Ethics and Misuse of Online Platforms: Cybercrime in Dating Apps

Introduction

In my previous blog, I explored how anonymity contributes to the vulnerability of users on online platforms. Today, I delve deeper into the ethical concerns surrounding the misuse of technology, specifically in online dating apps, where cybercrime, exploitation, and unethical practices proliferate. Online dating, once a revolution in the way people meet and connect, has also given rise to a darker side, where users fall prey to fraud, harassment, and other dangers. This blog examines the ethical implications of these threats, focusing on how platforms manage security and privacy, and addresses the responsibilities of online platforms in safeguarding their users.

The Dark Side of Technology

Online dating platforms, much like social media networks, offer a breeding ground for cybercriminal activities, particularly sexual exploitation. In 2016 in the Netherlands alone, more than 1.5 million people used dating apps, a figure that continues to rise​. The Internet, largely unregulated, provides offenders with opportunities to commit predatory crimes by leveraging online platforms​. Studies have shown that online dating apps facilitate risky offline encounters, and users of these apps are at higher risk of sexual abuse compared to non-users. These platforms, designed to foster social and romantic connections, often become environments where exploitation and harm thrive, due to the ease with which predators can hide their true identities.

The UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA) reported a significant increase in sexual assault cases linked to online dating between 2009 and 2014. Similarly, a study conducted among students in Hong Kong revealed that users of dating apps were twice as likely to be sexually abused as non-users, highlighting the alarming association between app usage and vulnerability.

Deceptive Behavior in Online Dating

Misrepresentation is rampant in the world of online dating. Many users embellish their profiles, making it difficult to discern their true identities. While some deceptions—such as exaggerating height or income—may seem harmless, others have far more dangerous consequences. A substantial body of research confirms that online users regularly engage in selective self-presentation, where they strategically curate information to appear more attractive to potential matches. Deception can be particularly harmful when it leads to offline encounters, where users may find themselves face-to-face with individuals whose real-life intentions are vastly different from their online personas.

Even more concerning are cases where individuals create fake profiles on social media platforms like Facebook to "verify" their dating app accounts. This practice makes it harder for victims to detect deceit, leaving them vulnerable to malicious actors who exploit the anonymity of these platforms. Research shows that users often believe that certain cues, such as the number of friends on Facebook, serve as indicators of a profile's authenticity—yet these can be easily manipulated.

The Failure of Current Safety Protocols

Despite efforts to promote safety, many online dating platforms still fall short in protecting users from cybercrime. While some platforms in the U.S. use public sex offender registries to screen users, other countries lack comparable systems. In the Netherlands, for example, there is no public database of convicted sex offenders, and dating apps rely primarily on users’ honesty when declaring they have no criminal background. Without access to comprehensive databases or stringent preemptive safety measures, dating apps leave significant gaps in user protection. The reliance on self-reporting and minimal verification mechanisms has led to devastating consequences for victims.

Platforms are further constrained by legal and privacy concerns. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union ensures stringent protection of personal data, which complicates efforts by online dating services to enforce robust security checks. Dating platforms find themselves in a bind—on one hand, responsible for safeguarding their users, and on the other, legally obligated to respect privacy laws that limit the type of information they can collect and use.

Legislative Gaps and Cybercrime

The legal framework surrounding online dating and cybercrime remains inconsistent across regions. In countries like the U.S., public registries of sex offenders allow platforms to screen users more effectively. However, in the Netherlands and other parts of Europe, such registries are either non-existent or not publicly available. This discrepancy creates a significant legislative gap, allowing offenders in some jurisdictions to remain undetected on online platforms.

In the U.S., sex offenders are required to report their email addresses and usernames, allowing authorities to monitor their online activities. Conversely, the Dutch legal system, while progressive in some areas, does not impose similar requirements on convicted sex offenders, complicating efforts to keep such individuals off dating platforms. This raises critical questions about user safety and the responsibility of lawmakers to close these gaps.

Ethical Dilemmas for Online Platforms

Online dating platforms face complex ethical dilemmas when it comes to balancing user privacy and safety. Should platforms be held accountable for the misuse of their services? And if so, to what extent? Some argue that platforms should do more to protect users, but they also face the challenge of navigating privacy regulations, such as the GDPR, which limit their ability to monitor or store sensitive user data.

At the heart of this debate is the tension between maintaining user trust and implementing rigorous security measures. While platforms are incentivized to ensure user safety, they must also protect individual freedoms and personal privacy. Researchers have highlighted the need for systems that enhance safety without compromising privacy, such as methods of verifying user identities without storing sensitive information.

Conclusion

The misuse of technology on online dating platforms poses serious ethical challenges. While online dating apps offer unprecedented convenience and accessibility, they also facilitate cybercrime, with harmful consequences for vulnerable users. Platforms must navigate a delicate balance between privacy, user freedom, and safety, but ultimately, they bear a significant responsibility for the well-being of their users.

Legislative bodies must also step up to close the gaps that enable cybercriminals to exploit these platforms. Without coordinated international efforts, both at the regulatory and technological levels, dating apps will continue to be fertile ground for exploitation and harm. In my next blog, I will explore potential solutions to mitigate these dangers, examining both technological innovations and policy changes that could make online dating safer for all users.

Resources:

Ann Cavoukian. 2011. Privacy by design in law, policy and practice. A white paper for regulators, decision-makers and policy-makers (2011).

E. P. H. Choi, J. Y. H. Wong, and D. Y. T. Fong. 2016. An Emerging Risk Factor of Sexual Abuse: The Use of Smartphone Dating Applications. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment (2016).

Lawrence E Cohen and Marcus Felson. 1979. Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American sociological review (1979), 588–608.

Jeffrey T. Hancock, Catalina Toma, and Nicole Ellison. 2007. The truth about lying in online dating profiles. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’07 (2007), 449.

Maureen Horcher. 2011. World Wide Web of Love, Lies, and Legislation: Why Online Dating Websites Should Screen Members. J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 29 (2011), 251.

National Crime Agency. 2016. Emerging new threat in online dating: Initial trends in internet dating-initiated serious sexual assaults. (2016). http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk

Gregory Norcie, Emiliano De Cristofaro, and Victoria Bellotti. 2013. Bootstrapping trust in online dating: Social verification of online dating profiles. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelli- gence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 7862 LNCS (2013), 149–163.

Michael Petrunik and Linda Deutschmann. 2008. The exclusion-inclusion spectrum in state and community response to sex. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 52, 5 (2008), 499–519.

The European Parliament And The Council of The European Union. 2016. REG- ULATION (EU) 2016/679. (2016). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679

U.S. Department of Justice. 2016. SMART SUMMARY 2016: Global Survey of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Systems. (2016). https://smart.gov/pdfs/global-survey-2016-final.pdf

Joseph B Walther. 1996. Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication research 23, 1 (1996), 3–43.