Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring — Bananaphone.Not many can deny that Raffi had the right idea to sing about a “cellular, modular, interactivodular” device for communication while other people sang about mundane topics like love. The cell phone has become one of the most important inventions ever made because it has exceeded its purpose of simple cordless communication and has been modified with many different amenities including text messaging and GPS navigation. But with the advent of technology, problems unpredicted by Raffi — or any fan of the cell phone — come. One is called “sexting.”Imagine sending intimate photographs of yourself to your significant other while the relationship was favorable. When the relationship becomes sour, your worse-than-inappropriate photographs end up in the sight of your concerned and            disturbed parents’ eyes. While most can sympathize with your victimhood, the sympathy should really be redirected to the perpetrator. Two years ago, Phillip Alpert, then 18, was unable to stand his ex-girlfriend’s taunting. He remembered some nude pictures she sent him, and electronically took revenge by sending those pictures to 70 other people — including her parents and grandparents — via cell phone.Alpert thought he was simply taking revenge on the girl — he did not understand the full ramifications of his actions. He was convicted of spreading child pornography and labeled as a sex offender until he is 43 years old. The girl walked away free. In more recent cases, last month a 15-year-old Pennsylvania girl was charged with creating child pornography when she sent nude images of herself through MySpace, according to The Associated Press.In Brevard County, Florida, Bryce Dixon, 18, was jailed after forwarding his 16-year-old girlfriend’s naked breasts to another teen. Dixon’s bail was set at $140,000, the Boston Herald reported on March 11. The common denominator was justice — or the lack thereof.Most states do not have laws that specifically deal with teens sending nude pictures of themselves or others via high-tech devices or the Internet. Instead of creating laws more adherent to the gravity of the crime committed, states are grouping them in the same category as those who have molested or raped children. In states like Florida, “it hasn’t been an issue debated by state lawmakers,” state Rep. Pat Patterson, said to the Sun Sentinel.  Grouping individuals into this division places them in undeniably austere conditions. Now, Alpert has to register as a sex offender, which prohibits him from moving away from Florida and automatically disqualifies him from attending many universities or receiving prestigious scholarships, among other regulations.He is denied many opportunities unfairly — all because he sent a picture. Because Alpert’s 16-year-old ex-girlfriend also sent a picture, she should, by the same logic, be convicted for the same crime. But laws of many different states are as wholly ambiguous about the charged criminal as the terms defining pornography.Sometimes the girl who takes and sends the nude pictures is not charged, but the boy — a secondary source — is imprisoned for sending the photos to others. Other times, the girl is charged, but the boy, who engaged in watching child pornography, is condoned. The laws should either charge every individual who engages in child pornography or charge no one, provided the pictures were sent out of a teen’s free will.  In retrospect, Raffi may have been simply talking about a bananaphone. But people, along with enjoying new technology, could use his advise and “call the White House, have a chat” to remind lawmakers to mitigate vagueness and guarantee justice. Dini Parayitam is an 18-year-old biochemistry freshman.—-Contact Dini Parayitam at [email protected]