A boy kidnapped in Mumbai with the intention of raising a fat ransom was murdered last week. The murderers turned out to be four of his "friends" who he apparently met on social networking site Orkut. The four panicked (one actually did the deed) after reports of his kidnapping began flashing on the television networks.
Not surprisingly, a debate has begun once again on the role of social networking sites and the dangers of connecting and interacting with faceless individuals.
Last week, I wrote about the emergence of facebook, another networking site. I wrote about how there were benefits to be reaped from workplace colleagues networking across offices and geographies.
The theory being that people who have already connected socially on facebook could work well together within organisations, even across geographies. Or conversely, if they did not for instance like what they saw on facebook!
Orkut presents a different challenge and opportunity. The challenge is the downside of networking without barriers. And the damage it could do in the virtual or, in the case of the murdered boy, the real world.
The opportunity is that groups can work towards more noble objectives too. The same Orkut that brought together the killers has also spawned groups that have lambasted the killers and even, as it appears, exposed one of them.
As I see it, there is a larger issue and debate as well. That of harmonising the two worlds we live in - the real and the digital. The digital world is new to us and every manifestation (whether Youtube or Orkut) will trigger fresh debates on issues ranging from privacy to moral values and principles.
This is where it becomes a little philosophical. We are brought up to respect the real world and the people and laws that inhabit it. These laws are inculcated at a young age and the residual values stay with us till our last days.
There is no such rule book for the digital world. In the digital world, a 14-year-old may unknowingly communicate with a 40-year-old. And the latter might try and take advantage. This is unlikely to happen in the real world.
Similarly, in the real world, the chances of four boys befriending a potential kidnap victim would have been less, though it can't be ruled out. There are several other activities too, all happening in the darker corners of the digital world. And I would include terrorist propaganda dissemination and indoctrination in the list.
While we are aware of all this peripherally, my sense is that we are still to formulate our responses.
I would argue that rather than debate the merits and demerits of social networking sites and the evils of the Internet as a whole, parents, teachers and institutions should instead focus on creating the rule books for engaging with the digital world.
The teachers (within or outside homes) have to develop well thought out rules for the digital world. I don't mean to say don't surf the Internet for too long or avoid sites with parental controls.
Some of this can be instructed formally but not always, like so many other ideas, values and beliefs instilled into an individual. But the effort must focus on the finer distinctions on what to use and not. About how the web can be instructional and destructive. From what age to use it and for what.
Youngsters may still stray but it will not be for not trying. Remember the line: "My mother told me not to speak with or accept candy from strangers." Well, it is time to extend that to the digital world as well.