Can you Recogniz(r) the danger?

Last month, Swedish android developers The Amazing Tribe (or TAT, to those in the know), displayed a controversial new mobile application at the Mobile World Congress. If you haven't heard all about Recognizr by now, then you must either be over 70 or have been taking part in David Mitchell's "interesting" BBC2 show The Bubble. Long story short, Recognizr - not a typo - is an "augmented reality application" (TAT), which you chuck on your mobile phone. Just use the camera to take a picture of anyone you see who looks familiar/ interesting/ attractive etc, and lo and behold, Recognizr allows you to find them on Facebook or Twitter and read all about them. TAT claim that this application will improve the social networking experience of those people to whom social networking is an essential part of their life (saddos, teenagers, and stalkers spring to mind). Talking of the latter, The Sun was quick to publish an article branding the Recognizr application as a "stalker's dream", in their typical tabloid scaremongering style. Their trademark layout saw an article emblazoned with heavily bolded words to ram home the point that BURGLARS, BLACKMAILERS and PERVERTS would take no time at all to turn the application to heinous use. Well, I say. According to The Sun's talent-free Richard Moriarty, security "experts" say that burglars will be able to take pictures of people on a night out and then find out their addresses in order to rob them, anyone "fooling around" on a night out would be vulnerable to blackmail (what "fooling about" entails is anyone's guess, but based on the average standard of The Sun's readership, probably sleeping with your fiancee's sister, in which case you deserve to be blackmailed) and women would be stalked by perverts. Nothing new there then.

The Astonishing Tribe are quick to point out that any fears for safety are completely unfounded. They say that the application can only be fully utilised if both parties have signed up for it, that privacy levels (similar to those on Facebook) can be set up, and that this will avoid security violations. It sounds like Recognizr is intended to be used like Facebook - to allow friends to keep in touch and share photographs and updates. If what TAT say is true, then yes, any pervert can take my pic in a crowded bar, but unless I have activated my usage of Recognizr, then their scary and filthy attempts to hunt me down will be fruitless. And let's face it, any would-be stalker or rapist is perfectly capable of taking a secret snap and then following me home the good old-fashioned way.

More to the point, why is this application so threatening to people? I'll tell you for why - because they have openly posted personal details such as addresses, emails, contact numbers and photographs of themselves on the internet. Facebook, as far as I'm aware, works by allowing people to choose privacy settings, and in this way only accepted contacts can view any personal information. Anyone can take a picture of anyone else in the street and try to track them down via Recognizr, but surely would only be successful if the photographee a) also used the application, b) had their picture on Facebook and c) also listed their name and address on their Facebook page. If someone you don't know takes a shine to your Facebook photo (which is always much better than the reality anyway) and asks to be your "friend", then you can always say no if you think they might be a dodgy pervert/ stalker/ burglar. It is your responsibility to keep yourself safe on social networks, after all.

But, adding fuel to the Facebook fire comes the reports about the sentencing yesterday of Peter Chapman, who posed as a teenager on the site in order to kidnap, rape and murder his 17 year old victim. A convicted sex offender, he used Facebook as a means to meet young girls, and managed to befriend, groom and lure Ashleigh Hall to her death. The Merseyside Police have been heavily criticised for losing touch of Chapman for almost 9 months before deciding to issue a nationwide search for him prior to Ashleigh's murder, but the real issue being debated in the case is the safety of Facebook for children and teenagers. Although releasing a statement warning people not to meet up with online contacts as they may have nefarious intentions, they have been lambasted by the police for their refusal to sign up to a "panic button" scheme designed to protect children from paedophiles. Bebo and MSN have adopted the Ceop (Child Exploitation and Online Protection Unit) scheme, which is used to build intelligence reports of likely suspects which become part of police investigations. Any young person who is worried that they are being contacted or groomed by a paedophile can press this button and report the activity directly to Ceop. Last year 267 reports of suspicious activity on Facebook were made, and 43% of these were in regards to suspected grooming. Worryingly, though, 81% of those worried were forced to access other sites in order to contact Ceops, because they had no way to do so via Facebook. 334 arrests were made last year following these reports. It is frightening to think of children or young people being targetted by paedophiles on social networking sites, and especially for those parents whose children, like Ashleigh, are old enough to go out on their own. I can't help thinking, though, just how useful the panic button alone would be. Sure, if you have a child savvy enough to spot a possible danger, or you yourself are suspicious, then yes - it would be effective. But if, say, you have a teenage daughter who meets someone she believes to be a young man, and they exchange joking and flirting emails, and photographs and then he asks to meet - how do you monitor this? She has had no reason to suspect anything, and no report will have been generated. She probably won't even tell her parents that she is off to meet some lad off the internet - after all, they will just go mad and tell her he is an old pervert, and she knows he is her soulmate - so she says she's going to her mate's house. It's sad but true that, as long as there are paedophiles and sexual predators out there, they will use any method they can to access and abuse their victims. The internet is just one way and, unfortunately, makes their job a bit easier.

So, whether you are scared rigid by The Sun's completely unbiased report on the Recognizr app or love the idea, can't imagine life without Facebook, or worry endlessly about who your kids are chatting to on all these new fangled social networking sites, you don't need to be a victim. Personally, I don't use Facebook. I used to, but now I don't, and never will. I just don't like it. For that reason I am not worried at all about this Recognizr thingymijob, or getting myself an online stalker. I don't allow my 12 year old to Facebook - if he wants to chat with his mates, there's a phone for that. Or - and this is a novel idea in our modern world - he can invite them over for tea. It makes me feel secure, and it's one less thing to worry about. For people who do like Facebook (my partner, bless him, is one of these) and see it as a valuable way to keep up with friends and family, then just watch your backs and all will be fine.

Or you could always start a Facebook campaign to ban Facebook, I suppose. Power to the people, not the perverts.