The Internet Parent - Sponsored by K9 Web Protection

Porn & Violence Go Hand-in-hand

2007-11-09T16:56:00.000-08:00

Right here, Right Now

It's just awful. From my very own local Palo Alto Daily News comes a horrifying story. In "Fight Over Porn Spurred Attack", Kristina Peterson reports how local 20-year-old Todd Burpee attacked a 17-year-old girl, bashed her head against the pavement, and then kidnapped and sexually assaulted her.Why? According to Peterson,

Burpee's relationship with his fiancee soured after she discovered a Craigslist personal ad he had been composing on their computer seeking sexual intimacy with older women, titled "desperate housewives," according to police reports. Recently, she had also caught him surfing teenage porn sites, she told police.

A police search of Burpee's car after his arrest turned up six pornographic DVDs, 16 pages of computer printouts of naked men, women and children from a nudist Web site, and three sexually explicit magazines, including one called "Asian Fever."

Burpee had spent most of the night prior to the assault seething in his car. The following day, as the fight with his fiancee continued, he told police that when he spotted his victim, he thought she was in elementary school.

When asked by police what the victim looked like, Burpee...

"...told officers "I seen like an As ..." before stammering "I didn't know she was Asian until I attacked her back here."

Burpee is remorseful. He has confessed and believes he should be punished for his crimes. And at 20, his life is a wreck.

Because of porn?

Draw your own conclusions.

Post. Sue. Rinse and Repeat. But Watch that Drain...

2007-10-25T10:18:00.000-07:00

Drawing a Line in the Internet Sand

It's perhaps the biggest fundamental challenge to law-and-order on the Internet, and it's like sand at the beach -- it's everywhere; the minute you do more than look from the safety of your car, it gets everywhere on you; and then it sticks everywhere, even after you think you've washed it clear.

In his CNET News perspective "Others Post, You Get Sued", Eric Sinrod of the law firm Duane Morris places the spot-light on the big question: "Who's responsible for content?"

In a legal dispute between Roommates.com and fair-housing proponents, that question related to whether the site should be held accountable for the content that was posted there, which in some cases was either discriminatory or led to discriminatory behavior. Sinrod addresses two salient points in the law:

The CDA (Communications Decency Act) provides that "(no) provider...of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Hence, the immunity of a service provider, for example, from liability for any content that it ships over its lines or "passively" hosts on its servers.

The CDA doesn't protect an information content provider, defined as "any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet."

How do we make the discrimination between a service provider and a content provider? At first, it might sound easy, and in some cases it's indeed obvious. At its simplest, if I'm just moving bits, I'm not a content provider, therefore I'm not liable.

But move that line just a little bit, and grains of sand start falling on the other side.

For example: Is a Web-hosting company that offers tools to help you build your website a service provider or a content provider? Let's take GeoCities, for example. They don't make your page. But they provide the templates - graphics, headers, etc. Isn't that content?

What about MySpace? More grains of sand fall to the other side. MySpace provides surveys, ornaments, and more. Are they content providers?

How about a news site or portal page that creates or publishes news stories and then invites feedback from its readership? Responsible or not? What about a blog site? I've created some of the content here, and provided you with an opportunity to comment. Am I responsible?

And Roommates.com? Well, they provide surveys that allow you to express a preference for who you would be willing to live with. As in, "Straight/Lesbian/Gay". That's content. And it provides the ability to discriminate against a "protected class" of citizens.

Furthermore, you have the ability to customize your profile with a block of text, where you might express even more discriminating (in both the good sense and bad sense) preferences. "I like to play jazz really loud, and won't take a roommate who listens to gangsta rap."

So the judgment call here is "What constitutes the creation/provision of 'content'?" There are as many nuances to this call as there are ideas and expressions.

The closer we look, the harder it is to discern -- like so many grains of sand. An army of judges could never classify it all.

Just as problematic is the sheer volume of content. Sinrod points out:

Consider also that Roommates contains approximately 150,000 active listings at a time. Should the site be deemed potentially liable for discriminatory postings among these listings and be forced to police those postings on a constant basis?

Millions of hosted websites. Millions of MySpace pages. Millions of postings on bulletin boards. Who is going to read them all? Who is going to police them?

The public can sometimes act as a governor of illegal behavior if the questions are clear enough. Reporting an illegal website, web-page, or posting can serve as a kind of "virtual citizen's arrest", but only when the violation is clearly on the wrong side of a clear line. When that's not the case, it's a recipe for clogged legal pipes and unhappy communities.

The content comprising the Internet might be thought of as billions and billions of grains of sand, shifting all the time. Any lines drawn only become clear at 100 feet above the ground, and even then, only for a moment. Judges have to work one grain at a time.

Somewhere in between, we as citizens (adults, parents, and kids) have a role to play.

That role? Play responsibly.

Ads Woven Into Virtual Worlds - But Are Kids Ready?

2007-10-18T12:19:00.000-07:00

Gives new meaning to "Warp and Weft"

In the tapestry of a virtual world, the finer the weave, the more powerfully real the experience. And when that weave includes expertly integrated advertising, it's time to ask some hard questions.

Stephanie Olsen of CNet News explores this ground in her October 16th article, "Are Kids Ready for Ads in Virtual Worlds?" Olsen reports from the Virtual Worlds conference and expo held in San Jose last week.

The news is intriguing and alarming.

Virtual worlds mean different things to different constituencies. To adults, virtual worlds are playgrounds of escape and fantasy.

To kids, who have grown up with no notion of "before the Internet", they're just a part of the fabric of THE reality. Virtual worlds aren't virtual reality -- they ARE reality, just as much as conversing by cell phone or chatting on line.

And, to advertisers, they're a chance to embed a product or brand message into an immersive experience.

Two snips from Olsen's article leaped out at me:

"This kind of marketing is designed to operate at a subconscious level. And kids don't know how to think critically about how someone's trying to get them to be loyal to a brand or buy their products," said Kathryn Montgomery, a professor in the School of Communication at American University and author of Generation Digital: Politics, Commerce and Childhood in the Age of the Internet."

And,

"This is a very powerful medium for marketing because it involves this huge engagement. It's more powerful than a sugar cereal commercial," said Bob Bowers, CEO of Numedeon, whose Whyville members spend about three and a half hours a month on the virtual world.

The challenge for parents in this media-dense (media-infested?) age is that everywhere we turn, somebody is trying to hook the attention of our children, and each one of those somebodies typically cares more about their revenue stream than about our kids mental, social, or moral development (see "Ten is the new Fifteen"). As our kids venture into virtual worlds, those somebodies will have even more opportunity to attach their messages to our kids' minds.

With kids, the ability to distinguish between truth and manipulation is limited. Kids inherently "trust" more than adults do. As they explore virtual worlds -- generally on their own, without a parent by their virtual side -- they'll be engaging in experiences that are crafted by advertisers.

Immersive advertising is much more powerful than anything we've experienced to date, especially when targeted toward kids. This new and powerful toolkit hands advertisers the ability to shape (and warp!) our childrens' view of reality much more effectively than ever before.

It's a brave new world. Olsen quotes Jason Root, vice president of digital for Nickelodeon's Nick.com, who showed both enthusiasm and admirable (for now) restraint:

"We've had no advertising since we launched, (but we're) on the cusp of interesting advertising developments, and we're evolving with that. We're going to have a great immersive experience both with kids and advertisers,"

Olsen reports that Nick.com is being cautious, ensuring that ads are clearly marked. I hope that discipline lasts, and I hope "clearly marked" really means "CLEARLY Marked". But how do you make an ad obvious to a 5-year-old?

Ultimatly, Root admitted that:

...marketing to kids in virtual worlds is a gray area and "it's only getting grayer."

Grayer indeed. My hair is getting grayer by the minute.

Back to School, Back to MySpace (Part II)

2007-10-10T14:52:00.000-07:00

Back to the Black Board

State Attorneys General seem to take this Internet Safety stuff seriously. Perhaps because when trouble strikes in the form of some heinous Internet-borne tragedy, it’s usually left on the AG’s doorstep.

AGs from at least twelve states are anxious to do something about it. Much of their attention seems to be focused on the dangers of social networking sites, no doubt because that’s the most fertile soil for tragedy to take root. AGs in Connecticut and North Carolina want to make it tougher for kids to sign up.

Here’s a horror story from the North Carolina AGs office that illustrates why:

In 2006 alone, the media reported almost 100 criminal incidents across the country involving adults who used MySpace to prey or attempt to prey on children. In North Carolina, a former sheriff’s deputy was sentenced to 15 years in prison in 2006 for molesting a 15-year-old Cary boy he met on MySpace. In 2006, the NC State Bureau of Investigation arrested a Boiling Spring Lakes police officer for raping a 14-year-old girl he lured through MySpace.

North Carolina AG Roy Cooper is understandably upset, and he's not alone. Last year, I had the privilege of speaking at the National Association of Attorneys General summer 2006 conference on this very topic with several colleagues from the social networking industry. The AGs were not pleased, and many related horror stories similar to Cooper’s.

One AG is taking it to the streets – and the classroom. Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell is sending his staff out to Virginia schools to educate kids about the very near and present dangers of careless social networking.

How is Virginia different? One word: LAW.

Virginia is one of the first states to mandate Internet Safety as part of the curriculum. In Back to School: Reading, Writing and Internet Safety, Adam Hochberg quotes Virgina AG McDonnell:

"Young kids don't see how they could possibly get hurt at a computer in their own home. Parents don't know enough about the Internet to have the conversations they need to have with their kids. And so that's why we're doing this. The key now is education."

And laws that compel us to behave differently. Not just AGs, teachers, and school administrators, but ISPs, content providers, and technology companies. And law-enforcement officers. We need informed, fresh, and thoughtful eyes on this problem from all perspectives. (I'd also add "unbiased by pre-disposition, prejudice, or profit" to the list, but I'm not that unrealistic...)

Education alone is not enough, in my opinion. North Carolina AG Cooper doesn't so either. He'd like to force age verification:

"It's better for their protection that younger kids not be on these sites. And if they are, the parents ought to know about it, the parents ought to give express consent and they ought to monitor these sites very carefully."

And why not? We restrict minors from accessing other harmful, dangerous materials and activities, like buying cigarettes and alcohol. And we restrict certain kinds of content, too, like access to R-rated movies without a parent or guardian. Should social networking sites be so different? Is it just because it's hard? Or because it's on the Internet? We need a dialog, and some sensible social policy.

And whether they know it or not, social networking sites like MySpace would benefit from some enlightened regulation.

Back to School, Back to MySpace (Part I)

2007-10-03T11:22:00.000-07:00

AGs: Gunslingers or Mudslingers?
MySpace: Yellow-bellied or Duty-bound?

State Attorneys General take their obligations seriously. AGs from eight states (Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Ohio) all communicated their intentions to MySpace back in May when MySpace kicked thousands of known sex offenders off their site. Credit goes to MySpace for taking the initiative, but many AGs are not satisfied that the social-networking giant is doing enough.

Many AGs are doing more on their own. AGs in Connecticut and North Carolina want to require parents' permission before a child signs up.

From AGs aim to make MySpace a safe space, Daniel C. Vock cites Connecticut AG Richard Blumenthal:

“Failing to verify ages means that children are exposed to sexual predators who may be older men lying to seem younger. There is no excuse in technology or cost for refusing age verification...”

Hemanshu Nigam, MySpace chief security officer, is looking for air cover, and rightly so. MySpace privacy policy requires that MySpace exercise care in what user information they release, and to whom. Caught between a rock and a hard place, MySpace struggles (perhaps in a trap of their own making) to balance their responsiveness to law enforcement with obligations to their user-base.

A key part of the problem is that the AG's don't have the right tools for the job. So they often resort to grandstanding and eye-gouging to get their way. Mark Rasch's Your Space, My Space, Everybody's Space illuminates the apparently bizarre behavior of the AGs in their search for justice. The AGs heard about the purge of sex-offenders, and asked MySpace for the list. MySpace said, "Sure, but we need a subpoena…". And the mud started to fly:

When MySpace insisted on some legal process to provide subscriber or identity information about people they had already kicked off the service, the Attorney Generals cried foul and went to the press.

The AG's lambasted MySpace in the media, accusing them of protecting child molestors, abusing their public trust, and refusing to cooperate. But that's just not fair. MySpace was simply trying to act according to governing law, which forbids them from releasing information about subscribers. Rasch goes on to note how:

in the case of Freedman v. Am. Online, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 2d 638 (D. Va. 2004) AOL was successfully sued for giving out subscriber information without an effective warrant... In another case, United States v. Hambrick, 55 F. Supp. 2d 504 (D. Va. 1999), the Court refused to suppress the subscriber information delivered to the cops when a Justice of the Peace... signed off on an invalid warrant. In both Freedman and Hambrick, the ISP gave subscriber data to the cops without an effective warrant, and in both cases the courts found that the ISP could be held civilly liable for it.

Civil liability for cooperating with Law Enforcement. It's a tough problem, especially when the Electronic Communications Privacy Act limits the legal authority of a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public to disclose user information to government authorities.

There is no villain in this story. In reality, any effort to fix this problem requires thoughtful involvement from a team of key stakeholders. MySpace's Nigam is calling for laws that require sex offenders to register their e-mail addresses, so MySpace can keep them off the site in the first place. That's just a drop in the bucket. We need a wholesale examination of relevant law, and a smart, dedicated group of technologists, constitutionalists, privacy lawyers, and community advocates to even have a chance of taking on this problem.

Not an easy task, but a worthy one.

Next: What else are those AG's up to?

Steriods for Sale on MySpace

2007-09-28T15:27:00.000-07:00

And what else?

Just a quick Friday afternoon entry. The New York Times reported today in Steriods Sold on MySpace, by Thomas Kaplan, that, well, steriods are being sold on MySpace.

According to the article,

For teenagers who flock to the Web site to watch videos and connect with friends, ordering anabolic steroids took no more than a few extra mouse clicks, the authorities said. And with the Web site’s popularity among young people, some coaches in this area described the case as an unpleasant reminder about how easily minors can surreptitiously obtain performance-enhancing drugs.

MySpace users would simply send a message to a seller’s profile, according to Kevin J. O’Connor, the United States attorney in Connecticut.

AG Blumenthal of Connecticut has been applying pressure on MySpace for almost two years, looking for tighter controls, among them, age verification. As quoted in the article:

"Our focus as attorneys general has been on pornography and predators, but marketing illegal drugs is equally troubling and certainly shows the need for stronger controls and verification of age and identity. To put it very bluntly, if a seller of steroids knows that his identity will be checked and his age verified, he is much less likely to use a social-networking site."

It's yet another reminder that the Internet changes everything for your kids, and for you as a parent. As so simply and frankly stated by Tom Brockett, head coach of a top-ranked football team,

"The problem is, kids can get anything online, any day, anything they need. The more it’s thrown in their face, the easier it’s going to be."

Indeed.

Facebook in NY AG's Cross-hairs

2007-09-25T10:47:00.000-07:00

Safe from Predators, or Slow to Cure?

The New York Times reported in its September 25th article New York Investigating Facebook's Safety Rules by Anne Bernard, that Andrew Cuomo, the New York State Attorney General, is investigating Facebook, the second largest social networking site behind MySpace, for "materially misleading" its customers. From the article:

On its site, Facebook calls itself a “trusted environment,” bans the posting of obscene or harmful material, and promises parents that it will remove offensive messages and photos and act appropriately in response to complaints.

At issue is whether Facebook is actually up to the task. The NY AG conducted what might be called either a "sting operation" or a "controlled test", depending on your perspective. After setting up fictitious profiles of girls (one identifying herself as 13 years old, which is not allowed by Facebook's terms of use, and one as 14), the profiles received (of course) sexual solicitations.

Then the investigators contacted Facebook in the role of the parent, identifying the offending content and profiles, and insisting on action. Neither the posts nor the profiles of the offenders were removed.

And what, exactly, does it mean when the company says,

"As our service continues to grow, so does our responsibility to our users to empower them with the tools necessary to communicate efficiently and safely."

It sounds a little like they're sidestepping their own responsibility to enforce their terms of use. A 13 or 14-year-old is not going to have the maturity to protect him- or herself, which is why kids have parents. And so if acting as a parent doesn't deliver the results -- because the company is either unwilling or incapable of acting -- all the user-tools in the world won't help.

I'm interested in what AG Cuomo discovers.

MySpace to Offer Customized Ad Spots

2007-09-20T10:31:00.000-07:00

From "My Billboard" to "Deep Inside My Closet"

If you thought that MySpace, Facebook, and other social networking sites were the epitome of lost privacy before, wait 'till you hear what's up next. According to the September 18th article MySpace to Discuss Effort to Customize Ads by Brad Stone of the New York Times (also published here at CNet), some rather personal things will be up...for sale.

Imagine all your most passionate likes and dislikes. Imagine them placed in context, like where you go to school, what teams you root for, and your favorite hang outs. Imagine further that they're placed in an almost idealized demographic profile that you have personally, painstakingly tuned.

Now imagine that they're all collected in one place, magically. But wait...there's not really any need to imagine, because that's your (or your kid's) MySpace page. I've always referred to it as "My Billboard".

Now, imagine that all that information is now for sale to the highest bidder, in the form of targeted ad space on that MySpace page.

Do the advertizers know the details of your child's lives? Perhaps not (yet). But any notion that your MySpace information is "just for fun and friends" is now officially out-the-window. Termed "hyper targeting", it's only a matter of time and temptation before the target becomes dramatically -- identifiably -- small.

And, according to Stone,

MySpace also plans to give its advertisers information about what kind of people its ads have attracted. "We want them to leave knowing more about their audience then when they came into the door," Arnie Gullov-Singh, a senior director at Fox Interactive.

I'm with Jeff Chester of the Center of the Center for Digital Democracy, who said,

"People should be able to congregate online with their friends without thinking that big brother, whether it is Rupert Murdoch or Mark Zuckerberg, are stealthily peering in."

So, are you (and your kids) aware that "A Place for Friends" is about to be replaced by "a Goldmine for Advertizers"? Do you think that MySpace, FaceBook, and others are engaged in deceptive trade practices?

And, given that it's privacy we're talking about, does anybody under 25 care?

Books, Bits, or Both?

2007-09-14T16:09:00.000-07:00

What's a Librarian to Do?

The Internet is a cultural tsunami. It even affects the quiet corners and stacks of your local public library. In the AP story, Libraries Face Internet Traffic Jam, Anick Jesdanun highlights that many libraries are struggling to balance their historical role of providing books and encouraging reading with their emerging role as Internet Cafe.

Not just a question of books vs. bits, librarians have to wrestle with how much Internet access capacity they should budget for, and what kind of "Internet experience" is within their charter. Because the Internet is much more than just an online bookshelf, we have to ask hard questions about why a library should provide Internet access, and for what purposes.

Priorities, priorities.

The question would be so easy to answer if the only thing folks did online was read and do research. But should we spend scarce public funds to make more room for Second Life, MySpace, and online chat users? Should we instead refocus those dollars on good, old-fashioned books and periodicals? Should we try to restrict the kinds of Internet activities that are allowed in a library, not for moral reasons necessarily, but for budgetary reasons?

What the heck is a library for, anyhow?

Tough questions. What do you think?

Privacy Is The New Black...

2007-09-14T14:39:00.001-07:00

...But There's No Money-Back Guarantee.

Major Internet companies are changing their policies regarding data retention, shortening the life of the information they keep. In March, Google announced that it will keep your data for only 18 months (previously until the year 2038). Microsoft is making similar moves. Government pressure and emerging privacy regulations are major drivers.

Several innovations are emerging to help you "sweep up your digital litter" and keep you anonymous. As cited in Wired Magazine, MyPrivacy, by ReputationDefender, lets users control how their personal data is brokered across the web. AskEraser from Ask.com will let you scrub away your personal nuggets from that search-engine's data mine.

At the other end of the spectrum are Rapleaf, UpScoop, and their ilk, making a living of blending together your digital leftovers to create a delicious meal for the hungry marketer (see my previous post on the topic).

In the face of the assault on our privacy and the increasing risk of identity theft, we have to begin to ask difficult questions about how regulation and law should protect an individual's online information and identity. Hard questions to answer to be sure...and in many cases, hard questions to even formulate.

Worryingly, as pointed out on the EphemeralLaw blog, the courts are ruling that identity theft isn't a problem until it's too late, and serious (and potentially irreparable) damage is done. In a case of documented theft of customer data (from a bank, mind you!),

The consumers requested that the court grant them, among other relief, payment for the cost of credit monitoring services - a seemingly reasonable request, given the fact that their personal data was now in the hands of criminals who had likely stolen it for the specific purpose of facilitating identify theft. However, the seventh circuit decided that the harm suffered by the consumers was only potential harm, and therefore was not compensable under the relevant state law. True, the consumers had to pay for credit monitoring, but the court pointed out that they could not show that their identities had been stolen (yet), so the case was thrown out.

This approach has other fans. The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) has a privacy framework based on the same notion. Google has proposed this same framework as a global privacy standard. In this article from CNet, Google's global privacy counsel Peter Fleicher stated,

"Privacy standards should focus on actual harms to consumer privacy. Other countries have an ideological bent...APEC has a pragmatic focus on privacy harms...not abstractions."

I suggest that it doesn't look good for our privacy heroes. Why? Because in today's world where data is everywhere, and free, privacy costs money. And it seems that folks would rather be less poor than more private.

So while privacy might be the new black, it appears not to be as attractive as the old green.

What does this have to do with Internet Parenting? Simple: the sooner your kids start depositing digital litter, the harder it will be to erase their digital trail -- and you can be sure they're being tailed right now...

Social Network Scrapers Make You Visible

2007-09-10T16:15:00.000-07:00

Private I, Robot Is On Your Case

Stefanie Olsen of CNet wrote two articles (At Rapleaf, Your Personals are Public and People Search Engine Rapleaf Revises Privacy Policy) that shed light on an obscure and disturbing aspect of the new phenomenon of "reputation sites". Ms. Olsen introduced us to Rapleaf and UpScoop, two companies who, if you give them an email address, will provide a "report". UpScoop actually asks you to dump your whole contact list, so they can create a field of information about the connections and characteristics of your whole social circle.

The only problem is that, along with providing that information to you, they also keep it for themselves, so that when someone else comes along and asks about that same email address, the information is ready to hand over.

Are they violating privacy? Perhaps not. Remember, they're using all the public information available on the Internet to crawl through and assemble a picture. Kind of like an online private investigator trolling through your Internet litter.

And suddenly, you're much more visible.

I foolishly provided an email address of mine to Rapleaf. They promptly responded, "We don't know anything about this person...", and then, ominously, "...but we will soon!" I'm sure they meant it to sound helpful and cheery, but I found it disturbing.

Sure enough, several days later they had sent me an email, inviting me to "profile" myself. And not only that, they had cross-correlated my first email to a second email of mine, and sent me a profile invitation there, too.

Be careful. The Internet is a public place. And what you put out there is now being scoured by an army of well-trained digital "private dicks". And, according to Olsen, they'll share their findings with anyone who knows your email address, for the right price.

Does anybody else find this wrinkle to be a dark development?

A Ripple In Washington...

2007-08-17T17:59:00.000-07:00

...In the Face of a Tsunami

In July, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing on "Protecting Children on the Internet".

To the committee members' credit, they actually held a hearing. To the witnesses' credit, they actually showed up. I read through their testimony, and acknowledge their efforts to help enlighten the committee and stimulate dialog.

But sadly, this hearing lasted ONE DAY.

We're watching the most dramatic, powerful remaking of our culture and our economy unfold at cataclysmic speed.

We're seeing explosions in crimes that are made a thousand-fold easier by this phenomenon, from identity theft to child predators.

We're watching our kids experience devastating new kinds of peer-harassment, leveraged and amplified by this phenomenon.

We don't even know how to TAX this thing yet...! (I can hear the groans, but really - who are we kidding?)

And just one day of hearings.

I've looked at the presidential candidates' websites, and watched hopefully for news that might indicate that they:

view the Internet as potent cultural and economic force
recognize the need for public policy to address it
aren't afraid to step up and address the issue in their campaigning

I've found an interesting polarity:

Hillary Clinton has a plank in her platform about the impact of the Internet and Internet content on the lives of children.

Sam Brownback speaks aggressively against Internet porn and violence in his platform.

(Mitt Romney, from whom I would expect the most impassioned objections, has occasionally spoken out against the impact of Internet pornography in our homes and the lives of our kids, but I suspect the recent dust-up regarding his position on the board of Marriott, who's hotels sell porn-on-demand by the bucketful, has left him gun-shy.)

Left and Right.

But not Front and Center.

It's time we asked, "Why not?"

I think the Internet is a beautiful, powerful, and magical thing. We as a species have created something that can undoubtedly speed our evolution, and can certainly bring us all a better life.

But we can't ignore its negative consequences. All you have to do is read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair to know what happens when we "let the market do its work", without responsible social conscience. His story of the unregulated meat-processing industry of the early twentieth century spurred dramatic changes, driven by public outcry and responsible governance.

It's a weak-minded cop-out to let the Internet roll over us, under the guise of "free market evolution", and we owe it to ourselves, our kids, and our society's highest aims to start doing our homework, and start demanding that our elected representatives do theirs.

One day of hearings is not enough. One sentence on a web site is not enough. One line in a speech is not enough.

It's just not enough.

Necrobabes Fantasy vs. Public Sanity

2007-06-22T12:08:00.000-07:00

Patrick Anthony Russo Conviction Upheld

How did we get here? Is this where we really want to be?

Patrick Anthony Russo, a Texas church leader, was convicted in 2001 of the strangulation murder of Diane Holik. He appealed the conviction (and lost) just this month, as reported by Declan McCullagh in CNet's Police Blotter.

A major factor in his conviction was his paid subscription to Necrobabes.com, a site that depicts murder in a pornographic context -- sick fantasies of killers sexually abusing their victims and then killing them, or worse, having a partner (oh yes, it's always an alluring, attractive woman) willingly participate in the act that leads to her own mutilation and death.

Necrobabes.com and other "necro-erotic" sites are a clear example of something gone horribly wrong with the way we think about sex, one another, and, honestly, the limits of free speech.
This is what Necrobabes.com says on their home-page:

These sites deal with very politically incorrect fantasies. If you do not have these sorts of fantasies, you will likely find them shocking, if not offensive -- our sites are not for you, please go away.

My question is, who DOES have these fantasies? And isn't this a very fundamental mental health problem? As a society, do we have a compelling interest in feeding their clearly anti-social fantasies? Shouldn't we be more interested in getting them psychological help?

Among those who are offended, there are those who would wish us censored. Their assertion is that these web sites inflame the lusts of the viewers, 'normalize' the idea of violence, and thereby drive the viewer to commit acts of violence mimicking what they view on these sites. It is the same sort of theory that drives the forces of censorship everywhere, for all manner of things that people would censor. Yet there is no evidence for such a link between those who commit acts of rape and violence and their consumption of pornography other than the fact that many people who commit acts of violence also consume pornography.

Clearly they are misinformed. Studies show a very clear connection between consumption of highly-stimulating material and desensitization. And if the content on the site doesn't "inflame the lusts of the viewers", then why would anyone visit the site? Furthermore, we do know, directly from the mouths of serial killers, that ever more graphic and ultimately violent pornography pushed these otherwise "innocent fantasy indulgers" into their horrifying acts. Here's an excerpt from serial killer Ted Bundy's final interview:

As a young boy of 12 or 13, I encountered, outside the home, in the local grocery and drug stores, softcore pornography... From time to time, we would come across books of a harder nature - more graphic... I want to emphasize this. The most damaging kind of pornography - and I’m talking from hard, real, personal experience - is that that involves violence and sexual violence. The wedding of those two forces - as I know only too well - brings about behavior that is too terrible to describe....In the beginning, it fuels this kind of thought process. Then, at a certain time, it is instrumental in crystallizing it... Like an addiction, you keep craving something which is harder and gives you a greater sense of excitement, until you reach the point where the pornography only goes so far...I knew it was wrong to think about it, and certainly, to do it was wrong. I was on the edge, and the last vestiges of restraint were being tested constantly, and assailed through the kind of fantasy life that was fueled, largely, by pornography.

It's not all that surprising to hear these words, if we're intellectually honest. Necrobabes, unfortunately and unsurprisingly, is not. Again from their home-page:

The material we produce is fanciful, even cartoonish in many regards; there is nothing realistic about it. Our viewers know this. Far from normalizing violence, it relegates it squarely into the realm of fantasy.

Actually, it's not cartoonish. It's pictures of real human beings engaging in (simulated) acts of violence, torture, and murder in conjunction with sex, accompanied by text that tells the story. And could we postulate that somebody who enjoys this kind of material might just say, "Well, this is fun to look at, but it's not quite real enough..."

Time and time again we harp to our members that as long as you don't harm anyone, as long as you keep things safely in the realm of fantasy, that you use the fiction and imagery found on these sites as a mere virutal realization of a fantasy, you are fine. Harm no one, keep it in fantasy, and you are okay, you are a decent human being...

OK - here's where I really take issue: If you take pleasure from images that depict the sexual abuse, torture, and murder of another human being, and deliberately choose to connect your erotic interests to this kind of behavior and imagery, are you REALLY OK? Are you REALLY a decent human being?

I'm not a "thought police" kind of guy. But we need to recognize this kind of behavior as sociopathic-pathological, not discretionary. People die when we pretend "you're really OK" when you're really not. See, for example, drunk driving.

Necrobabes ends by wrapping themselves in the first amendment, rejecting censorship as "harm to all of us". Broadly, I agree. Censorship is a dangerous power to wield. Censorship can indeed harm us all. But there are some behaviors that are profoundly anti-social, and certain stimuli that are addicting. When we couple the two together, we run a grave risk. To not honestly assess the consequences is irresponsible. And that is the real point -- we won't get anywhere fighting about free speech, because it's not the heart of the problem. The real issue is this:

We as a society continue to deliberately ignore the incendiary danger of the eroticization of violence, and in particular, violence against women.

We have an emerging body of law that limits hate speech. We have a well-established body of law that protects individuals from harmful speech or writing (albeit mostly to protect a reputation). We have laws that limit discrimination and abuse of certain protected classes within our population (Race, color, creed, sexual orientation).

But what about protecting women from forms of "speech" that deliberately confuse eroticism with torture and murder, and graphically (mis)represent this kind of activity for "fantasy fulfillment"?

However we've gotten here, we seem stuck. And I'm sick to my heart.

MySpace Photo Wrecks Teaching Career

2007-05-09T10:31:00.000-07:00

Judgment, Professionalism In Question

Pity Stacy Snyder. At 25, she was working to achieve her teaching credentials and a bachelors degree. And, having fun at a Halloween party. (See Gil Kaufman's MTV News story here.

At 27, just days before her graduation, anticipating the launch of her career in teaching, that Halloween party came back to haunt her. A picture of Stacy, labeled "Drunken Pirate", is at the center of the train-wreck. Stacy posted the picture on her MySpace page. Discovered by officials in the school where she was a student teacher, and forwarded to her college dean, this photo and caption was enough to render her final evaluation as "unsatisfactory" in the area of professionalism. The dean and provost of Millersville University's School of Education refused to issue her a Bachelor of Science degree in education and teaching certificate. No doubt, she failed to realize that MySpace is really "My Billboard"; and so the self-described "drunken pirate" comes face-to-face with a terrible reality:

What you put on MySpace says a lot about who you are and where your priorities lie. For good or ill, you are making yourself a public figure. And while the number of "interested public" may be small, they may in fact be VERY consequential to your future.

Personally, I think the photo is tame, the tag line is silly, and the reaction excessive. However, do we really want those who are willing to describe, promote, and expose their "drunken" behavior to be acting as role models for our kids?

It's just common sense, folks. It would be one thing if someone else had posted the photo. But to make the statement about oneself shows either
a) a lack of self-respect, or (more probably)
b) a lack of self-awareness.

Let's ask a simple, obvious question (and before answering, try to remember what it was like for you back then -- when you were trying to be, act, and appear more adult than you were):

If Stacy were teaching your high-schooler, and your son or daughter found the photo and caption, would it have a positive, negative, or neutral impact on your child?

No, we don't have much privacy anymore. However, we all need to use a little bit of judgment in how we proclaim ourselves to the world. Ignorance, immaturity, and youthful indiscretions are thin armor against the sharp arrows of public opinion.

Stacy has made herself a public figure, and no matter what happens in her lawsuit, her teaching opportunities will be negatively affected by this incident.

Pity poor Stacy. And then make sure your children don't meet the same fate.

COPA: “Curses! Foiled Again…!”

2007-03-22T20:59:00.001-07:00

Cue the villain music…but for whom does it play?

The Child Online Protection Act has been struck down yet again on freedom of speech grounds. For those of us who want to protect our kids from Internet Porn, is Judge Lowell Reed the villain? The ACLU? The porn industry? Is it the mindless, blind defense of capitalism and “the market” for porn, information, or whatever else is for sale on the Internet? Some Internet-Uber-Alles fan club? Is the villain a distorted interpretation of the First Amendment? Or is it COPA itself?

Actually, it’s laziness.

COPA is almost NINE YEARS OLD and has never been enforced. It’s been struck down twice before (once already by the Supreme Court). Why are we still arguing about it?!

I read through the various perspectives on the case, both current and historical (start with this March 22, 2007 article by Maryclaire Dale of the Associated Press). I am alternately frustrated at the lack of progress in getting the job done, and appalled that we’re relying on such an indefensibly simplistic and dim-witted legal construction.

The law has always been fatally flawed. But hey -- it was easy to write, made good press, and enabled lawmakers to bloviate, passionately and righteously.

So that’s what we got.

The problem is that the law is only one aspect of the problem. There are at least five major stakeholders who have to get involved, constructively and cooperatively, for us to have a chance. The way I see it, those five are:

The content providers themselves – That includes pornographers as well as content-hosting sites like MySpace and YouTube. Self-identification, self-sorting, and self-policing in line with "sensible" disincentives for non-compliance. Any number of simple approaches would be a welcome start. In other words, make it easier for the rest of us to separate the good from the bad (or, the wanted from the unwanted).

The technology providers – Like Blue Coat. More of us need to scour our portfolios for technologies that can help, and seed/gift them if necessary. We’ve all got idle assets in our closets, and in the right forum, they can make a world of difference.

ISPs – Because the ISP is the guaranteed first and last stop for content. An ISP is a gate through which the content must pass, and with which a user must engage. The ISP industry can play a much more authoritative and compelling educational role. And they can play a real role in crafting workable policy, too, as long as the end result won’t induce a legal-liability coma, which is what they universally fear.

Government – we need our best legislative, judicial, and law-enforcement minds on this problem. COPA was dead before it was dry. Come on, guys – this is NOT the best you can do, and it certainly isn’t right for 2007 (if it ever was, even in 1998). This is too important. And our law enforcement people are absolutely crying for better tools in this fight.

Community organizations – Lions Club. The Rotary. Boy Scouts. The PTA. Civic organizations and churches. You have a way to reach your community members and help raise awareness. Ask a technology provider, ISP, or law-enforcement official to come and speak to your community. And get the BUTTS in the SEATS. We won’t have community action until we accept this as a community issue.

Oh yeah. There’s one more.

You. I don’t think this one requires any explanation. If it does, visit Traffic Control - America's Fight Against Internet Porn. (Full disclosure: yours truly was interviewed for the film).

So let’s agree that the villain music is being played for US – all of us who continue to fail our children, from our community leaders to our captains of industry to our government.

And it’s up to us to become the hero of this drama, and demand a set of laws, technologies, and accountabilities that works with and for all the key stakeholders, and compels action equally and fairly across our communities.

One of my life heroes is quoted as saying, “We get the government we deserve.” This quote is attributed to many, but I like to cite Mohandas Ghandhi, because of what he said next: “When we improve, the government is also bound to improve.”

What are we waiting for? Could it be leadership? Here’s a clue: Find a mirror…

Attention! Attention! See Me Right Now!

2007-03-20T18:42:00.000-07:00

Narcissus Is Let Loose Among Us

I chanced across Look at Me, World! Self-Portraits Morph Into Internet Movies in March 18, 2007 New York Times (free registration required). It was an article about art, the evolution of art, and the democratization of the process of creating art through digital photography.

Noah Kalina’s "Everyday", a movie that is composed of 2,356 daily self-portraits shot from Jan. 11, 2000, to July 31, 2006, was selected for the exhibition "We're All Photographers Now", on display at the Musee de l’Elysee in Lausanne, Switzerland.

William Ewing, director of the museum, commented,

"Digital technology, computers, software and the Internet multiply the number of people with access to taking and viewing pictures. Once you buy the camera, there are almost no other costs. That is increasing the variety and creativity in how people take pictures, and what they do with them."

Tens of thousands of viewers and links have accumulated around Kalina's movie. And hundreds of similar movies, with their accumulations of thousands of links and viewers, are out there.

Jonathan Lipkin, a professor of digital media at Ramapo College in New Jersey (and author of "Photography Reborn") commented,

"The hallmarks of the new age of digital imagery are distribution, combination and manipulation. The use of digital technology is especially revealing in portraiture. The digital camera has changed the genre."

Lipkin continued,

"Digital technology has changed what portraits look like. If you pay attention to Facebook, MySpace, Flickr and the other social Internet sites, you see right away..."

See what right away? Lipkin says, "...how stylized the portraits are."

What I see right away is different. I see obsession with self -- as a substitute for self-awareness -- running amok through our "youth culture". What's disturbing is that whether it's YouTube, AtomFilms, MySpace, or Photo Bucket, young people are seeing that it's stimulating to put yourself on display, even if you have nothing really to say other than that you are there. And, it's so easy...

I love art, and I'm all for the democratization of creating and consuming art. I'm not trying to answer (or even ask) the question "Is this really art?"

I'm after a different question entirely:

Is the young person's drive to exhibit him- or herself more potentially dangerous and damaging now than it was before the Internet?

If so, I suggest that this trend is one more reason that our old parenting techniques need an update.

Before the Internet, we didn't really have to worry that a teen's self-absorption would escalate to full-blown self-obsession through a system of global, peer reinforcement.

Today, however, we very much have to. More and more kids (and adults) are indulging in self-obsessive behavior (because, hey, it's easy!), and more and more of us, first as voyeurs, are observing that it's "the in-thing to do", and then, falling into it ourselves. Peer-reinforced behavior. Not just kids, but both kids and adults, reinforcing both kids and adults.

Realizing that the "hallmarks of digital imagery are distribution, combination and manipulation," and that "once you buy the camera, there are almost no other costs", we find a perfect recipe for kids to experiment with, using the Internet as their audience.

As I'm fond of saying, technology companies invent the tools of the future, then kids take those tools and invent the culture of the future.

So, I guess the real questions are, "Are kids creating a culture in which narcissism is a virtue, and considered an art?" and "Is that healthy?"

What do you think? Am I missing the point? Just too old to be hip? For that matter, is this blog just a different form of narcissism? Comments, please.

John Couey Guilty -- and Who Else?

2007-03-09T10:16:00.000-08:00

Now the Choice: Hatred or Action?

By now, you've heard that John Couey has been convicted of kidnapping, raping, and murdering 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford. And that Couey was a convicted sex offender, a repeat offender, and generally a menace to children. I happened to be tuned in to CNN and caught much of their coverage.

That John Couey's behavior is monstrous there can be no doubt. Horrible. Anyone with an ounce of humanity finds his behavior depraved and unconscionable. And the Lunsford family has suffered a grievous, soul-fracturing loss.

It's easy to hate John Couey. Our revulsion and disgust, rage and wrath come easily and naturally. A ready focus, a clear target, and an obvious consequence.

Go ahead and embrace it -- for five minutes. Because that's all we have time for.

Now, turn your attention to the real problem. The harder problem. The one that is sitting in your home and in your community and across our culture right now.

"Where does the next John Couey come from, and how do we stop creating more?"

The solution to this problem is not going to come through the expression of rage or hatred, no matter how justified. It's not a sprint, it's a marathon. And it's not an individual event -- it's a team game. Because the next John Couey isn't made over night. It takes repeated exposures to violence, abuse, and sexual distortion. And as an individual, you'll never stop the machine that churns out John Coueys. We have to work together, every day for as long as it takes, to change the way our culture raises our kids.

You think you're the parent? Think again. TV, video games and movies that glorify erotic violence. Violent, misogynistic music. The unlimited content available on the Internet. These are all powerful influences on your kids that are extraordinarily hard to remove from their lives. And the Internet in particular is completely unconstrained in what kind of content goes to whom.

To wait for some unassailable study; to deny the impact of these technologies on our kids is deliberate self-delusion. It flies in the face of hundreds of years of human experience and billions of dollars in advertising. What we perceive that others do and think undeniably influences us. The more vividly those impressions are made, the greater the influence. And don't take my word for it. Here's a story and survey from AOL News that asks a shockingly, sadly pertinent question: Should parents be more concerned about their teenage daughter having sex, or their teenage daughter posting a blatantly suggestive video of herself on YouTube? Read through the comments for an illuminating perspective on YOUR culture.

I'm not here to tell you I know all answers -- or even all the questions. But I can promise you this: If we don't get a handle on the media our kids have access to; if we don't fundamentally address the ubiquity of violence, extreme sexual content, and the two in combination; and if we don't raise the bar AS COMMUNITIES -- not just as individuals -- in demanding that technology serve OUR needs as families, we're going to be attending a lot more funerals, seeing a lot more shattered families, and feeling a lot more rage and hatred. Because there will be a lot more John Coueys.

Hatred and rage might be natural. Seeing a child rapist locked away or put to death might make you feel better. But it won't stop the next John Couey.

What are you doing in your community?

Public Libraries, Porn, and Naked Excuses

2007-03-05T14:14:00.000-08:00

Even My Mom Would Not Approve

I was pointed to this Rochester Democrat and Chronicle column last week, "Filtering Internet porn not as simple as it sounds", by Mark Hare. It's a column that hits close to home (more on that later). Hare asserts that blaming librarians when public libraries leave kids vulnerable to porn is a mistake.

Do librarians care? Sure they do. But there is a certain combination of institutional lethargy, defensiveness, and lack of knowledge that is unacceptable, mind-boggling (especially for a library), and, sadly, rather commonplace. Just recently in El Paso, Texas, one parent was so outraged at what he saw another patron viewing at the city's public library -- with his kids nearby -- he took his concerns to KFOX-TV, which then reported on the story. The public library was allowing pornography to be viewed, with no filters and no privacy screens. The director of the library's response? Quote: "We do not monitor what people are looking at on the computer." The story resulted in a trivial improvement (privacy screens) and a very illuminating response (and quite illustrative of my point).

Libraries use very poor excuses for why they don’t filter. Let’s look at a few (and we can draw from the El Paso response for reference):

“It’s a matter of policy because filters are not completely effective.” -- WHAT?! Give me a break. That’s the moral equivalent of “We shouldn’t pass laws because there will always be those who break the law and get away with it.”

“Filters can block important information.” -- This is the juvenile, “I don’t wanna ‘cuz it’s too hard” response. I say, do your homework and find filters that work well. And demand better and better filters from your vendors. Send George Wolf (chairman of the Monroe County Library System) my way. Our products aren’t perfect, but we’re not afraid to be challenged to make them better. And if his filter can’t tell the difference between a chicken-breast recipe, a breast-cancer research site, and boobs.com (and admittedly, many can’t), he’s not doing his homework.

“Filters deliver a false sense of security.” -- So, instead, the library leaves me with NO security? My choice is to either restrict my kids from going to the library or to stand next to them while they’re there? What kind of public resource is THAT?

“Violation of First Amendment rights.” -- This excuse is the biggest red herring out there, in my opinion. Every library makes an editorial decision about what content they’re going to have. EVERY library. Why? Because they have limitations on budget. They have to decide what books, periodicals, and other media they are going to offer. They have to decide what tools and services they’re going to offer. It’s simple enough to say, “It is our decision that, given our budget constraints, our goals, and our community obligations, that it’s a higher priority for us to deliver Internet access for EVERYONE than it is for us to create two classes of service, manage the logistical, physical, and practical implications of offering and validating access to two classes of service, and dealing with the potential risks and liabilities (both community and institutional) of failing to do so perfectly." Just because Hustler publishes a magazine doesn’t mean your community library has an obligation to supply it to you.

From my vantage point, constitutionally protected first amendment rights have absolutely NOTHING to do with this issue. The library is not violating the rights of the citizens to view, nor of the publisher to post, such content. It’s just saying, “We don’t offer that here.” What would they say if they didn’t have a book title? “You can probably get that at the local bookstore (or on Amazon).” To argue otherwise is (in my opinion) specious, distracting, and disingenuous.

Librarians, above perhaps all adults, have an innately altruistic intention toward their young charges (one could say the same about the clergy, by the way...). But that doesn't stop them from being short-sighted, exhausted by institutional malaise, or ill-informed.

As I have written previously, it’s time we stopped treating the Internet as some sacred science project and started to treat it like the cultural and sociological tsunami that it is. That means that libraries (and all community institutions, for that matter) have to stop saying, “It’s too hard”, “We don’t know how”, and “It’s not my problem”, and start raising their game. The entire range of human behavior, from the most noble to the most depraved, is accessible on the Internet. Surely, as communities, institutions, and parents, we have a compelling interest in managing and modulating our kids’ exposure to this broad range, especially when the most depraved content is often presented in the most seductive, misleading ways -- exactly the kind of thing that turns kids into victims.

The road to establishing our children’s safety from Internet dangers is a challenge. It starts with commitment from everyone - the parents, community leaders and institutions, law enforcement, service providers, and technology vendors. At the end of the day, Internet safety is not a personal issue, censorship issue or technology issue...but a community issue. We all need to get on board, and leave our excuse-filled baggage behind.

Full disclosure: My mother, aunt, and cousin were/are career librarians. Most of my family is in the education field. So snapping at librarians and library personnel doesn't come easily for me. But when learning institutions stumble into sophistry aimed at self-preservation, at the expense of their fundamental mission and the well-being of their constituents, I get ornery, and am compelled to call them out.

What do you think libraries should do? And what's going on at your local library? Please share your thoughts and experiences.

Reality, Not Science Project

2007-02-12T16:16:00.000-08:00

The Internet changes everything - including how we treat it

"If we mess this up, we're doomed."

As reported by Erik Sass in Online Media Daily, so spake Elliot Schrage, Google's vice president of global communications and public affairs, at a meeting in New York to answer the question, "Does the Internet Change Everything?"

Well, my humble answer is, "Yes, the Internet does indeed change everything."

And, as the Internet changes, and as it changes our world, we need to STOP pretending that it's just a science project. It is fundamentally changing our world, and fundamentally imposing itself into our lives. And our kids' lives. And the fabric of our communities.

Is that bad? No, of course not. BUT, if we don't realize that an unfettered, uncontrolled, and uncontained Internet is no different than any other unfettered, uncontrolled, uncontained form of human behavior, we're in for a very dark time. As Liz Perle of Commonsense Media put it, "The inmates are running the asylum. They're creating content now, and they're far out ahead of us."

Most parents see the Internet as the best educational tool available to their kids. At the same time, they see it as the source of the most dangerous exposure. So what's a sensible way to think about things?

It's simple. We already limit and regulate: printed media; broadcast media; alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs; access to weapons; driving privileges; citizenship; zoning for certain kinds of businesses and housing; etc., etc., etc...

The list is endless.

Yet we don't limit or regulate the Internet. Why is that exactly?

Is it because we don't want to spoil it's chances to grow? Hello? Are you listening out there? The Internet is gutting several multi-billion dollar industries, and spawning several more. The economic dislocation caused by the Internet is staggering, and cannot be stopped. So I'm not exactly worried that the Internet will fail to achieve its economic potential.

Is it because it's wrong to violate freedom of expression? Give me a break. When you can go to a porn publication's website and they have the photographs that are "too hot for the magazine..." you know we've lost touch with reality on this one. Let's be clear: a magazine that you have to go to a store to buy, pay money to a real person, and perhaps even (good heavens!) show an ID to purchase CANNOT show pictures that are available with no more than a mouse click, a fake name, and a Hotmail address to anybody with a computer and a wireless card. We regulate all kinds of content in all kinds of ways, because its in society's best interests to do so, especially with respect to minors.

Is it because it's too hard? Not a good enough answer. We have chosen to hide behind the Internet's technological complexity and distributed structure for too long. We have chosen to ignore the social costs of disrupted childhood development, predatory sexual behavior, and damaged mental health, in favor of limiting the cost of making the Internet ubiquitous and cheap. Well, we regulate alcohol and it's pretty ubiquitous. We all could make our own wine (I do!) as readily as we can all post our own Internet content. And somehow, we still regulate alcohol.

Why not just let the parents be responsible?
Because the parents can't hope to control all of the ways their kids will gain access to the Internet. Whether it's through the school, their mobile phones, a friends' house, a cyber-cafe, or a hacker's website, kids will find their way on to the Internet. So parents simply do not have the tools to limit exposure in either quality or quantity. Yes, parents have to do their part. But the community as a whole needs to come together (at all levels - local, state, federal, and international) and accept the responsibility to manage, moderate, and regulate the Internet.

The Internet isn't "virtual reality", it IS reality.

It's the world as our kids know it.

The Internet is not some special, sacred resource. We shouldn't leave them exposed to the vicious, unscrupulous, and depraved just because the Internet is a cool invention. Just like in the "old" real world, we have an obligation to protect the weak (e.g., our kids), and constrain the destructive elements of society, as they both colonize the Internet.

The Internet changes everything. That means we have an obligation to change the way we look at it. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

That was depressing. Somebody out there, tell me I'm wrong.

WiFi Pedophiles vs. ICAC

2007-02-12T14:33:00.000-08:00

Child Porn Smackdown Leaves Cops on the Mat

Authorities are struggling with WiFi, reports Jaimie Stockwell in the Washington Post. In WiFi Turns Internet Into Hideout for Criminals, we learn that Arlington County, VA detectives who were about to arrest a pedophile ended up at the home of a little old lady. Ooops...the suspected perp had been using her unsecured wireless Internet connection to trade child porn.

Once again, we see an apparently noble, democratizing technology - publicly accessible Internet through wireless communications - subverted by those who are suffering from a nearly invisible sickness, and used to threaten our kids and our common good.

This is hardly the end of the story, because currently law enforcement has no answer to this growing problem. In neighboring Alexandria, city officials are planning a 16-square-mile free municipal WiFi network. Has anybody thought to ask the parents if it's a good idea?

When are we going to get mad enough to wake up and stop the madness? While the USDOJ's ICAC (Internet Crimes Against Children) task forces have been created to fight this kind of problem, we are still behind the 8-ball -- arguably, further and further behind.

With free wireless internet access, predators have increasingly easy and anonymous access to our kids, who themselves are often using stray neighborhood -- or even municipal -- wireless Internet connectivity to side-step parental supervision, guidance, and controls.

Wake up!! Please!! Insist that your community think before deploying free public WiFi. Don't do it until you have some security and filtering policy in place. And ask that your community leaders raise awareness regarding the risks of unrestricted, uncontrolled WiFi networks across your neighborhoods. The cost of ignorance, apathy, and inaction will be more than you'll want to bear.

Do you have municipal WiFi in your city or town? Have you noticed unsecured wireless networks accessible from your living room? Let us know what's happening in your neighborhood.

MySpace, Zephyr, Darwin, and You

2007-01-22T11:06:00.000-08:00

Evolve – because your kids have...

Julia Anguin of the Wall Street Journal writes about MySpace’s Zephyr software. Although details are limited, it’s clearly an attempt to help parents know more, sense more, and keep up better with their kids’ online activities.

But why is it so hard in the first place?

Watch any kid around technology and you’re likely to get a little dizzy. The video games are a sensory onslaught, with what seems like too many controls, too many options, and so many tiny visual cues, signals, and indicators that you can hardly follow the “meta-data”, much less the main storyline.

With cell phones, kids text more than they talk. With computers, they IM with somewhere between 4 and 10 conversations going on at the same time, all while listening to music, doing their homework, and surfing the web.

It seems impossible that a human could process that much information without going into overload. The closest adult experience might be an air-traffic controller working rush-hour at JFK.

But we’re seeing an incomplete picture. It’s like watching the neurons firing in a brain scan – impossibly complex and opaque patters that look nothing like the “thoughts” that are being thunk.

The analogy is an important one, because, in a sense, when we look at the dizzying activity and sensory input of our kids, we’re not really seeing the experience. We’re seeing the external “artifacts” of the experience. Without an accompanying mental model of the experience, it looks chaotic, almost painfully so. But to a participant in the action, it all makes perfect sense. It’s very hard to “get it” until you are immersed in it. And, let’s face it, most of us can’t or won’t devote the time to become masters at the tools our kids embrace, and certainly not in the same way.

One important way to examine this “generation gap” is to realize that our kids have evolved. Human beings have been evolving outside our bodies for the past 50,000 years or so. Tools and inventions are classic “survival adaptations” – they’re just not genetic and biological. We fly in the skies, spend days or weeks on open water, even live under the earth. And we capture and kill prey of every size and speed. We can survive in any environmental niche the earth provides. So we’ve evolved externally -- “virtually” -- in our physical reality.

And now that we’ve created a virtual world, is it any surprise that this interesting capacity to evolve outside our bodies has taken yet another, perhaps weirder, turn? Our kids are evolving to embrace a collection of electronic inputs and small-motor outputs (keyboards, pointers, game controllers, cell-phone keypads) as vivid, full-blown human experiences.

These “electronic” experiences are so divorced from their analogs in physical-reality that they're incomprehensible by those of us who have never participated. It’s not just a different language (although that’s often a major part of it). It’s a different way of being in the world. Our kids have augmented their senses and their ability to reach out into their environment in very fundamental ways. They see and feel things that we do not. They effect changes, touch the lives and realities and experience of others, in ways that we do not.

They have evolved.

Where once you could take your kids to the park and supervise them while they play, you now sit dumbly and blindly unaware of what’s REALLY going on, as you observe your kids playing on the computer, instant messaging their friends, or texting on their cell phones, the way a primatologist might observe a troupe of the mountain gorillas – or maybe a gorilla observing a group of primatologists. Imagine an anthropologist trying to comprehend a newly-discovered civilization that has a rich, astonishingly intricate language based entirely on facial expressions. They might THINK they’re getting it, but they’re not…unless they “go native”, if that’s even possible.

So you have a choice. As a parent, you can: 1) sit in the audience, 2) try to be a coach, or 3) get in the game. If it’s the first, well, have fun. I hope the story has a happy ending. If it’s either the second or the third, you need gear to augment your parental senses. And you need to train to use the gear. And you need to be unafraid of the gear, and the game. You need to evolve.

To augment your parental senses, get filtering, monitoring, and coaching software that helps manage and moderate your kids experiences. And have some experiences of your own. Engage the tools, the places, the ideas – even if juvenile and “boring” – to the extent you can.

Otherwise, you’ll just be another evolutionary dead-end, relegated to the dustbin of irrelevance.

As a parent, that would probably be bad.

Hacker, Miss Nevada Learn the Hard Way

2006-12-22T16:34:00.000-08:00

It's never really private, and it's never really gone...

I've published an earlier piece on how we need to teach our kids, and realize ourselves, that Internet behavior is public behavior, and that the Internet is forever.

Here are a few additional cautionary tales on the topic, to contemplate over eggnog.

Internet behavior is public behavior. First, Declan McCullagh's CNET news story "Police blotter: Google searches nab wireless hacker" illustrates just how "not private" the Internet can be. Matthew Schuster, apparently disgruntled after being fired from Alpha Computer Services in Wausau, Wisconsin, misused sensitive data, hacked into networks, and disrupted business. How did they catch him, and what did they use for evidence? According to McCullagh,

"Schuster's own Google searches were used against him.

Court documents say that Schuster ran a Google search over CWWIS' network using the following search terms: 'how to broadcast interference over wifi 2.4 GHZ,' 'interference over wifi 2.4 Ghz,' 'wireless networks 2.4 interference,' and 'make device interfere wireless network.'

Google has confirmed that it can provide search terms if given an Internet address or Web cookie, but has steadfastly refused to say how often such requests arrive."

This isn't the first time either. According to McCullagh, Google search terms were used in a North Carolina murder case as well. Used as evidence against the perp were searches for the words "neck," "snap," "break" and "hold" before his wife was killed.

Think carefully about that. Your search behavior is NOT private. And there's proof that it can help a prosecutor convict you.

The Internet is Forever for Miss Nevada. The next example comes from the world of quasi-celebrity. The Associated Press article "Miss Nevada Loses Shirt, Then Title", by Adam Goldman, relates how the erstwhile Miss Nevada, Katie Rees, was stripped of her title because photos of her participating in, shall we say, exhibitionist behavior, appeared on the Internet. How old are the photos? According to Rees' attorney, Mario Torres,

"Katie Rees Miss Nevada USA wants the public to know she was 17 and had a lapse in judgment. The actions on that evening in subject are in no way indicative of the person she is or the person she has become. … She is a law-abiding citizen and talented adult. This was an isolated incident that occurred more than five years ago when she was a minor."

Even though she's now 22, it doesn't seem to matter. The pictures are out there, even accessible from the ABCNews website. Is it a tragedy for this young woman? Perhaps not. But it's certainly an unwelcome distraction as she tries to launch her career. Our kids may not be beauty queens (and perhaps we would not want them to be...) but they'd be no less immune to the consequences - in fact, a "regular" kid wouldn't have the implicit latitude we grant celebrities. For a regular kid, it might be much worse.

Sorry to be a downer here as we head into the holidays - let's focus on happier prospects.

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and Happy New Year to all. And parents, remember to keep your families safe, no matter where you travel.

Internet Etiquette: "No Snarking" PLEASE!

2006-12-14T17:31:00.000-08:00

Seriously, Folks, Anonymity is a Dangerous Illusion

I read a commentary by the New York Times' David Pogue entitled "Whatever Happened to Online Etiquette?" At first, I began to respond to David as a lark - a sense of levity to assuage my dismay:

Ah, it’s so sad. I would like to create a logo: the word SNARK with the red circle-and-slash depicting "not allowed".

Yep, anonymity is probably a major factor in rudeness. How often have we driven like cutthroats, expressed our rage by finger or horn, then become mortified by the fact that the object of our scorn is a neighbor or friend? Ooops! Not so anonymous, are we?

But then I realized, wait -- this is a real issue. As I've said before in these pages, "Internet behavior is public behavior", and "the Internet is forever"... I've talked about it in the context of this first-generation of Internet parents raising their kids. But the reality is that adults need to learn the same truth.

Anonymity on the Internet is only a thin, illusory veil. In the end, it can be ripped away by a friend, a colleague, a technical error, or poor judgment on the part of some faceless organization (recall AOL’s leak of its users' search behavior in August of this year). And then, lo and behold, all our online excesses come home to roost.

Really, the Internet would be more enjoyable, illuminating, and refreshing if folks were civil and clear, with penetrating commentary instead of obnoxious, gossipy expressions of schadenfreude.

We desperately need to teach our kids good manners, both person-to-person and on the Internet. To use an old but very accurate aphorism, "It's for their own good!" We need to lead by example, of course. Our kids will inherit a better world, and will each be much less at risk, if common courtesy, thoughtfulness, and care take priority over attitude, aggression, and put-downs.

In the end, enlightened self-interest strongly suggests "No Snarkiness".

Have an opinion? Think we should start a movement with the logo? Comments welcome!

Violent Video Games Affect Self Control

2006-11-29T18:32:00.000-08:00

No Real Doubt Remains After MRI Study

---As reported in a November 29, 2006 InformationWeek article entitled Study: Violent Video Game Exposure Affects Self-Control by K.C. Jones, researchers at Indiana University School of Medicine used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure brain activity of participants while they performed tasks measuring inhibition and concentration, immediately after playing video games. The researchers documented differences between those who played violent games and those who played non-violent games.

Those who played the violent game showed less activity in an area associated with executive functions such as planning, shifting, and controlling and directing thoughts and behavior, according to researchers. They showed more activity (brightly colored scans) in the amygdala, an area of the brain connected with emotional arousal.

The validity of the study is pretty solid – statistically, it’s compelling data, and the structure of the study is sound. The implications, of course, will be a long time in coming.

Suffice it to say, however, that we now have real-time, visible proof that exposure and immersion into violent video games has a spill-over effect on brain function. How much, for how long, we don’t know. We do know, however, that the brain is a very malleable and plastic thing, and it gets trained.

So if you’re wondering where the short attention span, irritability, or lack of emotional discipline in our children is coming from, maybe we’re one step closer to identifying a culprit.

When we allow our kids to get exposed to any content – through video games, television, or the Internet, we really have to be accountable for the impact it has on them. And the more of that content they absorb, the more impact it’s going to have.

Content comes in all forms now. We live in a media generation. So as parents, we’re called to be more aware, more vigilant. We have to supervise our kids, and modulate their exposure. It’s more work now than ever, because there are more sources of stimulus, and – let’s be honest – they’re much more potent now than ever before.

So while exposure to too much Space Invaders might not warp a mind, murdering a prostitute in Grand Theft Auto, or killing Germans as a sniper in Call of Duty, just might have a lasting effect. And networked games, where players interact with one another, create a level of social re-enforcement that adds to the potency of the experience.

It doesn’t take a rocket-scientist to understand the correlation. It may take more studies like this one to round out the theories, but the biochemistry is undeniable.

So what are we going to do about it?

Do your kids overdose on video games? Do they use networked games, and do they interact with friends and/or strangers in their simulated worlds? How much do you know about this part of their lives? Share your experiences.

Kids: 10 is the new 15 - and a much easier target

2006-11-29T17:37:00.000-08:00

Predators don't just exist on the Internet...

I read an article by Martha Irvine on MSNBC, entitled 10 the new 15 as Kids Grow Up Faster. It's a great discussion, illustrating how kids are having less and less "protected time" to be kids, and the way that erosion is affecting them and their relationship with their parents.

What's to blame? Well, a whole host of factors, but I think I would sum it up as an invasion of adult strangers into our kids lives. It's not that popular culture is intrinsically bad. But when we let our kids participate without moderation in popular culture, it seems that we feed an inevitable shift to the gutter. Why? Because "pop culture" is distorted by adults who are trying to attract kids.

Think about it. Young people create the most prominent themes in emerging culture. That part is GREAT.

But then, adults who "have an agenda" begin to ride, manipulate, and productize those themes to a) engage and establish relationships with potential customers, and b) make a lot of money.

Without parental protection and oversight, kids will be seduced by the merchandising of their emerging identities. And it's adults that are doing the seducing, using the tools that are most seductive -- sex, music, celebrity, addictions of every sort, and the Internet.

Why do kids fall for it? Because the merchandisers are really good at their game. And because our kids are...kids. That's why they have parents.

It's our job to "interfere" with that seduction, and to protect them.

Think about it this way: When has the unrestricted interaction of kids with adult strangers ever been a good thing? (See my MySpace posts here and here for more on that topic...) Yet, that's what's happening when kids "buy in" to pop culture. They're absorbing a message that's coming from an adult somewhere, in some faceless company, who is trying capture your child's attention.

Let's just say that predators aren't only on the Internet.

So, don't let it happen. I'm a very strong advocate of parental supervision (especially regarding the Internet) and limiting kids from an unrestricted embrace of pop culture, because those who are animating it and amplifying it do NOT have our kids' best interest in mind.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a prude. I love new music. I love the Internet. I love beauty and creativity in all its forms. And the creativity of youth expresses itself miraculously every day in all these ways.

But we as parents have to remain vigilant and RESPONSIBLE, using all the tools at our disposal to protect our kids, even as those who stand to enrich themselves use every tool at their disposal to exploit them.

Waging your own battle against the invasion of tawdry pop culture? Shocked at the way elementary school "prostit-tots" dress? Dismayed that "bitches and ho's" is the new slang for your daughter and her friends?

Got answers or suggestions? Share your comments.

Free Public WiFi Cuts Both Ways...

2006-11-27T15:32:00.000-08:00

Too much of a good thing?

Several municipalities in my neck of the woods, and many others across the globe, are sponsoring, experimenting with, or experiencing an explosion in free wireless Internet access.

Google, the proverbial "Internet Good Guys", have been deploying wireless Internet around the city of Mountain View. The city of Palo Alto, just up the road, has had a free wireless "HotSpot" downtown for almost a year.

And now, as reported by Will Oremus in the Palo Alto Daily News, a new, broader approach is underway. The association of cities and business leaders throughout Silicon Valley known as Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network, has created a model agreement open to some 40 area cities. Silicon Valley Metro Connect, an ad-hoc consortium led by IBM and Cisco, will be the wireless provider.

The result: possibly the largest contiguous wireless Internet "hot spot" in the world -- over 1500 square miles. It will cover most of Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, and parts of Alemeda and Santa Cruz counties.

So that's the good news, and represents the kind of social application of technology that we expect from Silicon Valley.

What's the bad news?

Well, if your town has free public WiFi, and you're kid has a laptop and a bicycle, he's now also got unfiltered Internet access. It doesn't much matter what you do to protect the Internet connectivity in your home, if free wireless access is available down the street.

Have you and/or your community leaders engaged in a dialog on the impact of this new kind of community resource?

If you have wireless Internet in your community (and even if you don't!), find a way to bring the discussion of protected, filtered, public Internet access to the fore. When we needed wires, public Internet access was less of an issue, because somebody had to connect you (or your 12-year-old) to the Internet.

But with wireless, it's "Look, Mom...no hands!"

Contact your local press, and ask about it. Or write a letter to the editor. Your peers in the community might recoil, warning that the local government should not play a role in "censorship". And in the end, they may be right -- ultimately, it's our responsibility as parents and citizens to control the resources that our children use. But even if you just bring awareness to the issue, you will have done your family and your neighbors a great service. Be prepared, though: soon, we'll have to protect each device (that includes our phones and our PDAs -- a topic for another day) because protecting the network will no longer be enough...

And, once again, it becomes clear that we have to reach out and have a dialog with our neighbors and business leaders and community officials to ensure that we're talking about the issues.

It's great that community investments like free wireless Internet enable college students and professionals to access the Internet over their morning coffee, on the commuter train, in the park, or wherever their workday takes them. That's a GOOD thing.

Let's just make sure our community investments also include keeping our kids safe and protected.

Do you have free municipal wireless in your area? How do you feel about it? Has your community engaged in a dialog about the repercussions? Write back and share.

ACLU vs. Gonzalez: COPA Update

2006-10-26T19:10:00.000-07:00

To Filter, or Not to Filter...is THAT the Question?

The Child Online Protection Act, or COPA, is back in the news. I caught up with this story through an E-Commerce Times article entitled "ACLU Battles Child Online Protection Act in Federal Court", by Jennifer LeClaire, dated 10/24/2006, and at Law.Com, through Shannon P. Duffy's 10/25/2006 article, "Latest Round in Web Porn Law Fight Begins".

Written in 1998, and passed in 1999, COPA has never been put into effect due to constitutionality issues. (See my earlier post relating to legislative efforts in this area here). COPA has been up in front of the federal bench twice already.

The court is asking whether technology has changed. Has filtering gotten better? Worse? Is that even the right question?

The ACLU argued:

"Technology is forever evolving, as are the tools people use to communicate. Internet content filtering has evolved since 1999...Unlike COPA, it can be used by parents who are concerned to block overseas sites, peer-to-peer speech, instant messages and other forms of speech. While not perfect, it protects children more effectively than COPA would. It can also be tailored to the age of the child and the values of the parent."

But the same argument goes for the technology of the CONTENT of the Internet. Content has become significantly more multimedia. It's increasingly difficult for filtering technology to figure out just what is in that content -- because it might be a video stream, a podcast, or other mixed-media. The advent of ever-more sophisticated "browser experience" technology (from Flash to AJAX) makes computer-identification of content very challenging indeed. The web-browsing experience has changed, making content much less static -- less like a magazine page, and more like a video game or amusement-park ride.

These facts have real impact.

One thing is clear: Since COPA was written eight years ago, the technology and content on the Internet have changed -- dramatically.

In its brief, the ACLU argued that

"Congress could enact a statute that permits the distribution of such material [that is harmful to minors], but instead requires Web site operators to include a rating, label, or code on the Web site that makes clear that harmful to minors material is available on the Web site. Such a rating, label or code could be placed on the initial home page of the site," the ACLU argues in its brief."

As a filtering vendor, we're all for that. It would make our job much easier. The question, of course, is, HOW DO YOU ENFORCE the rating? Who makes the call on what the site's rating should be? And how do you punish the offender? The Internet is a slippery place, with websites appearing and disappearing overnight. Unless there's some serious, sharp teeth in such a proposal, we're not going to make a dent in addressing this problem.

Rick Louis, spokesperson for the Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection, said:

"There are many points at which parents can activate filtering technology...The basic computer operating system offers parental controls. The browsers offer parental controls. ISPs offer parental controls. You can get commercial filtering software like Net Nanny and Cybersitting. You can download toolbars from the Internet. It just doesn't stop. There's so many ways for parents to set up filtering in their homes. They just need to do it."

But without rock-solid rating of content, most of these tools just get in the way, and then uninstalled. Even K9 Web Protection, the product my company makes available for free to parents, has its limitations. So, we're back to the fundamental question: To filter, or not to filter? Who should do it? Who should be accountable if it's not done "right"?

There is a proposal out there - CP80.org is the website -- that takes the ACLU argument of self-rating, and the governments argument about enforceability, and puts them together. It's a proposal that is technologically feasible. The proposal isn't perfect -- privacy, control, and a variety of social and cultural subtleties have to be addressed. But it's a way to take the dialog in the right direction. (And personally, I think the ACLU would be a great asset in the debate.) Let's get our best minds working on the best approaches, and stop fighting over obsolete laws that weren't even right when they were written. It might be good for somebody's ego, and it might make for a press story, but our kids really don’t benefit from it.

What do you think about COPA? About CP80? About whether the government should help you keep unwanted content out of your home? I look forward to your comments.

The Real Lesson of the Mark Foley Saga

2006-10-06T11:22:00.000-07:00

Say "Sleazy Hypocrite", miss an opportunity

By now, the news that Mark Foley was an “Internet predator” is widely reported. Here’s the article by Declan McCullagh from CNet that describes the apparently paradoxical behavior of Foley, the former Republican congressman from near Palm Beach, Florida who was both a strident defender and protector of children, and a child abuser/Internet predator at the same time.

What can explain this behavior? That Congress is infested with sleazeball hypocrites? If that’s the message you take from this tragedy, it’s a opportunity lost.

Look at the facts. This guy worked hard. He championed a worthy cause (if perhaps a bit misguidedly at times). He tried to lead Congress to take difficult and potentially unpopular actions.

WHY?

Because he knows something that many of us are unwilling to fully comprehend. We have a mental health crisis and child-abuse crisis of epidemic proportions on our hands. It’s aided and abetted and accelerated by the easy access to pornography on the Internet. It’s further accelerated by the easy access to unsupervised communications among kids, and between kids and adults, on the Internet. And once you’re caught up in that epidemic, it’s very hard to get out. Sometimes, even an act of Congress isn't enough.

Nobody understands this reality better than Mark Foley right now.

Porn addiction, pedophilia, and similar spiraling, addictive appetites are all fed by the Internet. Unless we’re willing to say that it’s OK for adults to seduce and have sex with kids, we have to conclude that Mark Foley has a mental health problem. And when they abuse kids to feed their appetites, he and others like him create yet more victims, who in turn grow into adults with mental health problems.

I’ll say it again. We have a mental health crisis and a child abuse crisis of epidemic proportions that is spiraling out of control, and largely out of sight, out there on the Internet.

As a responsible, loving parent, you MUST do something to protect your kids. Install a filter/monitor. Supervise your kids’ Internet behavior. Get involved in making a difference in your community. Remember, to successfully protect your own kids, you have to work to protect your neighbors’ kids, too. In his own way, Foley was trying to protect your kids -- and in the process, protect himself as well.

Comments? I'm interested in your thoughts regarding Foley, Internet addictions, and community action.

Accountability for Public Behavior

2006-09-27T12:16:00.000-07:00

Remember -- YOU are the parent!

It's so important to keep your kids away from dangerous weapons, to teach them how to use them safely, and to keep a close eye when they're playing with dangerous weapons, because lots of people can get hurt...

I came across this article - "Administator Sues Students over MySpace Page" -- by Karla Yeh at the Student Press Law Center. I'm glad it's showing up on a law site, because its an indication of just how serious an issue we're dealing with. And it will only get more serious.

From the article:

Clark High School Assistant Principal Anna Draker sued two of her students last month for libel after they allegedly made personal attacks against her using the Web site MySpace.com....Draker claims Benjamin Schreiber and Ryan Todd, both 16 years old, created a MySpace profile for her and posted false information, including doctored photographs, fabricated quotes and information indicating Draker was a lesbian.

Draker is suing both kids for libel, and the parents for negligence. One child is also charged with computer fraud, which is a felony.

So here's a perfect example of what I've posted previously:

Parents are responsible for the family
Parents are responsible for their children's behavior in public
Internet behavior is public behavior.

Don't wait for your family to become a victim of your child's unsupervised public -- Internet -- behavior. Take action to educate and protect your kids.

Today.

What IS Happening on MySpace?

2006-09-20T17:34:00.000-07:00

What's the difference between theory and practice? (Read on for the answer...)

A new book is out, called "MySpace Unraveled: A Parent’s Guide to Teen Social Networking". Written by CBS News technology analyst Larry Magrid, and NetFamilyNews.org editor Anne Collier, it comes with a good pedigree. And no doubt is worth the read. I haven’t read it yet, but I caught an excerpt published at CBSNews.com on September 7th.

The article/excerpt illustrates some very important concepts that adults need to understand about MySpace. It’s a place of identity exploration, community, fun, and typical teenage hijinks. All true, and all, realistically, an inescapable part of the teenage experience.

And it’s more than that - it’s a training ground for kids who are growing up in a world where social networking will be a fundamental part of their lives.

The article goes on to cite the necessity for parents to examine MySpace from a kid’s perspective. I heartily agree. Until you get it into your head just what it is your child is doing and feeling and getting from their MySpace experience, you are doomed to fail in grappling with the deeper issues that lurk there.

Finally, the article talks about MySpace being like a modern version of the malt shop. Kids doing things in front of kids, oblivious to the outside world. “The more things change, the more they stay the same”, offer the authors. They say MySpace is “today’s fear of choice”, comparing it to rock-n-roll of the 50’s, pot-smoking in the 60’s, etc. “Today’s young people will survive this new ‘threat’”, say the authors.

Of course they will.

But all the theory of how social networking is a fundamental part of their future, and how identity experimentation is fundamental to their development, and how kids will always find ways to express themselves in ways that make their parents blush…All that must be contrasted with a reality check.

Within the same week, I found the following articles:

Principal Blames MySpace for Fights
ANNAPOLIS, MD -- September 12 -- Taunting on a popular teen Web site fueled the spate of violence at Annapolis High last week that put nearly 20 students in handcuffs, the school's principal said last night.

Donald Lilley told the school Parent-Teacher-Student Organization that insults flowed through social networking site MySpace.com over the summer and fanned tensions that spilled into the school from three public housing projects.
Those tensions turned into violence when students from the Robinwood, Newtowne 20 and Annapolis Gardens neighborhoods returned to class two weeks ago.

CHS Teens Charged with Beating Found on MySpace.com Remain in Custody
BAKERSFIELD, CA -- September 13 -- Five teens remain in Juvenile Hall on charges they beat a Centennial High School student, videotaped the attack, and then published it on the Internet site Myspace.com.
The five teens were arrested once detectives obtained the videotape of them beating another teen girl.

Deputy District Attorney Cindy Norris said the assault on Myspace.com is severe.
“In my opinion,” Norris said, “it’s one of the worst assaults I’ve ever seen on videotape.”

Police: MySpace Fight Involved 150 People
VIRGIL TOWNSHIP, IL -- September 6 -- They logged on looking for a party, but they got a fight.
Police are investigating Wednesday a weekend brawl in Virgil Township some say was set up through MySpace.com. It involved as many as 150 people.

Warning for Anyone Using myspace.com
GRAPEVINE, TX – September 14 -- A warning tonight for parents. Why it's important to know what your children are up to on the internet….

Police in Grapevine, Texas are searching for a man who reportedly tried to lure a teenager out of her home this past weekend. They believe her page on Myspace.com, loaded with personal information, may have led the stranger to her home.

Porn and bullying common on MySpace and Bebo, says Which?
LONDON, UK -- September 14 -- Popular social networking sites such as MySpace and Bebo are putting children at risk of online bullying and inadvertently exposing them to pornography and unsuitable advertising, the consumer affairs magazine Which? has warned.

This comes after Computing Which? set up an account pretending to be a 14-year-old and found "numerous examples" of pornography, bullying and unsuitable advertising on the site, which allows users to create their own web pages, chat to friends and share photographs.

The adult researcher who set up a MySpace account as a teenager was able to do so without proving age or identity. The sites claim to monitor uploaded images, but researchers came across pornographic photographs on both "within minutes".

Study shows too much 'sex' on Myspace.com
FRESNO, CA – September 15
A new study reveals the ‘sexier’ and more dangerous side of Myspace.com.
A Fresno State professor studied 700 myspace.com web pages to discover more than half of users surveyed had some kind of sexual content on their individual pages.

In fact, she says the worst content was found on the younger users sites. She found sexual material on 71% of pages belonging to 14 and 15 year olds.

So, what’s happening on MySpace? What are YOUR kids doing? And who are they being influenced by?

The authors of "MySpace Unraveled" give a nod to proper parenting and the reality that content on MySpace can live on forever. But unless the rest of the book steps down from the theoretical benefits of MySpace, and wrestles with its gritty reality, I’m afraid it all comes down to:

What’s the difference between theory and practice? Of course. “In theory, there’s NO difference.”

We have to live with “practice”. And so do our kids.

Unmaking a mistake

2006-09-08T12:51:00.000-07:00

Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune posted a column (registration required) entitled "Time to reboot a parenting plan that backfired". Eric made the mistake of putting a computer in the bedroom of his 16-year-old son. Oops. Grades slipped. Behavior changed. Isolation and distance increased.

What to do?

Well, Eric, you have found yourself in one of the classic Internet Parenting dilemmas. We're all struggling with this kind of problem. You close your column with reluctance to "succumb to using adversarial Internet-filtering and monitoring technology that he's probably smart enough to circumvent anyway..."

Let's start with some basic observations:

The entire range of human behavior, from the most inspired and noble, to the most depraved and dispicable, is available on the Internet.

Internet behavior is Public behavior. Anything you say and do on the Internet (and anywhere you go, for that matter) needs to be considered something you are doing in public.

The Internet is forever. Anything you say and do, and anywhere you go, can inconveniently become part of the endlessly swirling and loosely controlled "public record".

Now, think about your relationship with your son. What is your job? What is any parent's job? Let's split it into two pieces:

Teach your kids to make good judgements, be responsible for their actions, do what's right.
Provide a safe environment for them to learn to do that.

How do you do these two things? A variety of ways, including supervision, conversation, rules and limits, etc., etc.

Let's look at these two sets of observations together and see where it leads.

One part of fulfilling your job as a parent is to supervise your son, so you can "teach and coach" good decision making, and so you can "block and redirect" to keep him safe should he careen towards an abyss. Less and less as he gets older for sure, but certainly, when the stakes are high and he's treading into unfamiliar territory.

Would you agree that at least some part of THE ENTIRE RANGE OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR qualifies as unfamiliar (and high-risk) territory? OK, then that means you need to be supervising your son while he's on the 'net.

How about public behavior? You expect your son should know how to behave in public by now, right? OK, but what if he doesn't realize he's in public? Would you make it your job to alert him to that fact, and help him adjust his behavior accordingly? Internet behavior is public behavior. Anything you do on the Internet is something you are doing in public. Yet, contrast that with the "experience" that you are doing it in the privacy of your home (or in your son's case, behind the closed door of his bedroom) and you'll see why kids don't get it. This devilish paradox is probably the most important epiphany you and your child need to reach.

And, as a "public record", the Internet is equally misleading. Your son and his peers have no doubt indulged themselves in MySpace or Xanga or other social networking sites. Here's the thing -- they don't think that's "public" or permanent. What have they posted? Is it something they would want a prospective employer to see? MySpace is a misnomer. MyBillboard is more like it. Or, perhaps, more honestly, "My-File-Of-Youthful-Indescretions-And-Juvenile-Behavior-
Available-For-Public-Scrutiny".

If the world had a permanent public record of what your son was "into" five years ago, would he want it on display somewhere, searchable and indexed for easy access?

You, as a parent, have a long history of managing your son's public behavior, and he has a long history of acknowledging your right to do so. Use that NOW. The Internet is not "just for cool, teenage friends of mine". It's used by everybody -- friend, creep, teacher, suit. It's the biggest public square ever to exist. Is what he's doing something you and he would be happy for the world to see? For the neighbors to see? For his college admissions board to see?

The bottom line is -- you are well within your rights, and frankly, I'd suggest obligated by your responsibilities, as a parent to introduce supervision into your son's Internet experience. And if you can't do it by standing over his shoulder (even while the computer is no longer in his room), you'll have to get some software to help. It's not "Spying". It's "Supervising" and "Coaching".

It's also your job.

A Prisoner of your Seductive Nectar

2006-09-05T11:58:00.000-07:00

You're Never Too Young to be an Addict...

Here's an abridged post from the K9 Web Protection Users Forum that I felt might be illuminating to share. The writer, a kid, entitled it "A Prisoner of your Seductive Nectar".

Parents, you are not alone in facing these kinds of frightening challenges. Kids, if your parents are showing you this, you are not alone either.

We don't have a Surgeon General's warning on porn like we do on cigarettes.

But we should.

So my Mom absolutely loves your program. She actually can keep control of me now!

So, yeah, I used to be a very avid viewer of Pornography, and I'm not embarassed about it either. 90% of all males masturbate...But I can't see the harm in visual aid, rather than imagination? I think people [complain about] sex so much in the Media. That makes the problem worse. It makes sex taboo. It makes it a forbidden fruit.

Now that Pornography has been taken away from me. I want it more than ever before.

The more people hide from sex, the more Taboo it gets.

Sex is a natural thing. People fantasize all the time. It's something you really can't get around as a human being. I don't think Pornography is going to encourage them at all. Because it's already hardwired into our heads that at this point in our lives sex is a big thing. (The hormones and what-have you).

I donno where I was going with this. Probably more of a selfish joust against my keepers. But still. Censorship isn't the way of the future. Knowledge is power. When you know about something, you gain control of it.

I look at Pornography, but I also learned all about Sex in School from Sex Ed. Just like every other kid in the US. I've seen what herpes can do. All of those delightful STD's. As do many other kids.

I don't think Pornography is going to really effect people's choices. If they want sex, I don't think Pornography really makes a difference.

Goodness I've gotten a little carried away. How many times can I rephrase the same point? (*Laughing*)

I'm curious as to your replies.

My reply:
You're right about sex. It's a natural thing. And a very powerful thing.

And pornographers know just how to manipulate your sexual attention and desire. Especially if you're a teenager, just going through that "raging hormones" thing.

There's the old saying "Sex sells." Imagine how effectively "sex sells" when it's selling sex. The pornographer is hijacking the most powerful wiring you have, driving your brain to produce chemicals that push you into a cycle of craving and satisfaction over and over again.

You say,

"Now that Pornography has been taken away from me. I want it more than ever before."

And then you say

"Knowledge is power. When you know about something, you gain control of it."

It sounds more like you've lost control than gained control. Your desire has increased. Like a junkie who needs a fix.

The knowledge you need is that the pornographers are manipulating you! And that it's possible that you have become addicted to the natural high you get from viewing it. Nature doesn't deliver the kind of intense stimulation, the kind of potent high that you get from Internet porn, from a real sexual relationship, because real sex with a real person in a real relationship takes a lot more work than just clicking and surfing and fantasizing. So you're chain is being yanked, your wires are being crossed, and the folks who are doing it aren't in it for your benefit. They're in it for the money. If they can get you hooked early, they will.

You say,

"I don't think Pornography is going to really effect people's choices. If they want sex, I don't think Pornography really makes a difference."

Can't you see that it already has? It's already twisted and pushed you and countless others into behaviors and cravings that for many have escalated beyond an occasional indulgence, beyond a hobby, into a compulsion and an obsession? Why are you still hunting for porn? Why is your craving stronger than ever? Because, perhaps, you've become addicted. Have you noticed that it's hard to get the images out of your head? That even when you don't want to think about it, you still do?

That's one of the reasons parents try to keep their kids away from porn. Sex ed is nothing like porn. Intimate relationships that include sex are nothing like porn. Porn is about whipping you up, and calling you back again and again.

K9 isn't about making sex taboo. We've just recognized how addictive pornography can be, and we want to help parents keep it away from their kids, so their kids don't become victims.

Just like the tobacco industry, the porn industry knows that its product is addictive. Just like the tobacco industry, they want to get you hooked when you're young. And just like the tobacco industry, they don't really care what it does to you. They argue that "people have the right" to this kind of material. But they won't be accountable for its addicitive nature, and the social costs associated with those addictions. Why should they be, when we as a society don't demand it?

Kids, if you follow what I'm saying, and you think it might have some truth, and you want help to get "un-addicted", there are resources out there that can make a difference. It's never too late to try to overcome an addiction. Do some research. If you think you might be addicted, ask for help.

And parents, don't ignore the problem. You wouldn't just ignore it if your kid (or your neighbor's kid) was hooked on cocaine, speed, or heroin, right? This kid's on to something when he talks about sex being "taboo" -- sex and pornography as a topic for discussion among neighbors certainly is taboo. But we all owe it to our community's mental health to help raise awareness, even if it's a little uncomfortable.

Step out and get involved.

18 Years Old, YouTube Star, and Still Naive

2006-08-29T12:38:00.000-07:00

"People forget that I'm a real, normal young girl with a life, feelings and a right to privacy…"

As reported in “Tassie YouTube Star Calls It Quits” by Louisa Hearn in The Age on August 28th, these words were posted by “Emmalina”, an 18-year-old from Australia, who rose to fame on YouTube. She apparently posted cute, funny, mundane, and occasionally raunchy clips of herself and her life.

Imagine her surprise when she discovered that:

"Every day I logged in and discovered more and more cruel spoofs, harassing videos, death and rape threats, incredibly nasty comments and God knows what else.”

And she found that “creepy old men” would post lewd messages on her and other YouTube videos of young women.

This whole story is sad. But it also became serious and dangerous when “someone had hacked into her computer and obtained recent pictures and videos from it that had never been posted online as well as ‘incredibly private files.’” Stalkers discovered her real identity even though she posted and performed under a pseudonym, and circulated her personal information on line. And that, finally, scared her off.

When will YOUR kids realize how dangerous their on-line behavior is?

I’ve spoken to so many parents who say, “Well, she’s 16/17/18 years old. There’s nothing I can do about it now. And she’s old enough to make her own decisions.”

As you can see, even at 18, she’s not. To post videos of yourself on YouTube, turn yourself into an amateur celebrity, and then say, “I’m a real, normal young girl with…a right to privacy” bespeaks a fundamental lack of understanding (and perhaps judgment) about the nature of the Internet.

Internet behavior is public behavior. And the Internet is forever.

No, Emmalina, people don’t forget that you’re a real person. In fact, that’s what makes you so seductive. And they don’t believe you have a right to privacy, because you’ve invited them to share very intimate details about you. You don’t believe it. But those creepy, lewd old men and the aggressive, nasty detractors – they very definitely believe it.

Did you think that only “nice” people would view your videos?

Before you write off your older teenager to the scrapheap of 15 minutes of fame and 15 years of psychological damage, make the effort to educate yourself and your kids.

When will your kids realize how dangerous their on-line behavior is?

When will you talk to them about it?

A Cautionary Tale of Community Building

2006-08-22T17:26:00.000-07:00

Pedophiles Know Something Important...

The New York Times published two articles on August 20th and 21st (registration required...for a repost of the first article at CNet, try here) regarding pedophilia and how pedophiles use the Internet to build their own community.

You'll be shocked at the content of these two articles. Shocked and outraged and amazed at the terrible, warped mindset that enables adults to re-interpret their molestations of children as fair, reasonable, and even beneficial, loving behavior.

But I want you to be more than shocked and outraged. I want you to really understand something much more important: Recognize how the Internet can be used to catalyze human behavior, and to reinforce human behavior. And to create community.

When I speak in public, I often relate how the entire range of human behavior, from the most sublime to the most depraved, is available on the Internet. I need to modify that comment:

"The entire range of human behavior, from the most sublime to the most depraved, is available and reinforced on the Internet."

That means we have to get serious about protecting our kids from the negative behavior, and playing our part in reinforcing the positive.

Part of that job relates to our kids ... and I could go on and on about protecting our kids from unsavory characters who encourage and reinforce unsavory behavior.

But more important, I want to highlight how this issue relates to our peers - other parents and community members that are in guardianship roles around our children. WE have to build community around acceptable "parental guidance" and community rules.

Would you have ANY problem saying to your 13-year old,

"You can't go to Jimmy's house because his parents let him get drunk and watch X-rated movies..."?

Of course you wouldn't. But do you even ASK THE QUESTION about whether Jimmy's house has a computer that has no (or pathetically weak) parental controls? When your child asks to go to a friend's house, is that part of the "parental screening" you routinely do? Is it on your parental "check-list" of which neighbors provide a good, safe, and healthy environment, and which do not?

This is the essence of community action. We do this all the time when we trust that our neighbors won't take our kids to an R-rated movie without checking in with us. That's community behavior. We all agree on that standard of guardianship.

We need to adopt a similar standard of guardianship regarding use of the Internet, whether it's surfing, downloading videos, using Chat and Instant Messaging, or just playing on-line games. And we need to be brave enough to stare down our kids -- and our neighbors -- when they don't step up to our expectations.

Read the articles. You'll see that the pedophiles use all kinds of reinforcing mechanisms to help build and solidify their community, and their community standards. They cajole, advise, support, console, and expound on the right-ness of their positions and behaviors.

Do you?

How to Behave in Public

2006-08-17T14:06:00.000-07:00

It's all in how you say it...

When I give presentations to community groups or talk one-on-one with parents, I often get enthusiastic agreement about the need to do something, but frustrated expressions about parents' inability to get in front of their kids with "legitimacy".

Many have said, "My kids just don't listen. They think I don't know anything about the Internet, and they say it's not my business. How do I convince them to pay attention to me?"

Have you felt a similar frustration? You're not alone.

Here's my take at a solution: Approach the problem from familiar ground.

You're the parent, right? (OK, your kids can agree on that.)
And you're responsible for the family. (That gets you a grudging, eye-rolling acknowledgement.)

And in particular, you're responsible for the family's behavior in public. (At this point your kids may sit forward, thinking, "Hmmm...where's Mom/Dad going with this?)

Let's call "public behavior" anything that is seen, heard, or otherwise witnessed by other people in a public place, whether that's at the high-school football game or at the local Starbucks (*I was going to say "malt shop", but honestly, I've never seen one...). When your kids go to the mall, you expect a certain kind of behavior - there are "family rules". When they're at school, you have other expectations, or rules. In fact, whenever your kids are out in public anywhere, they almost automatically abide by family rules. It's surprising, perhaps, and maybe you've never explicitly talked about it this way, but it's true.

Why is this true? It's because their behavior in public affects the family. They know it, because you've already drilled it into them from the time that they were toddlers. The reality is, your kids have long-ago conceded that you have the right to set boundaries on their behavior in public.

So how does this help you manage their Internet behavior? Simple.

Internet behavior is public behavior.

The Internet is the world's largest "small town". Everything that is posted on the Internet, or goes over the Internet, even for just a minute or two, can end up as "gossip", recirculated around and around and around ad nauseum.

And in particular, the kind of content that kids are likely to post or share, both because of what they're doing and with whom they're sharing, is VERY likely to get circulated. Perhaps not world-wide, like the Star Wars Kid exhibiting his light-sabre prowess, but far enough to be public, and often times, to cause problems.

Obviously, MySpace is a VERY public place. It may seem obvious to you that it's not a diary, or even a journal, but, surprisingly, your kids may never really consider just how public it is. Call it "MyBillboard.com" when you talk to your kids. Inform them that employers are actively searching MySpace pages for background on potential employees. And alert them to the fact that the content they post on MySpace is likely to live long past the date when they've "grown up" and out of their current self-image. What if they had had a MySpace page when they were 5 years younger? What would they have posted? Would they want that information still circulating around?

The upshot is that MySpace is a public place, and their behavior on MySpace is public behavior. It's not just "among a few friends". It gets shared and forwarded and circulated.

The same is true of email and instant messaging. It may seem like a private conversation, but it's not. Because it lasts (it's "persistent" in tech lingo), an otherwise private email can get forwarded, circulated, repeated, etc., etc. Sure, the same can be said for a verbal jibe, but with the Internet, 1) the potential audience is huge, 2) that huge audience is accessible all at once with a mouse click, 3) even if you regret saying or posting something, you can never take it back once it's out there. Another way to say this is:

The Internet is Forever.

Online harrassment, cyber-bullying, and other aggressive, mean-spirited behavior are much worse because of these three factors than the old-fashioned kind ever was. Both the victims and the perpetrators of this kind of abuse are living it "in public".

Ask questions like, "How does that reflect on the family? How does it affect brothers, sisters, and parents? How will the community feel about us?"

These facts mean that YOU as a parent have the right and responsibility to monitor and manage your kids' Internet behavior. Which means putting monitoring, filtering, or logging software on the home computer is a completely legitimate move for you. Insisting that you have a right to their email accounts is fair game too. When you make clear to your kids that "It's NOT a diary...it's NOT private!" you help them avoid the pitfalls of excessive Internet behavior from a perspective they may be more able to understand and appreciate.

Kids have this strange view that as long as their parents don't see it, it's not public. Fom the time they're little, kids mostly get their perspective on "public reaction" to their behavior from their parents. So they subconsciously behave as if the public is their parents. Unfortunately, that's not true. And the worst kind of impact on individuals and families can come from "non-parents" taking advantage of public but unguarded -- and dangerous -- behavior.

Have the conversation with your kids. Internet behavior is public behavior. And public behavior affects the whole family.

Headline Says Predatory Solicitations down, but...

2006-08-10T11:15:00.000-07:00

Don't be fooled - it's not as good as it sounds.

A survey conducted by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Childrent (NCMEC) is being reported widely, with a sadly misleading headline: that the percentage of young people receiving unwanted sexual solicitations, or solicitations from adults, had dropped since a similar study five years ago.

Sounds like good news, right?

Not so fast!
The title of the NCMEC release was actually:
NEW STUDY SHOWS YOUTH ONLINE EXPOSED TO MORE SEXUAL MATERIAL AND HARASSMENT

That's a little different than the headlines you're likely seeing.

If you read this AP article (as posted at Business Week Online) carefully, and further if you go to the study itself, you'll note the following facts:

Aggressive solicitations -- the ones involving requests for contact by mail, by phone or in person -- remained steady
The report found growth in online harassment and unwanted exposure to pornography -- it's now up to 34%, vs. 25% five years ago
Even pre-teens are exposed: now 19% vs. 9% five years ago

Nancy Willard, who helps schools develop programs for online safety was quoted as follows:

"the dangers are real but they are not as significant as they have been hyped in recent months."

Hello?! The dangers are indeed real. And the dangers are significant. The "hype" in recent months has been helpful -- a call to action and an awakening of many to a difficult and time-sensitive community issue. In many cases, the actions that have been taken in recent months in response to the hype are, practically speaking, the FIRST and ONLY actions that have been taken in some communities. The mobbing of MySpace by teens is only a year old. To suggest that communities are over-reacting to the hype is at a minimum misleading for policy-makers.

We have a major problem here. That it's not worse is a blessing, but the way the article positions the news is (in my humble opinion) irresponsible. If we said back in 1980 "Drunk driving deaths have not increased since 1975," would that have been a victory? Should policy-makers back then have said, "Well, I guess we're over-reacting..."

Janis Wolak, a professor at the University of New Hampshire and co-author of the study is reported as saying,

"People have fears that these crimes involve offenders and predators who look at these (social-networking) sites and then seek to identify these kids. That's not really what's going on."

Well, I'm not so sure. Whether MySpace is used as the venue for the solicitation, or just the source of the information that leads a predator to a kid in some other venue, that's EXACTLY what's going on. The study just indicates that solicitations from "real-life friends" are occuring in greater abundance.

And perhaps that's MORE troubling. Whether it's because kids are portraying themselves more provocatively, or because those who are soliciting are becoming more aggressive, or because our kids as a whole are becoming ever more (inappropriately) sexualized, the news isn't good. Do you really feel better that your kid is being sexually propositioned by somebody he or she knows?

So my position is simple: Keep your guard up -- raise it higher, in fact, because we haven't even scratched the surface in really addressing the problem. The headline might sound like relief is in sight. But the only relief will come from taking a stand for real, pragmatic, community-wide solutions.

Juneau Schools Take Step in the Right Direction

2006-08-08T14:04:00.000-07:00

Unlike DOPA, a Sensible, Measured Approach. But...

The Associated Press reported on July 19th that the Juneau School District has decided to block four online social networking sites, including MySpace, on school property. Into the bin along with MySpace went Xanga, Friendster, and Facebook.

Why?
"In examining it, we decided the social networking sites did not have any educational purpose. They were strictly social," said Superintendent Peggy Cowan.

Now, THERE'S a sensible attitude. How simple.

And yet, it took nine months for this very practical solution to emerge. That's the frustrating and inexcusable part. We HAVE to get our act together faster than this. Nine months is, like, 5 1/2 Dog Years, and about the same in Internet time. If we wait that long to implement a policy this straight-forward in response to emerging Internet behavior, we'll have sacrificed a whole generation of kids on the alter of institutional torpor.

The article goes on to say, "The district will not be able to police all sites that might become popular..."

I say, "WHY THE HECK NOT?" Tracking and monitoring software is fundamental to virtually every filtering solution out there. This is NOT hard stuff. Parents, you need to demand more. Administrators, you need to kick it up a notch. Community organizations, you need to help raise awareness and make this a community issue. Again, the technology to track where the school computers are going is readily available.

Come on, folks! Let's raise our game. Excuses are for those who are too torpid to protect their kids and their communities.

With DOPA, Congress gets it wrong...AGAIN

2006-08-08T11:21:00.000-07:00

House votes to restrict students from MySpace

Sounds like a great headline, and you wouldn't expect me to disagree with the sentiment, given my previous posts and positions on the matter. But DOPA isn't smart legislation.

Congressman Michael Fitzpatrick (R-Ohio), who introduced the DOPA act, described social networking sites as "a happy hunting ground for child predators." No argument there.

DOPA also follows CIPA in using the carrot and stick of federal funding to compel public schools and libraries who want the funds to provide a “technology protection measure” to protect “against access by minors without parental authorization to a commercial social networking website or chat room, and informs parents that sexual predators can use these websites and chat rooms to prey on children.” And the Supreme Court has found CIPA's "funding weapon" to be legally acceptable. So far, so good from a constitutionality perspective.

SO...what's wrong with it?

It's in the definition of the sites that should be blocked. Simply put, collaborative networking sites covered by the bill include dangerous locales like MySpace, but also wikis and blogs that are educational and relevant. WikiPedia is a fantastic resource. So are many other collaborative sites that bring in contributions from a broad community of participants. And while you might not think The Internet Parent is among them, it's pretty clear that many blogs can offer pithy, informative, and relevant analysis of current events.

We have a real problem here, no question about it. But passing flawed legislation is not the way to solve it. We need tougher, smarter legal minds (and, frankly, smarter social scientists and mental-health professionals) working this problem.

To be clear, I strongly disagree with Michael Gorman, the President of the American Library Association, when he said in their May 15th press release, "We know that best way to protect children is to teach them to guard their privacy and make wise choices. To this end, libraries across the country offer instruction on safe Internet use." What a bunch of self-serving hooey!

These are kids we're talking about. That's why they have parents, guardians, and the protection of the community/government/state when we feel we have a compelling interest in their safety. Abdicating our responsibility to provide kids with a safe place to grow and learn by saying, "Well, we've trained them to be responsible..." is akin to letting underage kids buy alcohol after taking a drinking-awareness course. Kids are kids. As the responsible adults in the room, we're supposed to be protecting them.

I'm not satisfied that we're doing our best. Oh, no. Not satisfied at all.

Social Networking -- WSJ's Julia Anguin reports...

2006-08-02T12:28:00.001-07:00

From the conclusion of Ms. Anguin's July 26, 2006 rather thorough article on social networking sites:

After a week in the world of social networking, I came to some conclusions. Really young kids (say, under 13) probably shouldn't be on any of these sites except possibly Imbee. Slightly older kids might do best on Xanga, where opportunities for strangers to connect are limited but the site doesn't have the strict feeling of Imbee. And Facebook is the best option for high-school and college students -- because ultimately the Internet is safest when used for networking with people you already know, or might know, in real life.

Read the full article if you have time. I'd like to draw your attention to three points:

MySpace is not listed as appropriate by Anguin
Kids under 13 shouldn't be on any of these sites
There's an important difference between Facebook, which is about "real world people", and the anonymous or fantasy-world environment of so many of the other sites.

1) MySpace is the most popular social networking site, and popular sites have gravity - they attract more and more participants. At this time, MySpace can't/doesn't do anything substantial to separate young people from adults. Everything is "the honor system". Other sites make varying efforts. Ms. Anguin notes that representatives from the various providers were unfazed when she admitted faking her identity/age/etc. to get on these sites. MySpace is the ultimate hunting ground for Internet predators. I feel bad for these guys in a way, because they are a victim of their own success. But MySpace, as the leader in the social networking milieu, has an obligation to address the hard problems aggressively. I'm hopeful that they will do so, but not optimistic that they will do so soon. I continue to recommend that MySpace be blocked on home and community computers. Keep your kids AWAY from MySpace.

2) In fact, if your kids are under 18, I'd suggest they not participate in social networking sites, and certainly not those that include adults. The temptations are great, the controls are weak, and the dangers are real. Is it worth it? Having a conversation about social networking sites with your kids is absolutely needed. What are they getting out of these interactions? Is there another way for that need to be satisified? How much is enough? Remember, you're the parent, so you have the privilege of (and the obligation to) set rules and limits.

3) Facebook is "real". MySpace and others blur the line between real and "fantasy". One of the classic aspects of being a teenager is experimenting with identity. That's what makes the mingling of adults and youth together so dangerous. Kids are experimenting with various personas, and adults reinforce the personas that excite and please. It's not hard to imagine what kind of personas are going to get the positive reinforcement in a place like MySpace. If you're not participating, and your kids are, you're letting them fall prey to powerful influences you know nothing about.

Social networking isn't going to go away. It's yet another new invention and use model of the fantastically flexible thing that is the Internet. We have to look closely at the ways social networking is delivered, and choose wisely for ourselves, our communities, and our children.

Welcome to the Internet Parent!

2006-07-21T16:30:00.000-07:00

We all know it -- something big has changed in our ability to parent our children. Simply put, it's the Internet. It's an intimate part of the lives of our kids. And it's not a healthy, clean, "hygenic" kind of intimate, either.

Our ability to parent in this environment is sorely challenged. Welcome to the Internet Parent, a place to share, discuss, and learn about how we as the "first generation of Internet parents" can begin to cope with this brave new world as we try to raise our children.