The Hindu Business Line : Trigger for violence?

Parents say our children are not out on the streets, they are not doing drugs or alcohol, they are at home and we believed they were secure. It is now the opposite, and young people are now unsafe even at home because of the Internet. — Jorma Lempinen, of the Finnish Association of School Principals

R.K.Raghavan

A gruesome campus shoot-out reported recently from Finland raises fresh concerns about the role of the Internet, especially a site such as YouTube, in facilitating crime. While it is generally known that terrorism finds an effective medium in the Web for disseminating information, there is growing evidence that the conventional criminal also uses cyberspace in a variety of ways to go about his chores.

What is of even graver significance is that the mentally unstable youth in parts of the world are greatly enamoured of YouTube and the numerous social networking sites that have sprung up in the recent past. The result is disastrous as seen from the incident (September 7,2008) at a vocational college in Kauhajoki, north of Helsinki, the Finnish capital.

A trainee-chef there, Matti Juhani Saari (22), opened fire, all of a sudden, at his fellow-trainees and killed ten of them before turning the gun on himself. The motive for the crime is not known. It was obviously a case of an insane element running amok. What is most bizarre of the whole happening was that Saari had gone on YouTube a week earlier firing a gun. He posted four video clips, each lasting a minute or two, and showing him clothed in black. As he fired, apparently towards a camera, he was heard saying: “You die next.”

This was brought to the notice of the police, who took him into custody and interrogated him. We have no idea what responses they elicited from him. At the end of questioning, the police did not obtain any material that could help them detain Saari under existing law. It was found that he had a temporary licence to possess a .22 gun. And gun ownership in Finland is very common, because it is a country famous for hunting as a national pastime. As a result he was let off. Five days thereafter, he went berserk inside the campus, where he was enrolled as a culinary trainee. An enquiry is being held as to whether the police was at fault for having released Saari, even after he came to notice for conduct that was abnormal, although not unlawful as it did not harm anybody.

It may be difficult to explain his act. His profile — a fascination for computers, guns, horror movies, beer and sex — possibly gives some insight into his personality traits. Read this with his reported fondness for a video that depicted the 1999 shooting at the Columbine school in Colorado which left 13 casualties. That Saari was smart and knowledgeable enough to record himself with a gun and posting the clip on to YouTube is surprising and leads to many speculations.

Relevant here is the fact that Saari was not the first one in Finland to have gone on YouTube before indulging in violence. In November 2007, another youth, Pekka Eric Auvinenen (18), opened fire in southern Finland and killed eight school students. Like Saari, he had also gone on YouTube before the attack and vowed to do away with those whom he considered “unfit”.

What does one make of Saari and Auvinen’s actions? Undoubtedly both had a mental problem. While Saari had no history of treatment, Auvinenen had been prescribed anti-depressants. There is also conjecture that they had been in touch with each other, going by the striking similarities in their conduct. The fundamental question is, whether there is a co-relation between their illness and what they perceive YouTube to be. Even if this is difficult to unravel, is there not a case for those who manage YouTube to keep the psychologically unsteady elements at bay?

I know that this is technically not feasible. Also, YouTube has grown so much in popularity and it attracts a mind boggling number that it becomes almost impossible to vet those accessing it, if ever the site restricts itself to subscribers only. We have the unhappy experience with many social networking sites where those under the eligible age make a false representation and manage to become members.

There is undoubtedly tremendous pressure on Google, which owns YouTube, to take immediate measures to tone down violence that is depicted on this amazingly popular video-sharing site. Senator John I. Lieberman of the US is almost a one-man crusader against the site’s alleged indifference to objectionable material that is posted on a continual basis. The UK Police is positive that YouTube contributes measurably to violence. It points out how, following the murder of a football fan Rhys Jones (11) in Liverpool, YouTube had videos glorifying violence in the area. Al Qaeda supporters have also come to notice for propagating their creed through YouTube.

A practical problem

Google has taken the stand that it should not be a party to mindless censorship. It has a policy of prohibiting graphic violence and smut. Its stand is that anything which falls short of its standards could not be taken off, just because it offends sections of the population that uses the site. This is no doubt a questionable posture, because harm cannot be measured by the mere number affected. It has to be judged by objective standards of ethics irrespective of the numbers.

But then, Google has a practical problem arising from the sheer size of YouTube. According to one estimate, each minute, video clips amounting to about 10 hours of viewing get uploaded on to YouTube. It therefore takes several days for the administrators to do effective censorship. So it has taken the stand that viewers will have to do the flagging, upon which Google will remove the material that it considers most offensive and that violate the Web site’s own standards.

This stance seems rational, judging by the enormity of the material that goes into YouTube. It is an entirely different question whether such a bureaucratic posture helps the cause of peace and stability in society, if one reckons what happened recently in Finland and elsewhere. It is also in conflict with the views of many psychologists who feel that explicit violence depicted on Internet spawns further violence. This is especially true of a country such as Finland where mental illness and alcoholism, combined with prosperity and a permissive gun licensing policy, are causing havoc.

The writer is a former CBI Director who is currently Adviser (Security) to TCS Ltd.

Related Stories:
Perils of wireless Internet
On the crime trail
Dangerous waters

More Stories on : Internet | Security | Security Musings

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Not too keen to pay for use?

Trigger for violence?

Serve IT hot and fast

Debt spells no dent

Pay through the mobile phone

Quiz

Good technology is almost half of health

Cartoon