or 'Shut up bitch, put it in your mouth and suck it'. 13 yo girls who pretty much look like they are trying their hardest to be jailbait, and who give away the full names and whereabouts of not only themselves but lots of their friends. Are the parents of these kids just conscientiously avoiding spying on their children or are they ignorant fuckwits who don't have a clue what their children are doing?
Perhaps if more parents took the trouble to pay attention to what their children were doing, there would be less scope for the government to try to regulate and monitor all of us. If we're already thinking of the children then they won't be able to use that as an excuse for censorship.
Yup, it was me what wrote it.
I have no objection to parents monitoring their children's internet access if they are up-front about it; however, I do object to this monitoring being covert. Presumably her parents monitored activity that was not related to this criminal's activity - IMs and emails where their daughter could reasonably expect privacy and where there was no risk to her. Children should be supported, loved and protected by their parents - not deceived - even if it is "for her own good". What's wrong with being up-front and honest?
Come to think of it, when i was a child playing in the street with friends, one of my parents would always be at the door/window keeping an eye on me.
Oh the humanity! How will I ever overcome this invasion of my privacy?
Paris, cos she's had her 'privacy' invaded once or twice.
So the mature, adult way they dealt with their daughter keeping secrets from them is to secretly monitor her? I wonder where she gets her duplicitous nature from...
Keeping tabs on your child is fine, within reason, but doing it behind her back is not. If they don't trust her with a computer, they should talk to her about it; and if necessary she shouldn't have access to one outside of their supervision. Simple.
As my old man used to say: "While you live under my roof..."
He may as well have said "While you use my computer and my internet connection..."
You have to wonder how daft the kid was, if she knew what she was doing was wrong you'd assume that she wouldn't have been daft enough to do it at home. Not that I'm advocating this sort of thing, but it would have been easy and cheap enough to buy a PAYG phone.
Good on Mr Parent here. He took responsibility for his child's online activities.
He didn't make it the state's problem.
He didn't ask his local council to employ RIPA to protect his family.
He did it all himself, and then let the authorities do their job.
I'll raise a beer to this dude. He is - quite literally - "the Daddy".
Pah. Sounds like another couple of parents unable to establish trust and discuss things with their kid. Snooping (opening snail-mail, emails and IM sessions, reading diaries, etc., it's all the same) is the best way to make sure there will be no trust anytime soon. Way to raise a kid! If they think they solved a problem, they're in for a nasty surprise. The gal's 15, not 7, she's probably not stupid. She might say she understand (mostly to get rid of the pesky counselling), but I'd bet a small fortune that she's going to find a way to hide her subsequent activities, whatever they can be. And that she's not going to tell her parents anything "secret" in the next couple of years, either. Of course, I may very well be wrong, and communicating with a 15-yo girl is not always easy, but it seems they took a huge chance of "loosing" her just out of laziness.
And given that my only child is a 12-year old girl, I must say that I feel for the parents in this case.
Honestly I don't know what I'd do if my daughter started acting weird (and it's probably only a question of time, now !), but I'm sure of one thing : if my wife and I are suspicious of something as serious as underage sex, well God help the man who's guilty if I find him before the police does.
I say the parents did their duty. She was already lying to them, so what were they to do ? If they had told her about the surveillance she would have gone out and done it anyway, finding a different way to stay in contact with her paedo, and he would never have been caught. What would have been gained that way ?
It's a difficult situation, to be sure, and there is no sure recipe to bring things back to normal - if normal can actually exist again in the aftermath. But at least this way nobody died, life can go on for the innocent and the scum is where he belongs - probably getting all hot and bothered in the showers.
The problem is that this is all theoretical. You're saying that if they'd done things in a certain way (that had less chance of sucess than just finding it out for themselves) it would have been a more moral and a better solution. Problem is you _can't_ know if discussing things would have worked, because we can't rewind time to find out.
From the fact that there seems to be some previous history to this, I think the parents might be justified in acting that way, and they certainly have the right to.
Second scenario: bloke has inappropriate relationship with this girl and is "let off" with a restraining order type thing rather than any real sentence. Parents are a bit miffed and so decide to frame him. Apparently, from the detail provided in the story, *all* the evidence against him comes from a computer under the complete control of the parents.
I do hope the police were able to provide some sort of independent corroboration of his behaviour.
My kids know full well, Dad monitors their internet usage at home. They use the family computers in family areas where I can see the screen whenever I choose to walk in the room.
My oldest also knows that I keep logs of websites etc that he chooses to visit and that if anything shows up that shouldn't be there, or if there's access in hours that he doesn't have permission to be on, he's in trouble.
End of problems. Kids know that internet is not a toy, but all reasonable use is allowed. What ever happened to parents being responsible for their children's actions?
I agree with the parents actions here. I just think they should have been open and honest with their daughter from day 1 - "your computer usage is monitored. use it responsibly."
Age-15 is where the snooping is getting difficult. If, as might have happened here, they could easily pick out the dodgy traffic, it's quite different from reading through everything.
It's a time of transition, part child and part adult, and by that age the balancing is getting tricky.
And previous events matter. It might have been pressure at school over academic performance, but the history was there.
Mind you, I have enough sour memories of teachers that I wouldn't rule out school problems as a factor. Sex has the appeal of being something adults do.
I mean it's good he got caught but not all parents who may want to monitor their children's internet connection are interested in the child's wellbeing. I can see a version of this which mysteriously disconnects Messenger whenever the child tries to confide in a friend that daddy touches her in bad ways.
For now the ends justifies the means but the whole thing has a bad smell about it.
I saw this on my local TV news the other day. The father only went back to the police when the girl sent a message saying she thinks she might be pregnant.
The girl is 15, didn't say how close to 16 but made me wonder a few things...
Like if she was 16, legally they're not doing anything wrong, but I bet the parents wouldn't be happy she's seeing a 38 year old... where do the parents stand then?
Or what if the guy wasn't 38, but also 15 or 16, still illegal with a 15 year old girl but what happens then? That goes on all the time. Would he get charged and sentenced as a minor? I assume the parents would still have called the police as she's still having underage sex, regardless of the age of the guy.
What if the guy was 18 and hence an adult, would we think differently to this story as he's only 3 years older than the girl, that's not much, but legally it doesn't matter if he's 18 or 38, would he have still got the same 4.5 year sentence?
It seems odd to me how just 1 day, when she turns 16 on her birthday, can make all the difference between a 4.5 year jail sentence and everything being legal and ok.
Dear AC
If the text hadn't been obscured by your violent knee-jerk reaction (I do advise consulting a doctor before it gets even further out of hand), you would probably have noticed that the girl was being rather less than up-front and honest about things.
I can't even believe that there is a debate here over the fact the parents monitored the child and saved her. Obviously those that don't understand are either not parents, bad parents or they are pedophiles just like this jacka$$.
I don't tell others what to do with their loved ones. I do believe that it is not only my right, but my responsibility as a father to ensure that my children do not get into life threatening or emotionally damaging situations. It is my job, and it's extremely important. I am their only father and if I don't do it, nobody else will.
I use www.webwatchernow.com just as these people did and I will continue to do so until my children are of legal age and out of the home. It is a fantastic program and frankly I don't care what anyone else says, it's my life and I make the decisions. I don't monitor everything they do, but I use it to block offensive sites and guide them in the right direction.
Do what you want with your own children, but don't even think about telling me what to do with mine.
> I do believe that it is not only my right, but my responsibility as a father to ensure that my children do not get into life threatening or emotionally damaging situations.
It is. But the point that some people are making (and that people like you are ignoring) is that this should be done *pro* actively, not *re* actively.
Firstly ask yourself how come "The relationship between the two raised earlier concerns and Lovell agreed to sign an agreement with police preventing him from contacting the girl" and then ask yourself how come, subsequently, "she became more withdrawn and started to lie about her movements".
Perhaps it was because the parents had not adequately taught their daughter what to watch out for and how to deal with this sort of situation? Maybe they just thought "oh well, she's in her room and she's being quiet, that's good enough for us"?
If they already had grounds for concerns, why didn't they move her computer into a family space instead of deciding to snoop on her behind her back?
I'm all for parents being responsible with the children. Heck, I'd like to see parents responsible *for* their children - as in, if the child does something to bring him/her to the attention of the law, the parents get pulled in / punished *as well*.
How quickly will parents take charge of their children's behaviour if they are held accountable for it?
Bottom line - this girl was legally a ward of her parents which means they had every right to do what they did.
This post has been deleted by its author
With any teenager - you need long-term trust there.
If you don't, parental behavior like this causes much more damage than the offense in the first case.
You need the kids to learn common sense - but you can never force the issue and resort to spying...
I like the close-out statement, where she has counciling and has learned what she did was wrong... I'm reminded of the South Park episode about the Pane(t)arium. Apt here me thinks....
... it's doing it in secret.
Want to monitor your child? Go right ahead, just don't give them the expectation of privacy then betray that. Even if they had it, don't sneak around without telling them you will be monitoring from that point forward.
Paris, because children are people too.
I do feel that we are too reliant on technology now. In the old days, a damn good thrashing would have sorted out the daughter. She would have understood that continuing the relationship would lead to another very sore bottom. (Maybe I could have phrased that better.)
Paris, because she knows the full meaning of "sore bottom".
This post has been deleted by its author
I know this will not sound entirely right, but..
The entire age of consent deal seems to be rather arbitrary and non-uniform: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe . Note that most countries have 15 or even less as age of consent (13 in Spain, for instance).
Albeit technically illegal (according to the UK law) I find it difficult to blame the guy.. at least until it will be illegal for teens below age of consent to advertise sex (short skirts, see-through clothes, etc.). If she advertised herself as being 'on the market', then, well, maybe the problem lies more in her education/environment/system. Ever thought about not letting her watch too much TV ?
I also can't help by remember that back when I was a teenager, it was considered a matter of personal pride to still be a virgin at 18. Nowadays, with all the pop channels and teen culture focused on sex, that is no longer true.
Maybe it's time we address the causes and not the effects.
<--- Paris, we know why :)
The first two AC comments ("Counselling" and "What!")are really stupid. These parents were being responsible for their own kid. Obviously, she was being brainwashed by the teacher, and it was the parents' job to protect their kid, even to the point of secretly monitoring her Internet access.
Graham Marsden, the parents most likely had already taken the steps in trying to establish/maintain trust with their daughter. Since she started lying about her activities, it was time to take it to the next step ... monitoring her activities. If someone consistently lies to you about something, is that trust still there? No.
Several items to consider:
1. Anyone under the age of 18 years old (at least in the US) is a juvenile, and his or her actions and inactions is the responsibility of his or her parents. (At least that's the theory ... too many parents make excuses for having out-of-control kids, but that's another blog)
2. The juvenile has no guarantee to privacy with his/her parents. Now, it would be very bad parenting to not provide an environment of trust where the juvenile should become a responsible family member, but that trust is earned, not given.
3. The juvenile is not mature enough to think for him/herself, and there are legal definitions supporting this statement. Why do you think teenage drivers have more accidents than older adults? Because they act like morons but they think they are smart.
4. If this relationship came to an end where the girl hitched up with the teacher, and she became pregnant (or worse, killed), is that better than the current situation where she was monitored by her parents? You tell me.
As far as I am concerned, I support these parents for taking responsibility as parents to monitor and manage their kids.
Let me add a further point to your statement there: "*all* the evidence against him comes from a computer under the complete control of the parents" - WHO KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT COMPUTERS to be able to install, configure and use a clandestine monitoring package.
The fact that everyone else in this thread has ignored this very real issue is truly frightening. Consider this scenario: Vicious ex-wife wants ex-hubby out of the way for good. In divorce court she alleges that the father abused the child (I've witnessed enough divorce cases to know that "domestic violence / abuse" is a common pro-forma accusation by an ex-wife to assure her custody and maintenance). She then fabricates evidence on her kids' computers using exactly this kind of software, and uses it to have her ex-hubby put away for keeps. Unheard of? Well, I personally have seen some ex-wives of friends of mine go to some extraordinary lengths to corroborate their false accusations...
Now maybe in this case the guy was in fact in an inappropriate relationship with the kid, but like AC above, I really do hope there was other evidence besides what was on the kid's computer. For example, did HIS computer contain evidence or records of his contact with the kid? Or what about the ISP logs? It would be interesting to see what evidence was actually used to obtain a conviction here.
The mind boggles.
Where’s the problem? This guy had been involved with a child since 2006 (15 now, 13 then), didn’t stop after a court order and he is a big enough crap to do this to a young girl. The parents may lose their daughter over this but what do others suggest, turn your back while the most precious thing in your world is being destroyed. To risk losing so much to protect what is so dear to you, must be an impossible situation to be placed in At lest these parents had the courage to make that decision in order to protect their daughter form this parasite. They didn’t beat her; lock her in a soundproof cellar; emotionally abuse her or deprive her of food and security. All they did was to find out what was going on, they monitored her internet use. In a similar situation I would do the same. For those who think they are somehow in the wrong, shame on you.
There is no debate. As a responsible parent it is up to me to look after the well being of my children. If, in order to do that, I need to monitor what they are looking at and who they are talking to I will do. I would rather not have to but I can see cases where I might.
The parents in this case were responsible for their child and took that responsibility. They trusted her but when that trust was betrayed took other means to ensure that they could still fulfill their responsibilities.
> the parents most likely had already taken the steps in trying to establish/maintain trust with their daughter
"Most likely"? Got any proof of that?
> If someone consistently lies to you about something, is that trust still there? No
"We don't trust you, so we're going to spy on you for your own protection". Hmm, sounds familiar, do you work for the Government...?!
The point is, however, there are better ways of doing this than installing spyware on your child's computer.
> Several items to consider: 1. Anyone under the age of 18 years old (at least in the US) is a juvenile,
This was in the UK, not the US.
> it would be very bad parenting to not provide an environment of trust where the juvenile should become a responsible family member, but that trust is earned, not given.
Is that the child trusting the parent or the parent trusting the child?! And how about a little *respect* from both sides?
> The juvenile is not mature enough to think for him/herself
So the parent *guides* the child and *teaches* them. They don't *snoop* on them.
And your Point 4 sounds like classic "Won't someone think of the children!" hyperbole.
To those who suggested the parents could have planted the stuff on the computer, WebWatcherNow records it all remotely with no 'visible' software on the machine (proxy forwarding perhaps? And no guarantee who's actually siting at the PC). So you are handing over all of this very sensitive information to a third party that isn't even covered by UK law. Consider that also includes screenshots that can be played back like a video and this could then effectively record webcam sessions between said 15 and 38 year-old... That's a lot of trust to place in this third party offshore company.
@VNC
I use UltraVNC myself which I made my teen aware of when she asked for help with a problem on the computer and I fixed it infront of her remotely - this was not long after I installed it. I saw the light-bulb go on and pointed out 'yes I can see everything you do if I need to'.
She has limited user rights on the computer. ZoneAlarm Security Suite parental controls limit her web activity. And I have a PACproxy script that blocks extra sites - numerous web messengers, proxy bypass sites, all but the main social networking sites etc (I found one SN site that will allow anyone of any age to seach for anyone 9+ - needless to say I blocked it).
She uses MSN and the conversation recording is on (and gets switched back on if she switches it off). And I've spoken to her about MSN Messenger safety in particular.
There's only so much you can do though.
Look at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/berkshire/7594801.stm
> "Most likely"? Got any proof of that? <
I'm disappointed that since you are a lot closer to the action than I am, you did not look at other sources to refute my assumption. You made an assumption that the parents snooped immediately and it was the only thing they decided to do, and my assumption was the opposite. The Reg article can be interpreted either way. Even the BBC article, which has more details, still cannot refute either your or my assumption. So if you have any clear proof, show it.
> "We don't trust you, so we're going to spy on you for your own protection". Hmm, sounds familiar, do you work for the Government...?!
The point is, however, there are better ways of doing this than installing spyware on your child's computer. <
First of all, what does this have to do with the "government?" Don't distract the debate.
Fundamentally, I agree that there are other initial approaches to manage your child. However, I still believe that the spyware was of last resort since the child was quite under control of this pervert and she was lying to her parents before the spyware was installed (see the section after "Invading her privacy" in the BBC article).
> This was in the UK, not the US.<
And your point being? May be you can educate me and the readers on the legal definition of juvenile there?
>Is that the child trusting the parent or the parent trusting the child?! And how about a little *respect* from both sides? <
As stated earlier, this situation appeared to be beyond the trust and respect level. The child was being manipulated by this pervert, and the parents were losing control. Something had to be done to break this link, and I believe no amount of chit-chat was going to make any difference at this stage. Now, if the whole situation could be rewound to 2005, I believe the parents should have done exactly what you stated and the spyware route could have been avoided.
>So the parent *guides* the child and *teaches* them. They don't *snoop* on them. <
Again fundamentally, I agree. However, I do not believe this was even possible for this particular situation at this specific timeframe.
> And your Point 4 sounds like classic "Won't someone think of the children!" hyperbole. <
Huh? If you're going to smoke that stuff while typing, at least you should share with the rest of us...
Do you remember about the teenage girl in the US who committed suicide after being "dumped" by her boyfriend in MySpace, and come to find out that it was an adult neighbor who was causing the "grief"? (http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2007/11/26/girls_suicide_after_online_chats_leaves_a_town_in_shock/) That was basically point #4. IMHO, unless parents are proactive in managing their children, situations like this will continue to occur. What the parents did with using spyware was definitely drastic and personally would not be my first choice as a parenting tool, but it was still a lot more proactive than doing nothing.
I have a story to relate that goes back to before home computers were common... probably in the late-1980's. My wife's foster sister had a daughter (only child) who, at the age of about _14_, ran off with her high school teacher, probably in his late 20's. The teacher played on the daughter's age and naivety to convince her to leave with him. Sister searched for years trying to find her, unsuccessfully.
Finally, around 2004, she found the daughter. Or rather found the record that the teacher had killed her daughter in Arizona about a year after they left Northern California. The only thing she could do by then was have her remains returned to the Bay Area. The teacher is in prison for (hopefully) life. Of course, he wasn't teaching in Arizona, because that would have required using his real name, and AZ would have found out that he was wanted in CA on a number of charges such as kidnapping and sexual misconduct.
I was much more fortunate with my daughter... she rarely used the computer and it was always in the family room. She did marry at 19, but is still married to the same guy 14 years later and has two beautiful daughters
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
