Slashdot Mirror
How Dangerous is Online Chat for Kids?
The hearing launched with Congressman Upton touting his internet record -- notably the .kids domain, now .kids.us. Personally, I like the idea of .kids.us, though some disagree.
The witnesses were Katie Tarbox, who in 1995, at age 13, had been inadequately briefed on the "rules of the net" and disasterously agreed to meet a child predator she'd chatted with online; two local law enforcement personnel, John Karraker and Jim Gregart; Ruben Rodriguez, the Director of the Exploited Child Unit for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children; Caroline Curtin, the Director of Children's Policy for AOL; and Kathleen Tucker, the Director of Curriculum Development for I-Safe America.
Everyone was concerned about keeping children safe online. It goes without saying that this is a desirable goal, as long as it's done in accordance with the Constitution and doesn't interfere with everyone else's legal use of the internet.
The problem is a serious one. Real kids are being lured into dangerous relationships over the internet; charges were filed in one more case here in Kalamazoo County just last week.
The preferred pickup method for child molesters nowadays is the internet: chat, instant-messaging, and email. The old tricks of "would you like some candy?" and "your parents were in an accident, I'll drive you to the hospital" -- those are yesterday's news. Kids growing up now need to be aware of different dangers, ones involving formation of long-term relationships, questions about online identity, and trust.
I wasn't able to find any reliable statistics on how often children are victimized using the internet. The best numbers I found were from a phone survey of 1,501 children, ages 10 to 17, who used the internet regularly. Of them, 19% had "received an unwanted sexual solicitation" (imprecisely defined) but only 3% had been solicited with "attempts or requests for offline contact" or actual offline contact.
And precisely 0 of the 1,501 children said they had been sexually contacted or assaulted due to online solicitations. This seems significant to me, given that 21% of all children -- statistically, hundreds of the children in the phone survey -- are sexually abused (by some definition of the term) before age 18. Unfortunately, 0 is not a number that extrapolates well to estimate how many of the United States's 70 million children will be physically victimized with help from the internet. But if I understand the numbers, it seems the internet is not the most likely source of danger.
A study called JOVIS is in the works and should provide some concrete numbers. According to Mr. Rodriguez, we can expect data from it in four to five months.
In any case, the message our lawmakers heard yesterday was not that we need more laws.
All six witnesses said, using almost the same words, that there is no substitute for parental involvement. Three called for more money and training for law enforcement, to give existing laws teeth. It sounds like law enforcement, especially at the state and local level, is still coming up to speed on this issue. And Ms. Curtin, for AOL, emphasized that ISPs were already taking steps, and suggested patience to allow them to develop an industry standard.
The testimony and discussion was so removed from proposing new legislation, in fact, that Rep. Bass seemed a little bored and annoyed. He had to remind everyone twice that he and his colleague were lawmakers: "As a member of Congress, I would like to hear what recommendations you have for what we might do -- I haven't heard anything about that so far. ... If I could reiterate: we make policy. This is a very interesting problem, but precisely what suggestions would you have for us as policymakers? If you could draft the bill, what would it say?"
Proposals were hesitant. Our local prosecutor suggested mandated inclusion of a CD with every new computer sale, which would explain how to keep children safe online. I'm not sure why existing explanations (here's one) are insufficient; why not just link? And Kathleen Tucker of I-Safe suggested standardizing on "digital certificates," client-side certs issued by an authority which confirms your identity using proof ranging from photo ID up to DNA (!) -- thus allowing children to verify that screen name BritneyRulez333 does not actually belong to a 45-year-old man.
That excepted, Ms. Tucker's testimony was refreshingly sound. She squarely faced the problem of child predators, and quoted Judith Krug of the American Library Association's Office of Intellectual Freedom: children "need to be taught the skills to cope in the virtual world just as they are taught skills to cope in the physical world."
Parents aren't there to watch over kids every minute. Just as they learn to cross the street without holding an adult's hand, so they need to learn how to wander the internet safely. "The value of empowering our children, through education," she concluded, "with the knowledge and critical-thinking skills that they need to be able to independently assess the every-day situations they will encounter while online cannot be overstressed... Education and empowerment are key."
In my opinion, that's exactly right.
But I wonder how effectively government will be able to help alleviate the problem. Knowledge is key, but kids are, as usual, embracing and understanding change, while bored Congressmen sit behind tables and listen to prepared speeches. Last week, I contacted three students, ages 14 to 17, and asked them about their experiences chatting online.
What they thought, and what they reported their friends thought, was pretty savvy. They understand the dangers, are well aware of the internet's advantages, and know how to stay safe. One student reported:
If kids know not to give out their personal information, and what could happen if they do, then there is really no danger. I would feel like I was missing out on a lot if I didn't have the opportunities to communicate online. It gives me a chance to stay in touch with my current friends, make new friends, meet interesting people, and find a group where I feel like I belong.
Another student reported:
I chat to other people almost every night, or whenever I get the chance to. I do not see chatting on-line as being dangerous, or otherwise harmful. Sure you always hear those stories about 12 year old girls chatting with 45 year old men, but I see online chatting as a way for people with similar interests to discuss and debate interesting topics. ...I strongly believe that if you chat online with people that you do not know personally, you should figure out what this person is really like, and if you can trust them or not.
Finally, I traded several emails with one girl who had chatted online extensively for years, and has met in person "at least 10 or so" other kids whom she first found on AOL -- including a meeting with some boys from another state.
This might seem like a recipe for disaster. But, not only was her protocol for establishing trust detailed and thorough -- paranoid even -- but she readily explained to me her reasoning for each step along the way. She's a poster child for "education and empowerment." And I doubt she's unique:
How did I know to be careful about creeps on the internet? It would be hard not to know nowadays. With an Oprah special about it practically every week, and news documentaries and polls, the facts are pretty much right out there for you. It's like taking candy from a stranger, it's common sense I guess... The types who would fall prey to an online creep would just as easily be a victim to a creep in real life... If the topic of internet chat comes up in school, teachers will almost always preach about safety and weirdos and such. So pretty much the topic of internet safety is inescapable -- it just depends on how well you listen to it.
I hope that's true for every young person.
the only danger of kids chatting on irc is them becoming script kiddies
What, did they meet at the Dairy Queen that also serves as the town hall? Kalamazoo sure is a bustling place where all sorts of people have easy access to show up and voice their opinions.
>This event will not be webcast.
>
>The free Real Player basic is required in order to
>connect to this broadcast.
odds are, there's more preverts online, than in your neighborhood. so, you might consider being at least as cautious about your kids online activity as you are about their activity outside your home/on the block.
Is opening your computer to huge microsoft security holes.
"The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." - Bush 05
Well I think that meeting people from online chat is still somewhat dangerous, but some people are over-paranoid; some people say that you shouldn't tell people your email address or state without permission from a parent--yeah, like they'll know who Tom in Massachusetts (me) is out of tons of people.
Tom
Tired of free iPod sigs? Subscribe to my blacklist
Sure you always hear those stories about 12 year old girls chatting with 45 year old men, but I see online chatting as a way for people with similar interests to discuss and debate interesting topics.
So 12 yeard old girls and 45 yeard old men have similar interests? Right....
Who is this Karma guy and why is he bad ??
It was at a Kalamazoo burger king that the Risen Elvis was first sighted back in the late 1980s.
It's as dangerous as letting kids talk to strangers anytime. Doesn't matter if there's a computer between them. You may think since there's distance, it's better, but the false sense of security makes it just as bad, possibly worse.
Most parents wouldn't let 8 year old tommy wander around and talk to any people he finds, so why do they let him do that online? Strangers are strangers no matter where you meet them.
Parents, watch your kids (and talk to them), and don't expect the government or someone else to do your job.
(1) Take Interest in your kids dammit. No matter how important your work is, family always come first. Get your friggin priorities straight.
(2) Ask yourself whether your kid needs a computer that soon. And why. Books might be better.
(3) Take the computer to the living room and out of the kids bedrooms. Keep a watch over what they do.
(4) Be frank with them. Tell them what worries you and what they should not be doing. Take action. Dont be passive.
Rapid Nirvana
OK, there was a story on how the internet is "Fueling Hatred and Misunderstanding". Now, online chats are dangerous for kids.
Stories on pedophiles, Islamic extremists on the internet ... what is the Slashdot agenda here?
Hey Cassidy!!! Happy 13th b-day!! you don?t know me, but i am a 13 yr old girl who wants to be your PEN PAL!!! i checked out ur user profil on AOL. my name is brittney & i just turned 13 and want to talk to other 13 yr olds about stuff like NSYNC (the best!), math homework (yuk) and how you shower togethe with your little friends after gym class and what they look like! it?s okay to talk to me about ANYTHING ?cause I?m just a 13 yr old girl like you!! Write back soon!!! p.s. do u have a favorite pair of panties rite back soon ok
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
If i can't have kids send them to me in IRC chatrooms with the name d4rkF0x and
Since I was 13 or so, and the only possible way to get screwed over by predators online is to be a complete MORON! I mean, do these idiots ride the short bus to school? I've met probably 10 people outside of the IRC channel meets I've been to, and while some of them have been real @ssholes, none of them have been Lester the Molestor. Stop being stupid, people!
It's a shame that so much of our children's web access is unsupervised though; nothing takes the place of mindful parenting!
In my country (the Netherlands) there was a report on tv by a journalist who followed up on a story by a 14 year old kid. This kid was being 'harassed' in a chatbox by an older man who kept trying to meet with this kid. The parents tried to stop this by going to the police, but they could do nothing about it because up till then nothing unlawful happened.
The journalist spoke with the parents and together they let the boy make an appointment. When the time was there not the boy stepped in this man's car, but the (famous) reporter. The man turned out to be a teacher and I believe trainer of a boys football team. This will surely wreck his career and personal life, in spite of the fact that nothing really happened.
But the important part is that *if* the boy had not spoke with his parents about this, then what would have happened if he did make an appointment. Surely this sort of thing happens all the time in chatboxes.
Her unfunny joke is more than made up by her frequent and usual sensible and truly progressive writings and speech.
I think the best course of action is to expand existing education of children where we tell them not to accept candy from a stranger and not to get into cars with anyone they dont know to include the internet. Equiping the children to identify these people themselves is the only way we can be sure they are safe, they cannot be supervised 24-7.
The Borg assimilated my race & all I got was this lousy T-shirt
My son was chatting online and a piano fell on him...
The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake those, you've got it made. (Marx)
Sometimes it's better to read before you copy and paste what ever happens on your way. If you carefully read the sentence you have pasted: the second part talks about PEOPLE in general. Contrast this with the first part that talks about DISTURBING PERVERSION. Learn to read before you start shouting. Thanx
Any child should be wary of talking to strangers. Parents do a good job of educating kids on the dangers of talking to strangers, before they put their kids online they just need to re-iterate that it is dangerous to talk to strangers, and that it is no different online. Few children would give out their phone number or address to a stranger on the street, they shouldn't on the net either.
I'm seeing a number of "use something like NetNanny" suggestions. This is poor advice. You're treating the symptom, not the problem. The problem can only be prevented through talking with your children about the possible dangers of internet contacts. They'll listen to you! Only then should such blocking/protection software be used, and only to serve as a reminder to the child that certain online behaviors are unacceptable - that the internet can and is a dangerous place at times.
Please, please, please, don't entrust your child's safety to a $29.95 piece of software!
Online chat rooms are very scary to me.
As a parent I would be extremely wary about letting my children participate in such things in the big-name systems like AOL and Yahoo.
Ironically, I'm sure any legislation would go after the "unsupervised" systems like IRC, while leaving AOL chat rooms to their own devices.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Given these not totally unreasonable premises:
1) You do, on occasion, meet some of those you chat with and find interesting in real life
2) Lester the Molestor can fake being interesting
it's not very easy to see how you could avoid meeting him even though you are not "a complete MORON."
Not that this was anything but a shameless troll anyway, but I'm bored.
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" - Derek Bok
It is ridiculous for a bunch of adults to talk
about the theoretical worst case scenarios.
Hopefully they will look at the case of actual
victims - if parents prepare their kids properly
for internet use, this kind of thing would be
quite rare... if it isn't already.
I personally have come across a 13year child when i was 20y and she claimed to be 18y and would drool and sigh all day as i listened to her as i coded some crap
One day she said her little brother was dead by drowning in the tub - very obvious that she was loving the attention - and to think for a few mins. i was so concerned and then i had to coax her out her father's name...the emails she used to send me had her last name and traced her static IP to a state in the eastern US and used www.switchboard.com hoping to get a hit which i did and called her mom up and gave her a short lesson in how to raise kids.
The scary part was she did actually have an infant brother and she might have actually done something to him. Before you say the kids need to do something more productive, i would put the entire responsibility on the parents.
This confirms the worries I have seen here over and over: That lawmakers believe the only solution to a problem is more laws. It is completely inconceiveable to them that a problem may exist that is not best solved by increased legislation.
Nope, no sig
Billy12345: Hey Jenny, do you have the answer to homework question #4?
Jenny12345: No I haven't done my homework yet.
Billy12345: Well what if I came over to your place and gave you the answer.. and maybe gave you a kiss too..
Parents - and the general public at large alike - please keep in mind that "unwanted sexual solicitation" is not representative of "sexual predators" much less "perverts" or "pedophiles." The unwanted sexual solicitations these kids are getting could very well be from classmates, not random perverted strangers.
Shaun
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
how is this a troll? Just look at the news and you'll see it's ontopic and true!
Its good to see people taking rational and responsible steps towards solutions for such obvious problems in today's society. It is all to often these days that people jump to action not considering the side effects of their actions. I just think this is a great example of how to 'respond' to a situation, rather than react to one.
You are receiving this message because your browser supports Slashdot Sigs and you have Slashdot Sigs enabled.
The real problem lies with people are too eager to give their real identity away over the internet.
People should really start to think logically (and yes I know this is hard for a young child or teenager), but if common sense is applied, you should know that giving your name, address, phone number and pantie size to a stranger you've never met in real life is a tad stupid.
I remember when I was young and my parents told me about "stranger danger". You didn't see parents saying "DON'T GO OUTSIDE, ITS DANGEROUS" back then. They taught their children right and wrong, common sense and most importantly, if something doesn't feel right, don't do it.
Conclusion: Don't ruin something that you don't understand for those of us that do understand.
Why is the meeting closed? No transcripts available? I guess knowledge really is Power. It appears that Empowerment of young minds is better left to our Federalized Education System, eh? LOL!
When you expose children to ideas that threaten the status quo, you need to have closed door meetings on how to challange this threat.
I too have been using IRC for many years (10) since I was about 14/15. I can see the dangers as not only meeting up with Lester, but just chatting to him can corupt your morals and idles turning your children into the freek that I have become.
I use IRC regularly as a way to keep intouch with friends, the channels I hang out in are NOT the places that talk about N'Synch (we prefare music to that sh*t) we general talk about adult subjects or let loose with our ramptly debaurched sense of humour.
I won't be allowing my kids to use chat until I know that they would be able to use it responably. I would hope that my kids have enough love and support from their family that they don't feel the need to indulge in such non-social activities.
My nephew was "approached" on an AOL kids chatroom, while at his grandma's house. I was visiting from college at the time and when he came and told me (he was 10) I promptly proceeded to tell the perverse idiot off and wrote an e-mail to AOL's cyber-patrol people(which I believe to be more of an automated mail system that gets grep'd for keywords rather than read) and never received a response.
His grandmother then refused to let him use the internet at all, and the computer for games only when someone else was in the office to supervise.
Sad, when a kid can't just be a kid anymore, on the net or anywhere else for that matter.
"Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
By 12 kids should know, or at least be tought that not everyone in the world is a wonderful nice person like in the movies. Sure bad things can happen if they're thrown right into the rawest, most honest form of communication without considering the possibilities of deceit and general evilness.
Anecdotal evidence is useless. Congress: commission a scientific study or stop wasting our tax dollars.
The Ornitech company of Warwick, NY happens. These kids went to a bank to open a business account where they were told by the manager that they were only 15y. But these guys went ahead and have since shipped hundreds of ornithoper kits. BTW, an ornithoper is a contraption that flies by flapping it's wings.
http://members.tripod.com/ornitech/
heres the kids's site. Its a nice thing that they could get online, atleast for the kids.
I think the problem with online chat and kids is that they can log on and talk to virtually anyone and there is no control or confirmation over whom they are conversing with. On the one hand this is great, on the other it is like picking up the phone and randomly dialing away to find people to talk to. The advantage with the phone though is that parents get a bill and they can monitor to whom and when a child is making a call. I think the above post about not letting young kids have PC's in their bedroom withhout supervision. It is too easy for kids to log on and get access to all sorts of crap that they may or may not be prepared to deal with. Chat is right up there with online porn, its so easy for kids to access potentially dangerous stuff without parents even being aware if they're not in the room. Netnanny isn't going to block everything. Parental supervision is obviously the #1 way to stop dangerous behavior, but being able to monitor a childs computer use is the only way you're going to be sure. Putting the computer in the family room is a pretty good start.
ive been chatting online, starting out in the stupid compuserve rooms, since i was 11. passes made at me and what not arent very common, although i dont usually set myself up in that kind of situation. i think that the news makes it seem like it happens more than it does because they only report on the negative things that happen on the net. im not denying that there are people out there that are sick and do take advantage of kids. ive met some people off the internet and there are a few things that i always do reguardless of how long ive known them. usually i talk to the person on the phone first. then when i got to meet them i either meet them with a friend (as in, i bring a friend along with me) or we meet in a place where there are lots of people. my parents never really said much about online saftey so i took it upon myself to learn about it. i believe that parents should be involved with their childs online activity, and even though as scary as it may seem to the child, inform them of the potential dangers of people online. it doesnt hurt to inform someone, maybe it will get through to them.
[ sex is evil dot com ]
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I am a parent. I'm not. I meant "if I were a parent."
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Considering that COPA just got sent back for review, this is probably a good time for a discussion like this. It's important that it NOT be a call for additional legislation -- COPA may have harmed kid-sites more than it did pr0n sites, and it'd be nice to see some people with their heads on straight when it comes to protecting kids vs. rights as adults.
Everyone wants to let the internet continue down it's ever deepening spiral, and content that the problem lies with parents. Now I agree that parents must be responsible for their kids, but what about those kids who's parent's won't be responsible? Is it ok for them to be victimized? Do we just write it off as "sucks to be them"?
The parents should do their job, but there are some slack-ass people who should never have been parents who won't do the job. So will we just watch their kids have to suffer the consequences?
This confirms the worries I have seen here over and over: That lawmakers believe the only solution to a problem is more laws. It is completely inconceiveable to them that a problem may exist that is not best solved by increased legislation
When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Lawmakers make laws, they see a problem, then try to come up with a law to solve it, that is what they do.
The summary suggests that more laws will not help. It is just as important to make the right laws, as it is to NOT make the wrong laws.
Although even from the simple quotes they feel helpless, they see children being victimized, they have the power to make laws, and they want to help. They just don't know what to do, and it is quite upsetting to be helpless to solve such a problem.
Now in business speak here is my solution. Get a cross functional team to come up with an action plan.
Get lawmakers, enforcement, money people and experts together. Come up with a plan of attack, ie enforce existing child abuse/predator/stalking laws, educate PARENTS and children. Then go do it.
I think that lawmakers would be satisfied not making new laws if they saw the problem being effectively attacked in other ways.
Someone said it above in 4 easy steps and I say: A-M-E-N. I'm glad that there was not a call for more laws to protect kids from the dangers of online chat. It's certainly something to be concerned about, but legislation is no substitution for attentive parents. I for one am quite sick of the way some parents blame TV, video games, and the Internet for the way their children grow up, and place the responsibility of total child protection into the hands of the government. How many anti-drug commercials have you seen lately that basicly say something along the lines of "...know what your kids are doing and who they're doing it with..." or "...talk to your kids about drugs, they'll listen...?" Don't the same things apply to your kids when they're using a computer?
--Kylus
Idiot-proof something, and Life will build a better Idiot.
However, everyone's "official" viewpoint was "Kiddie porn? I don't see any kiddie porn around here." There was this belief that if we never admitted it was there, it would never be a problem. A few years later, we got the CDA as a result (and yes, the cause and effect chain is pretty direct).
Child predators actually finding a victim through the internet is extremely rare (there have been no more than a few dozen cases in the last decade, even though there are millions of kids online). It's also a perfect story for TV news, and is guaranteed to stick in the memory of people who hear it and don't know a lot about the internet.
You want to know my own personal worst-case PR scenario? Some young kid who plays my game meets up with their Guildmates from the game, and gets raped. For 95%+ of the people in the country, it would be the first time they ever heard of online games. Statistics don't mean a damned thing when it comes to the instincts of parents.
--Dave Rickey
I forsee a time when the home market for off-the-shelf Linux provides turnkey solutions to family computers that parents can feel good about giving to their kids. A solution of this type encourages civil liberties and privacy by showing that the market can handle its own problems without legislation. It encourages children's privacy by allowing parent to feel good about turing their kids loose on the web without watching over their shoulders (literally or figuratively). Yes, parents could secretly monitor chat sessions, but most parents don't really want to do that sort of thing. Parents will feel less need to do so if they can let the computer do the restricting and give the kids a little distance.
Miko O'Sullivan
Indeed. However, I think that Americans are nuts to start with so I don't expect any rational behavior from their part. I think Americans should be banned from chats!!!! They could corrupt us!
Gives a new (and sorta disturbing) twist to his lyrics, yes?
(I've Got A Gal In) Kalamazoo
I got a gal in Kalamazoo
Don't want to boast but I know she's the toast of Kalamazoo
Years have gone by, my my how she grew
I liked her looks when I carried her books in Kalamazoo
I'm gonna send away, hoppin' on a plane, leavin' today
Am I dreamin'? I can hear her screamin'
*shiver*
"Understand you're having a little Jimmy Page trouble."
The problem is not the medium.
The problem is not the medium.
Some kids can handle it well. Others...simply can't. I'm an administrator on a large IRC network, and I've received only a few (three at most that I can think of) complaints about online {stalkings,pedophiles,unwelcome advances} in the two years that I've been an operator.
I think a much more prevalant problem are kiddiots with WinNuke and friends that have abused the medium by {flooding,hax0ring,cloning}. They're not mature enough to understand that their actions have consequences, and that they *will* be held responsible for them -- both on IRC and the real world. I can't count the number of times I've had some idiot constantly abuse, only to sulk back and beg for forgiveness once they realize that it's easier for me to remove them than they previously thought.
Greater than the threat of online pedophiles and creeps is the threat of Washington lawmakers with too much time on their hands and too many idiots among the public demanding that they enact counterproductive and even downright abusive legislation.
Luckily it would seem that while these lawmakers do have too much time on their hands, cooler and wiser heads are speaking on behalf of the public.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
sigh. People if you are a parent watch your kids.
Though on another note. My ICQ has had my age as 14 for almost two years now. And yet I keep getting sex solication from random people. Perhaps we could start going after websites that target or offer sex pictures to children.
-THIS SPACE FOR RENT!
She thinks I just don't get it.
Kids are stoopit. Even the smart ones. It scares the shit out of me.
--
You sure got a purty mouth...
...Everything begins to look like a nail. I don't imagine that every legislator views legislation as the ultimate solution to every problem, but it certainly seems to be a prevailing attitude.
Go ahead and try - it's great big beautiful world.
Honestly who are we talking about here? Kids from ages 10-13. That's about it. Earlier and most of it goes over their heads and older and they pretty much know how to deal with it.
And put the computer(s) in your home in an open common area. The ones that aren't in an open common area you should put bootup passwords on.
It isn't dangerous at all. I'm 16 - I started chatting on Yahoo! at 14 - and I'm still alive. Why? Because I'm smart and my parents thought enough to not only tell me I shouldn't trust to strangers - but also why I shouldn't trust strangers.
Seriously - chat is an extremely positive thing. I've learned more in Yahoo! Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris:1 than anywhere. Had it not been for that room and the people in it I would have never even heard of Linux or *BSD or anything non-Windows. How about that? And I haven't been raped or molested or whatever. Chat is not dangerous - if the children on it have enough common sense and intelligence to know how to protect themselves (this is where parenting comes into play - a thing that is all too often absent).
The problem is not chat - it's stupid children.
We wave the flag of freedom as we conquer and invade.
You're uncritically repeating nonsense like this and you're using the word 'alarmist' to describe others?
Come on -- doesn't that figure (27% for girls, 16% for boys, according to your link) challenge even your limited common sense? At least according to any definition of 'sexually abused' that is consistent with common usage, as opposed to getting one's bra strap snapped in fifth grade?
And no, linking to another site that simply says 'a national study' found it is hardly documentation.
My usual rule of thumb with stats like this is to divide by 10 and then start thinking about whether that makes sense -- 2.7% for girls, 1.6% for boys sounds like it's getting in the ballpark.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
A parent who allows their children to use the 'net unsupervised.
I wouldn't allow any future off-spring the run of my local public library without supervision, there are books there documenting all kinds of truly horrific things. I think the same should be said more frequently about the Internet. Technology is not the answer. Better Internet education and awareness for parents is.
e4 e5
Bah, that's what I get for not refreshing before replying.
IRC can be used for evil. No question about that. But I have direct experience which suggests that IRC can save lives too.
I frequent a channel that is used by a wide range of users, from teens to adults. There are something like 10 people who are there on a regular basis.
One afternoon I got an email from one of the regulars. It was a suicide note. I rushed into the channel and flooded it with the text of the note.
After some brief discussion, three of us went into action. None of us had the person's address, phone number or even a last name, but we contacted 911 in this person's neighborhood and after figuring out a few more items tracked down this person's information. The paramedics got there just in time.
This person is alive now, in treatment for depression, and has a chance for a bright future. If a means for instantaneous communication on the Internet didn't exist, this person might not either.
It is fscked that you hear so much about the bad things that can happen in IRC/chatrooms/IM etc but never do you hear a single word about how they might be facilitating communication and even saving lives.
Put that into your mIRC and smoke it!
Everyone knows the real world is dangerous, but nobody says, "Make roads, stores, malls and all other places were people can meet children illegal". Simply install filtering software and educate.
Amend Don't talk to strangers -> Don't talk to strangers, even if they're on the Internet
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
While this conference sounds like it's a good thing and that it was handled quite well, does anyone ELSE notice that they're begging a HUGE question?
In the same sense that guns don't really kill people either, CHAT ROOMS ARE NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS. ONLINE CHATTING IS NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS. It's the SCUMBAG PREDATORS that are dangerous. That's it. No candy-coating, no translation, no study-group research required.
Once our society (and I'm talking about the USA mostly, but the 'enlightened' western democracies in general as well) figures out that evil predators cannot be 'treated', they cannot be 'rehabilitated' and they cannot be reasoned with - then & only then will we be able to come to a long-term solution.
All we can do is to treat them like the animals they are. You cannot expect to 'reason' a carnivore away from considering you his next meal. You can only do two things:
1) kill him, so he cannot threaten you, or
2) hurt him so badly that he will live in perpetual fear of coming near you.
Sex offenders likewise. Underage girls and boys are off limits. Predate upon them and you should suffer the harshest penalty a society is willing to dish out. I should point out - like the carnivore analogy above, this will NOT prevent children from being the victims of sexual predators. It won't. But it will deter some of them, and those it doesn't deter will (if the penalty is draconian enough) never repeat their crime.
All this fear about "chat rooms" is talking about the symptom, and ultimately NOT addressing the main thing that's wrong. If it's not on the playground, or at the mall, or in the chatroom, or by email, in 10 years it'll be via whatever new medium people are using at that time to communicate. The medium is not the point. The point is addressing the sick creeps USING the medium to prey upon the helpless & naive.
-Styopa
that would be just ducky if irc (specifically the servers frequented by you) was the only source of preverts access to kids. please don't try to tell me that online chatting consists of only nice folks, although i would agree that many are.
He was arrested although no laws seem to have been broken.
Curse these Ferengi.
...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
I heard a little sound byte about this on WMUK (the Kalamazoo NPR station) and in an interview prior to the hearing one of the attendees--Fred Upton, I think--said something patently nonsensical...I think it was "the whole .kids domain will be protected by a firewall". It made it sound like Upton is in the pocket of the vendor who will, naturally, "provide the tools" "to protect our children", i.e., sell the government one more case of snake oil.
How much difference is there between chatting online and chatting with people in real life? The same rules apply: Don't trust strangers.
I only chat with people I know, and occasionally if somebody I don't know approaches me, I would make sure the person doesn't have any harmful intentions before I continue the conversation. Pretty much same to real life I guess.
It's actually less dangerous than in real life. Unless you actually meet those people or unless you're totally obsessed with your online life, there aren't many ways people could do you harm (other than h4x0ring your b0x3n)
Don't quote me on this.
When I am on AOL with my 14/f/sub screen name I get hit on CONSTANTLY! I even put my stats in my profile, along with my sexual prefrences and these dorks keep bugging me and asking my bra size anyway!
Sincerely,
Marv Albert
...its the spammers and their porn banner/popup/dialer sites.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
When talking about childs, you have to treat both the problem AND the symptom. Those young mind do not have built up their mind yet and are soooo easilly influenced. But more, they are just so curious. I remember when I was about 12, I got my first big computer, and I was one of the first to have a modem connection. Well, the first few web site I found were the playboy, hustler and penthouse one. While this is normal, before that boys were getting porn mags, the danger reside in the fact that when they are chatting with stranger, th media used to make their "discoveries" start to answer back at them and to influence their thinking. It becomes a two way media and parents have then much more work to do then before. I don't think that it is good to "protect" childs from EVERYTHING until they are 16-17-18 ..., but some things HAVE to be hide. Would you send your 10 years old child in a room full of pedophiles, thinking they are safe because you have told them to say NO?* Pedophiles are very good at manipulting young minds, you must as a parent keep your child far from them, until they are strong enough to discern when they are manipulated or not. And that, takes more then "good communication" between a child and it's parents, it takes time and experience in real life.
* I'm not saying that everyone online is a pedophile, but on a server with thousand and thousand of peoples, their is certainly a few in each "big and popular" rooms...
I'd rather be sailing...
Roughly as dangerous as sending them to the average high school.
use constant PERL_IS_BROKEN => $] >= 5.006;
My 12-year-old neighbor had one of her friends over yesterday and was playing with my 5-year-old in the yard. I asked her about chatting online. She said, "We're always really careful not to go to those bad places on line."
Even though she was just a neighbor, I felt proud of her savvy.
Then her friend "Alex" spoke up: "You know, I was on the Disney site and saw a listing of places not to go because those places would have like subversive ideas and people I shouldn't talk to. I mean, 'slashdot' is such a cute name. Who would have known it was filled with criminals and perverts?"
He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington."
The lawmakers were asked there. Their time is important, and they probably meant exactly what they said. It's an interesting topic, but all they are there for is to hear about ideas for legislation. He makes laws, and if the people didn't want a law made, why did they want him there? I don't think the problem in this case has anything to do with politicians, rather the problem would be people thinking that politicians are the people to solve their problems.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
www.eFax.com are spammers
There are alot of factors.
A. It depends on the maturity of the kid.
B. It depends on the intelligence of the kid.
C. It depends on the age of the kid.
D. It depends on how easily the is is influenced.
E. It depends on if the kid has responsible parents.
I dont think kids under 14 should be online.
Why? Because most kids at that age could not understand the more adult side of the internet, now i'm sure theres some 14 year olds who can prove me wrong here, but speaking of the majority.
As far as intelligence goes, a kid whos not intelligent, will do stupid things. If your kid isnt intelligent and does stupid things offline they will do it online.
If your kid doesnt think for themselves, only listens to other people, keep a good eye on them when they are online.
Be a responsible parent, if you think your kid cant handle the net, watch them, and guide them through the net just like you guide them through the offline world.
IF you think your kid can handle it, give your kid some privacy, responsibility, etc and go from there.
The government shouldnt talk about this, this is a job for parents, and individual families.
You cannot say "CHAT IS BAD FOR ALL KIDS"
you can say chat is bad for YOUR kid.
The government shouldnt tell parents how to raise their kids. If kids get in trouble from online, the blame should go to the parent.
So if your kid hacks nasa, you should go to jail.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
First, I don't disagree with the need for parental involvement. It is very important and irreplacable. But there seems to be a reactionary myth floated by many in the Geek community: Parental Involvement Solves All. While there is no doubt that a parent sitting next to their child helping them surf is a good thing, do we let the web community become such a sewer it becomes the only way we can let kids surf? No, I'm not saying we are there now. But all laws are not automatically bad, and a continued insistance that the only accpetable way to limit what kids exposure is successful parental training is foolish at best. Because the reality, and I stress reality, is that young children don't have fully developed warning systems. They don't fully understand the consequences of their actions. And they don't always listen to their parents. Because they are _children_. It is unquestionably a parents job to train them. But there are parents who don't do this well, or at all, and we, as a society, can't just throw their children to the wolves.
What's funny is that I have an 9 year old sister. All she does is play UT (of course, with Mutator moregore), Q3, and RtCW. We have a 6 computer setup with 1 being the linux box/modem server. Occaisionally, she plays online games. Well, you cant even tell that she's 9. She seems more llike 15 or so.
And now she's learning l33tsp33k.
So, if you discuss these types of issues with a republican, remind them that government has never been able to solve social problems.
If you're discussing these issues with a democrat, then tell them that there are "greater evils caused by man!" They usually won't dare disagree with you on that one...
Free unix account: freeshell.org
I've been chatting on IRC for the last 7 years. Since I was 10 years old. I've never fell prey to these "chat room predators". Kids just need to use common sense when chatting online. Lie about your age. Don't give out your real name. Keep your physical location private. And if someone you met on Yahoo! Chat wants to meet you in person, say "NO". There's really not that much to it.
Its not you or the governments job to do this.
Kids and Adults talk to each other ALL the time offline. The chance of meeting a bad person offline is just as high as online, the diffrence is bad people online if you are intelligent enough, you can avoid, erase, and never see again.
Bad people offline can kill you, track you down, etc alot easier and you cant really stop them.
Should we make it illegal for kids to talk to adults? please!
What we should do is just let whatever happens happen.
Its the parents job to keep their kids safe and teach them to survive.
If the kid is stupid and gets killed by someone online, they would have gotten killed offline eventually too because theres some things you just dont do, and the only way to learn this is from experience.
You cannot make people wise by laws. or by force.
Its kinda like saying violent movies are bad, no its not bad, its just bad for the more ignorant kids amoung us.
Not everyone is ignorant!
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
This happens offline too.
Theres lots of transvestites and transexuals who do this too.
Face it, if a person wants to be what they arent, they can do it offlinne and online. As technology gets better,it will just get easier and easier to do it offline until we get to the point where any guy can become a girl and any girl can become a guy, and then it will be exactly like the internet.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Unfortunately it seems to be the way many of the Baby-boomer generation think. Even though it was not the fault of the child, restrict the child's freedoms so this can't happen again, instead of educating the child and teaching them what to do when such an event occurs.
"Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
I visited Katie Tarox's website and was quite disturbed by what I found. Two things;
One, her voting - 'have you ever met someone in person from the internet?', I had to vate yes Katie, you see I met my future wife online in 1986. This 'poll' is worthless as it makes no linkage to the age of the person who votes, my wife and I were both over 30.
Two, the guestbook is deplorable Names, Locations, and email address's all laid out read for the potential stalker.
I haven't read katie.com (the book), and question it's value as apparently Katie Tarbox hasn't learned anything other than self promotion.
I won't pretend to know what kind of pain she might have experienced but putting the screws to honest adults because of the actions of criminals is not acceptable, and twisting the truth (the poll), is no way to fix, protect, or change anything. The ends DO NOT justify the means.
as we all know, any proposition these days is sexual harassment. Don't even try to kiss the girls kid!
It's not. Just as the dark parking garage is not the most likely place to be raped.
In both molestation and rape, the perps are most often someone that is close or known to the victim. A woman is more likely to be raped by a coworker, or someone she's gone on a date with, than she is by a stranger. Similarly, a child is far more likely to be sexually abused by (in this order) a sibling or a parent, another relative, a trusted family acquaintance or someone that has authority over the children.
What is peculiar about these facts are that the dangers that are most feared, obsessed about, and reported, are those that are least likely! I don't think this is mere coincidence.
Firstly, the idea that an immediate family member might be the primary danger in terms of child sexual abuse is so frightening and discomfitting that it's just something most people can't process. For women, who simply can't avoid working with men, or dating or being social with men; to be in constant fear of assault is also frightening and discomfitting. As a result, people concentrate on the threat that they perceive as being more controllable -- teaching kids to not take candy from strangers and being escorted to your car at night.
The other side of this is that there is, nevertheless, an awareness of just how insecure personal safety really is. There is very real fear, and that fear needs a target. So the less likely sources of danger are emphasized both by default and because they are recieving the fear that is transferred from the more likely sources.
And, of course, there's the base human instinct to identify a villainous "other" as "the enemy".
As someone who worked in Rape Crisis for a year or so, I've always been very, very annoyed at the attention that stranger rape gets in the media and around the water cooler and in the dorm. Yes, it happens. And, yes, it's horrible. But while an entire college campus might be mobilized to be on the defensive from an individual (stranger) rapist, over the same period of time there are probably several times the number of acquaintence rapes that occur. The obsession with stranger rape certainly does come at the expense of awareness of the greater risk of acquaintence rape.
And just so with various fears about child abuse: Internet pedophiles, satanic ritual abuse, day-care center pedophiles -- even the current uproar over the Catholic clergy -- all of these only account for a small portion of the total child sexual abuse that is perpetrated. But they get all the press, all of the outrage, and most of the funding and education, and support services.
Parents, in particular, have the very natural desire to protect their children absolutely. Any risk is seen as significant. This is a natural instinct. But the truth is that to truly be responsible for the safety and well-being of their children -- as they have a moral imperative to be -- parents must make the mental effort to identify and protect their children from the threats they actually face, not the threats that are the most sensational. Being outraged, or extremely fearful, or disgusted, or any other strong emotion doesn't validate a "policy" that insufficiently protects your children.
I keep telling you people.
If you censor and shelter your children, they NEVER learn!
You want to do the opposite, you want to expose them to the real world, but in a pace which you know they can handle.
You dont censor the net from them, you just dont get the net until they are old enough to use it without being censored. You tell them what to watch for and why, you tell them the net is not a game, a toy, or entertainment, but its real life.
You treat the net seriously, dont sit it next to the VCR and TV in the living room, you put it in the computer room with the books and materials.
You teach them to be serious on the net, and guide them, and after you guide them for about a year or so, you release them to the net and let them learn on their own.
Its the only way.
A bird cant learn to fly without being pushed out of the next, you have to do the same with your kids, you have to push them into the real world at some point, but you do it at a pace they cant accept.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I thought priests were more into assraping?
"You're just scared like a little white pussy. I'll fuck you till you love me, you faggot!"
Parents, find out when and where your kid is chatting and under what nick, then enter the chatroom yourself (you need a 2nd computer), pretend to be a kid of the same age and get your own kid into a conversation. Parents should know their kids' interests so this should not be so hard. After talking for a while, reveal yourself.
I doubt the kid will ever trust anyone in a chatroom anymore.
Censorship is NOT the answer!
You should teach the child to judge right and wrong, not hide the world from the child.
The child wont be a child forever, do your job as a parent and teach them, the sooner they learn right from wrong the better they'll be later on.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
thus allowing children to verify that screen name BritneyRulez333 does not actually belong to a 45-year-old man.
I didn't think Cowboyneal was 45.
(I'm not sure if this is funny or a troll, let the moderaters decide)
I stole this Sig
I don't think a young teen has to be a "complete MORON" to get into trouble. If they are somewhat unpopular, advances from an older person may seem much more credible than they are. Especially if the predator has any amount of intelligence and just tells the child what they want to hear. In today's Chicago Tribune is an article about a 41 year old man that abducted a 13 year old girl from Ohio. He had been having an "online relationship" with her since February.
Are you talking about leftist icon Bill Clinton who signed the antigay "Defense of Marriage" act?
Don't ask, don't tell....
Conservatism tends to be more progressive than liberalism. Racist ideology ("affirmative action") is mainstream in the left, while on the right, the Buchanans get banished to the fringe. Newt Gingrich's "Contract" was a progressive platform of new ideas to limit the power of the rulers... the regressives on the left wanted to maintain their power and the status quo, and they opposed it.
Parents need to tell their children that they cannot talk to strangers online; it is the same rules applied to real life. Should a child have to give out their address online? Probably doesn't have to at all to surf the web or talk to friends online. The same rules we tell our children to abide by in life need to just extend to the Internet.
A few years back when I was at university I got talking to some kid whilst playing chess, the kid concerned claimed to be 18 and we exchanged a few emails whilst we played and then, a few days later I got a pretty heavy email from their father informing me that they were in fact a good few years younger.
I wasn't happy with taking the blame for their offspring, so I sent an email appologising and explaining that their kid that had lied on their profile.
Later that day, I got another email from the concerned parent informing me that the kid had admitted the truth and thanking me, telling me I was a credit to my parents.
I guess what this highlights is the fact that despite the need to protect children, we shouldn't forget to build in some checks and balances.
Tim Brown
Dumbass, it's funny because IT WAS A JOKE. Like Disney has a list of sites that kids should avoid. Sheesh, you're gullible.
I am sure lawmakers find it real sexy (and electorally worthwhile) to make laws about protecting kids from the monsters you can find on that dark and dangerous internet. The fact is that in most cases kids are abused by people they know: "The majority of all children countable under the Harm Standard (78%) were maltreated by their birth parents, and this held true both for children who were abused (62% were maltreated by birth parents) and for those who were neglected (91% experienced neglect by birth parents)" (source Third National Incidence Study Of Child Abuse And Neglect. The NCCAN has a good number of reports on the subject of abused chikdren BTW.
So before spending energy, money and public attention in a law that will impact a very small number of cases maybe it would be wise to focus on more important dangers, and find ways to better protect kids from dangerous parents, priests (I know, it's a cheap shot ;--), soccer coaches... while still allowing them to live a normal kid life and not succomb to Paranoia.
There is no 100% safe society (nor is it desirable to have one), so we have to pick our fights and try to improve it where it really makes a difference, not just where it looks good in a press release.
Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em. (Terry Pratchett)
The one thing I have observed on the internet is that a person's true character shines through when they are hidden behind the cloak of anonymity.
To see this, you just have to go to an online gaming site like Diablo-II on Battle net. Huge numbers of people are constantly lying, cheating, badgering, stealing, bragging, and manipulating. I cannot believe that all these same people would be doing the same things at the same frequency, if they were face to face with someone.
As an aside, I've often thought these places would be ideal in which to conduct job interviews ;-)
I have no idea how this observation can impact or help us with child safety. But at least recognizing this as a fundamental underpinning of the problem may have some value as we further our thinking
my girlfriend.. now officially of 2 years... and i met on the net. it took a VERY gradual, and careful(on both of our parts) way to meeting each other.... we're both happy with things... and i know that if it hadn't been for the net, i wouldn't have met her... i'm not even going to go into all the 'what if's that could've happened if we hadn't got together...
the ultimate thing is to educate, rather than so strongly regulate. the net is a powerful source for expansion of a person's mind and experience.... including social experiences.. the ability to test things out in an online enviroment for people who are too shy to try things out offline is a great thing.. it can lead to them being more social when not online... we just need to teach people the dangers.... and teach them how to handle it... we don't make little machines that follow kids around with camera's to make sure they don't take candy from strangers... because it would be ridiculous.. and this whole thing is ridiculous, too
In order to solve the problem, we have to eliminate the problem. This is how to eliminate the problem. If is a person is caught and labeled a sexual offender, then they get a free .45 round through the head (a very small few cases would be exempt, EX: drunk college girls f*cks the hell out a drunk college guy and then says he raped her and they both concented to it).
I think that would solve a lot of the problems. These sick freaks need to die within 1 week of true conviction with real evidence. The week gives them time to look back on what they did.
Take a childs innocence and we will take your life.
Simple!
There is a thin line between brillance and insanity and I weigh to much to be on that line
having a .kids.us domain when they could just put all the porn and filth under a .xxx domain. That way it could be easily filtered out by people who want to. Where I live the porn store is on the outskirts of town and kids aren't allowed in and there are no teasers on the outside of the store as there are at porn sites. A lot of people are sick of getting this crap pushed in our face everytime we turn around.
~S
The internet is no different from a town commons.
The pervs and your kids are in your neighborhood, along with the dope dealers and the junkies, the whores and the johns, the cops and the crooks. The worst ones are the ones who abuse the opportunities afforded them by their position in society or in their organization.
Society (you?) NEED better surveilance. Its either going to come from cameras mounted on tall poles and monitored by an expensive "security" apparatus
Or you'll just have to watch your own damn kids and neighborhood, won't you?
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Although they were going for shock value, it worked for me. As a parent and former high school teacher, I'm much more wary about these things now.
(Related note: in teacher school, they made a point of telling the male teachers to always deal with students in plain sight of others, such as after-school tutoring at a library or teachers' lounge. The risk of a false accusation to a teaching career can be huge.)
coolguy: hi
sweetthing: hi
coolguy: asl? Im 45/m/ca
sweetthing: you pervert! im only 15! im calling the cops!
Sigh, what could I possibly say about this? A little background: I've been on IRC (Internet Relay Chat) for about 2 and a half years. Over that REALLY long span of time i've come accross some very interesting characters. To put it lightly, if you use your head, and don't act foolish over the internet nothing _should_ happen. I compare it to walking down a street in New York holding a sign saying "I hate Blacks, Jews, and Hispanics" in that case you're asking for it. When you apply this to IRC, or whatever other medium might happen to catch your fancy you sorta see what I am getting at. Most people who are victimized are attention hogs. I'm not trying to justify the end result, but merely providing a plausible reason for my stance. Oh sure, there are psychos in every nook, cranny and crevice of the internet. But for some reason i've only come accross one such whackjob over the long time i've been online. Bottom line, new laws really aren't the answer, instead using a smidgen of ntelligence and discresion and you're safe. Honestly, I don't even think that my parents suspect the level of which i'm involved in the internet. I've met people whom i've built up relationships with, and found them to be everything i've expected. I can't help but agree that laws are not the answer. The appeal of irc is that it's an unregulated medium, and it seems that its going to stay that way. Its run by private individuals and the way its designed its nearly impossible to monitor it. Besides, we have lawmakers trying to. Not people actually involved in the design of the networks will not want anything to do with something as draconian as whats being suggested. And thats my ten cents.
Now see that kid was a moron though, and here's why:
1) Gave out obviously personal and detailed information to someone they did not know
2) Since I am not registered I could not read the article, but I can only assuem they never told their parents about this person
3) Arranged a meeting without their parents being there.
I personaly have met people IRL that I've originaly met on-line. Each time I spent quite a bit of time talking with the person online a looking for clues that they might not be who they say they are (and I have come across a few people like that, that's what the block protocols are for). And when I arranged a meeting it was always with my parents present or near by and it was always some place public. Use common sense and you can't go wrong.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Unfortunately, this can break some web based chat sites. But there are so many porn sites that snare browsers with Javascript (technically, the browser is broken if it can success ... but we already know IE and NS are broken beyond all hope) that even if a kid is savvy enough to immediately back out of an accidentally encountered porn site, he/she may end up being snatched back in.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
As a former assistant sysop on the Compuserve Student's forum about 10 years ago, I personally witnessed attempts by adults to engage teens in sexually oriented chat. Part of my duties were monitoring the chatrooms and keeping logs of conversations that occurred there. I personally complained to CIS management in several cases where a teen was approached by an adult with inappropriate conversation. CIS would take action with regard to these complaints.
Now this isn't a call for draconian legislation. The Internet is in many ways like a large city. There are places where I, as a parent, would not allow my children to go without supervision in a city. Similarly, there are places where I would not allow my children to go online without supervision. Unsupervised chatrooms are one of those places.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
.... because without them, what would happen to our major grouse against M$ ? "So what if another buffer overflow was discovered today ? It isnt like anyone is really going to abuse it ...."
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
I've spent about 8 or 9 years on IRC. Something like that. I can't remember.
:) I'm sure there is a few. And the parents usually don't have a clue until the police show up on the front doorstep.
The one thing I see time and time again, is parents using the computer and the internet as some kind of babysitter - like parents have been doing with television for the past thirty years.
And what amazes me every single time, is when the parent becomes concerned and contacts the provider of the chat service, or the ISP, to control their kid!
I kid you not.
The internet is not a babysitter. Its a lot of things, but it's not a babysitter. If you want to use it as such, do as suggested and *educate* your child before letting them roam free on the net. And for gods sake, monitor their activity!
How many people out there know of teenage kids who do carding for a hobby?
"My Johnny? But he's a good boy! He just plays that Quake thing on the net!"
I think the issue is not simply protecting children from pedo's, or whatever. I think it's about educating them as to what is socially acceptable behaviour on the net, and what isn't.
Anyway.
[/rant]
It makes me so sick how disconnected parents tend to be with their kids. Whenever something bad happens to a child, they point fingers everywhere but in the mirror. I have 2.5 children (one is yet only a fetus, hence the .5) and I am not at all financially secure, but I'll sooner walk the rims of the hellblaze than entrust the social developement of my children to popular opinion (laws/regulations) or to the reliability of some 'NetNanny' or similar lines of code.
It's the same BS we see all the time. From chatrooms to porn sites. From the Columbine Massacre to the Mailbox Pipebomber. A bunch of overgrown infants who haven't spent enough time with their parents to learn social skills and the value of human life. It is the parents' responsibility to teach that to their kids!
I feel so bad for the children who must live with such irresponsible parents.
-Fascist Christ
I've been using the internet for a long time. Before that I was a BBS user, and participated in numerous discussion groups online. I was using BBSes when I was a teenager of the age-group in question, so my experiences are applicable here.
There is no question at all in my mind that children will be careful about meeting strangers. Online, even to a kid, there is no mistaking that not everyone is what they appear to be and that not everyone is nice. Kids form the ability to pick friends and enemies early, if you can recall your days in elementary school you will agree. There are the odd kids who haven't got this ability, or that trust too much. It is these same kids that get into trouble with the candy tricks and so forth. An element of parenting and education, and an element of individuality applies, so this problem is not new.
When I was frequenting BBSes and using the chatlines that existed at the time, I did indeed meet numerous people from online. It was always in a public place, and always with a group. Later on, once I knew the people, I might meet them one on one. I never got into danger, because I followed the same sense of caution I would use when dealing with anything unknown. Yes, there is an element of risk, but when isn't there?
Later on, after I got onto the Internet, I even went so far as to fly down to another city to meet someone I had met online. Boy was that fun!
So on the other topic, the unmentioned "sex". The article seems to skirt around the fact that one of the things people want to protect children from is sex. When children become interested in sex, they will seek it out and find it. When they are un-interested in it, they will avoid it, and leave disturbing situations promptly. Online is a safe place for children to learn about sex, discover their own sexuality, and become informed about it. This will happen offline on it's own too, but at least online there's no diseases, no pregnancy risk, no rape (under what other circumstance other than via the telephone can you just turn off the device to get rid of an unwanted sexual encounter?) We may not like that our children will find out about, what they might like or dislike, who they may interact about and what kind of interactions they may have.. We may even strongly dissaprove of the materials and choices of interactions, but our approval will not change what their interests are and who they interact with. Denying access to the matierals and people they want access too will cause them to find another outlet (or inlet).
I agree fully -- education is key. Parents must teach their Children a sense of caution, an understanding of the world around them, and teach their children to make judements on their own.
And that, folks, is my 2 cents worth.
A chat room is no more dangerous than the society that is communicating through it. There is nothing inhereantly wrong about a particular communications medium. I fkids are getiing stalked and preyed upon through chat rooms, it's just a symptom of an even larger problem in soicety itself. The answer will not be changing chatrooms, the answer will be changing ourselves.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Lester the Molester!!!
there was a leader at scout camp who had the name lester, lets just say it was a bad first name to have ^.^
I live in a giant bucket.
Going to school: There are countless examples of school violence, making school a very dangerous place to be.
Riding in an automobile: Thousands of people are killed or injured in automobile accidents each year
Walking: Hundreds of children are attacked, kidnapped, etc, while walking outdoors. This makes walking unacceptable.
Bicycling: Thousands of children are injured due to bicycle accidents every year, due to either loosing balance, or worse, colliding with other objects (cars, trees, other bikers, etc).
Sports: Sports related injuries are among the most common child danger.
Sedentary lifestyle: Not exercising leads to poor health that shortens children's lifes and reduces the quality of life.
Flying: Airline accidents claim dozens of lives every year.
Listening to music: Excessive music can damage a child's ears.
Typing on a computer: Heavy use of computers can lead to carpal tunnel syndrome, a debilitating condition.
In case my point isn't clear by now, everything we do carries dangers. To outlaw something based on its negative side without considering its positives is generally not a good thing.
For every post, there is an equal and opposite re-post.
As the author of this article well knows (Hey Jamie! it's The Magician ... heh.. what's up?) i've been online for 14 years now.. i turn 26 this Friday.
I turned out ok.
If your kids are agreeing to meet up with strangers without having any clue about them, or are being tricked into doing stupid shit, it's YOUR FUCKING FAULT YOUR KIDS ARE STUPID. It makes me sick when I see news stories about kids getting preyed upon by internet people. I look at these kids and go "THESE KIDS ARE FUCKING MORONS".
Just my insight into the "problem".
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
As a chat site operator, my company rated our site using PICS tags, put meta tags that would trip any filter, put warnings about this site is not for kids, even registered with some filtering software.
It's hard to tell how much worked and how much didn't, but we tried everything except forcing ID cards or credit card validation on our users.
That's where we draw the line.
We expect parents to pick up at least some of the responsibility of watching their kids. Which is, in all honesty, asking too much from some parents.
Tuesday, May 14 2002 - New York, NY
In a nationwide epiphany the likes of which haven't been seen since people realized due to the Enron collapse that (GASP) investment analysts might not have their best interests at heart, parents nationwide suddenly realized that television, video game consoles, and computers are not actually necessary to the raising of a child.
May Johnson, mother of Jonathan, age 8, and Michelle, age 11, was stunned when she realized over the weekend that a mid-day power outtage due to high winds in the Tuskaloosa area allowed her to have the longest conversation she's ever had with her children.
"When the TV popped off, at first Shelly & I just sat there kinda stunned, looking out the window at the trees being blown around. Then Jon came in from his room & said something about the wind must've blown down a line, & how it messed up a game he was playing. We talked about the weather a bit, & that led to Michelle talking about how windy it was at soccer practice & how it affected her shooting. We ended up in the dining room playing Trivial Pursuit, talking and laughing about the questions before they helped me make dinner. I was watching Shelly cut up the veggies when I realized we hadn't really talked to one another about anything for a couple of weeks, 'till then. Heck, it was about 7 before we realized the power had come back on about 2 hours before, but we were having too much fun to go back to whatever it was we were doing. When my husband got home that night we talked about it, and decided that we're cancelling our cable. For the $50 a month it costs we figure we could take the kids camping or something & get more fun for our money.
In the wake of similar comments, investment analysts for the tech industry were widely downgrading the stocks of such stalwarts as Sony, Disney, and AOL/TW.
"We don't quite know what people are doing with their time lately, but they sure as heck aren't watching TV or surfing the 'net" said Derek Cashmacher of Citicorp as he downgraded AOL/Time Warner from "BUY BUY BUY" to "buy".
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
in fact, that Rep. Bass seemed a little bored and annoyed. He had to remind everyone twice that he and his colleague were lawmakers:". . .
Clearly the intent of the hearings was to generate interest in a bill.
Granted, most of the witnesses and even most of the parents at the hearings were intelligent enough to realize that extra legislation was not the best answer to this problem, but if Bass has his way, he will be producing some legislation that he can bandy about -- Legislation that is pretty likely to be of borderline constitutionality.. possibly outlawing the use of IRC, or something stupid like that.
It's not that he's intent on crushing our civil rights -- He's more likely interested in safeguarding his legislative seat.. Our rights would simply be collateral damage in the resulting stampede.
Someone needs to get to him and convince him that the hearings are a valuable end in, and of, themselves. Given that education has been most often touted as the true solution, he should be trumpeting himself as the person who made that need so plainly known. Perhaps he could even get a patronage job for a friend's kid making sure that the information gets out to as many parents as possible.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
No call for new legislation? I'm utterly amazed... *stunned silence*
/. forum, I'm preaching to the choir about this (I assume, for the most part at least), but seriously... There are far more important concerns for American children today than chatrooms.
Now then, obviously being a
The thing that alarms me the most is that a House subcomitee is formed to look into chatroom-initiated sexual abuse with children, but one is NOT created to oversee changes and overhauls to state and local child protection agencies. Agencies which, around the SE Michigan area at least, fail most of the time to actually PROTECT children that are in definate danger of being assaulted or molested.
I fear that part of this is caused by the populace at large, however. Most people today are still afraid of or uncomfortable with computer technology. As much as they might have a neighbor beating or molesting his/her kids, they find greater fear coming from the other side of an internet chat, mostly because they don't understand it. This ignorance of the people causes the government to react. Anyone who says the government in the US is no longer "Of the people... For the people" obviously doesn't pay attention to trends like this.
The government needs to STOP listening to every whim of an ignorant population, and start making command decision that make sense, and actually help the people. Your average American doesn't KNOW what will help them, their families or their friends. They fear things as lemmings, afraid only because they don't understand and other are afraid as well. This mentality leads to poor decision making by the people, and ultimately by the government.
*sigh*
-Xeph
This seems significant to me, given that 21% of all children -- statistically, hundreds of the children in the phone survey -- are sexually abused (by some definition of the term) before age 18.
Am I the only one offended that actuall good causes feel the need to stack the statistics by using strange definitions of the terms. By the definition of sexuall abuse referenced, just about every child will be "sexually abused" by thier classmates in school. Given the definition, the only thing that surprises me about the 21% is that the number is so low.
I don't want to detract from this very real problem. I've seen proof that the problem exists thought how busy a local police department near where I live is with their cypercrime task force. They pay police officers to pose as 13 year old girls in chat rooms. Time and time again they get some middle aged pervert trying to get them to meet up with them. After they gain enough evidence, they agree to meet with them and when the pervert shows up they arrest them. You'd think that these people would learn because this is a small town, and the cases get national attention. Yet, they keep setting up meets and showing up.
The problem is real. The facts are there. Why do people need to play with the definition of Sexual Abuse in order to inflate the statistics?
The Age of Consent is effectively 12+ in Holland, so pursing a 14yo boy isn't illegal, and, frankly, it shouldn't be construed as being strange or inherently dangerous.
This guy sounds like a creep, and that's entirely the result of his pushy behavior. Any man or woman who pushed him or herself on a disinterested person would be rightly called a creep.
glop
Letting a child use the internet unsupervised is the moral equivalent of dropping them off at the local strip club for the afternoon.
The web is filled with things that children should be shielded from: pornography, perverts, christianity, etc. Any parent allowing their child to access it unsupervised is guilty of child abuse.
I know, some of you parents will scream that the web is necessary for kids to learn. Thats just BS covering up for lazy parenting. A great many people were educated just fine before the internet. And how does a chat room educate anyone?
Don't go around suggesting that the net be censored because you can't be bothered to properly raise your mistakes. Too bad you didn't put the net to good use and search for the term condoms. Could have saved us all a lot of trouble.
If a child is harmed while using the net unsupervised it is completely and totally the parents fault. Hold parents acountable for their lack of birth control knowledge and the problem goes away.
I called up my first BBS (for you young'ins out there, before the net was massively popular us poor folk went on things called BBSs, one microcomputer's modem called up another microcomputer's modem and chit-chatted) when I was 9.
.
.
.)
:)
Figured out how to set up AT strings, use the interface, and blend into the crowd without yelling out "hey I am a 9yr old boy!"
The computer is indeed a great equalizer, nobody knows who you are until you make a big enough ass of yourself to make it apparent.
Unfortunately SOME idiots GIVE OUT their age online (uh WTF?) right along with their real name and house address.
I learned my lesson after the drunken stoned co-sysop on a board I called posted all of my information up. Luckily it was a pretty tight nit group so no pedos came over to abduct me, suffice to say though that since that time I have been ultra-paranoid with my personal information and you can find my name listed on exactly ONE publicly accessible web site, and the listing is from WAAAAY back.
You see, the REAL solution here is:
a. Minors (or anybody else for that matter)should not give out their (real?) age.
b. Minors should not give out their real names.
c. Minors should NEVER EVER EVER FRIGGIN EVER give out their DAMN HOUSE ADDRESS.
d. Anybody who does an ASL check should be shot dead on sight
Hell anybody else here remember when ASL checks were considered the height of rudeness online and would get a person flamed to hell?
My standard line response to when somebody asks my age (even now days) is to say;
"Old enough to know better then to give it out to weirdos on the web."
Tends to work, a few people are too stupid to get the message though. . .
::does best to keep eyes from rolling::
Then there are the cases of children who steal their parents credit cards, buy airplane tickets with them, fly halfway across the damn continent (or world, or whatever) with those tickets, just to meet up with some stranger who then kidnap and rapes them.
::sigh::
Now for cases of children who are seriously disturbed (by which I mean suicidal or worse) then yah sure I can understand them having 'problems' and that it may very well not be the parents fault (too much at least. . .
But in SOOO many other cases it is just a case of the child being a stupid sh*t and thinking that BigDickedBob on the net cares more about them then their parents do. While I cannot speak for the child's parents;
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD THE DAMN GUY IS A PEDOPHILE YOU DO *NOT* WANT TO MEET UP WITH HIM!
In other words children just need to be taught common sense.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Chat scares the shit out of me. Because of it, I've had to explain what a 'pedophile' is.
Perhaps you should have explained that anyway, if in fact you really do have a daughter and aren't just shamelessly trolling (and if you have reached parental age without learning to spell "loser" correctly, I hope you aren't helping kiddo with her homework!).
I swear I hear the word "pedophile" every 2 minutes on the TV news these days. Yes, it's an ugly thing to have to explain to a kid, but you have to, just like you have to explain when little Timmy comes home and asks "Why did Billy-Bob call Ira a 'kike' at school today?".
Freedom: "I won't!"
From the article:
Of them, 19% had "received an unwanted sexual solicitation"...
...the other 81% were the ones who were SENDING unwanted sexual solicitation. (Think horny, puberty-laden 14-year-old boys...)
Over here in the US, we call them "confessionals".
My little brother managed to circumvent the locks my dad set on AOL. When my parents found out, they took his PS2 away from him and gave it to me.
I put about 40 hours into Final Fantasy X during finals week.
Now that's what I call dangerous.
--Just because you can doesn't mean you should--
I'll take this bit by bit.
:-)
"(1) Take Interest in your kids dammit. No matter how important your work is, family always come first. Get your friggin priorities straight."
Letting your children or teenagers use the internet by themselves is not necessarily due to a lack of parental interest. Often it is an escape from the overly interested parents that a child can finally have the freedom and privacy s/he craves for through personal use of the internet.
"(2) Ask yourself whether your kid needs a computer that soon. And why. Books might be better."
We all need computers. Firstly, young children use them invaluably as educational resources where books are seen as "boring". A dyslexic child will find it very hard to read a book, but an interactive program can help enourmously build confidence back by removing the difficulties the child experiences in being restricted to books. Older children need to learn computing skills for later work, and for effective use of resources. A school project on solar energy would take hours of trauling through useless books in a library often several miles away, where learning how to effectively search the internet can produce useful information in minutes.
"(3) Take the computer to the living room and out of the kids bedrooms. Keep a watch over what they do."
A computer in the living room? What is this world coming to? Televisions are ugly enough, but a computer being encouraged to become an integral part of family life? Children need privacy. Parents wanting to read emails is just as insulting as them opening your letters. I'm sure you can remember the absolute fury and feeling of lack of trust when your parents cannot leave a child or teenager to write their own emails.
To be honest, children under 12 are not interested in porn and cannot type fast enough to enjoy chat properly. The most we can do is encourage written communication through email- I sincerely doubt children would be writing letters by hand to each other so emailing is wonderful for encouraging this. Teenagers need their freedom so long as it is informed.
Teenagers chatting is perhaps more of a concern than young children. I know only too well that it is easy to think you have found the perfect partner on the internet, particularly if you are having difficulties in real life friendships. When I was 16 I met a guy off the internet who was 20. I'd never had a bf, and never kissed a boy. I met him in London, 50 miles from home, telling my parents I'd gone to the local town to meet friends. He took me to a park and did everything to me except actual sex, and I let him because I was too afraid.
So why did I not tell my parents? Because with all the hype about 40 year old men claiming to be 17, they would never have let me. I asked, they said no. Paranoia can work against parents. If my parents had been less against internet chat, an arrangement could have been made where the guy came to my house with my parents always there.
How did I end up giving him my phone number? Well, I trusted him, and what could he do with a phone number? Okay I now have a strange guy from texas phoning me (in England) pronouncing my name wrong claiming he loves me every few months, but it's not exactly harassment.
So what do I think should happen? Stop parents becoming paranoid! It simply accentuates the distance between the child and the parent. The child feels trust towards those s/he chats to, and the parent feeling convinced whoever it is s/he chats to is a serial rapist does not help. Teenagers who use chat feel like they have finally made real friends. Real friends chat on the phone, meet up occasionally and have a good time. Parents must try to understand this, and should two children decide to meet, then simple precautions must be taken. Other than that, children should be encouraged to chat on the internet. I have talked to many interesting people, ordinary people, culturally different people and males and females of all ages, and I can only say that it has enriched me and my ability to understand people in the real world too. Lastly, I totally agree with (4)
Generally the conservatives stand against government legislation whenever possible.
This is such a bunch of crap.
Historically there was some truth to this and it's still in the platform but in reality it is patently false.
They're all for hands off of business, but they will regulate the shit out of personal freedoms. Now before you get all up in arms and point out all the failings of the democrats, let me save you some time.
They are almost exactly the same.
21/m/ca ~*kewl*~
The REASON the average "sexual predator" has moved online is because its EASIER. Not so much because chatting online is inherently dangerous, but because parents, in all their infinite wisdom, have decided that while walking around in public presents a certain danger, and have warned their children accordingly, have also decided that while their child is ploped down in front of a computer that no harm could possibly come to them.
The world is full of rapists, child molesters, murderers, speeding drivers, drug dealers, gangs, bullies, rabid dogs, and D&D players, all of whom are waiting around the nearest corner to pounce on your child the minute they wander outside into that cold cruel world. Its just SO MUCH SAFER to leave them inside. They might be vegging out in front of the TV set, but at least they're safe. And what is the computer but a glorified TV, right?
In many cases, children feel isolated. If they can't find friends in school or in the neighborhood, they will reach out wherever they can, and chat rooms are the perfect way. Parents NEED to realize this. The biggest problem with chat rooms, assuming there is one, is that there is the illusion of anonynimity. This person doesn't know me. They don't know what I look like. They don't know I have a hard time talking in public. They don't know I have no friends. All they see is words on a screen. I can feel comfortable with these people. And some of them know how to take advantage of that fact.
Even giving out personal information isn't the big problem. The problem is agreeing to do things with someone online that you would never do with someone in real life. A child might never feel the need to lie to his/her parents about meeting some other person that they met in real life, but would do so when compelled by someone online that they've never even met. Children are not yet the greatest judge of character. Its even more difficult when facing someone with significant experience in life and some degree of skill with manipulation. That's the entire reason why statuatory rape laws exist. Not so much because the child doesn't know how to say no, but because its really easy to convince them to say yes (at least as far as the law is concerned).
However, no matter how easily manipulated a child may be, they understand well enough to avoid taking candy from strangers in public. Why? Because parents have instilled in them the fear of doing so. They could easily do so with people online. Make sure they understand that until they've met someone in person, with the parent's approval, they should assume that nobody is what they appear or claim to be. A child can understand this concept with little difficulty, but not if nobody bothers to explain it to them.
Most abuse, online or off, is committed by people that the victim knows and trusts. It's important that trust isn't given out lightly.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
I would be very wary of letting my kid
use the "kids-only" chatrooms on AOL,
or any other service for that matter.
That's kind of like putting sheep into a corral
and giving the wolf a highly visible and
clear path for attack.
If there are going to be "kids only" areas,
they should be supervised at all times by
the parents of the kids who use them, and perhaps
even someone from law-enforcement who in turn
is monitored to make sure he/she is not engaging
in sexual misconduct.
So what's the deal here. I've noticed a trend in these " must be stopped for the children's sake" causes. They seem to all stem from small towns in midwestern states (These witness', arcades in Indiana). So again I ask, what gives? Is there just a massive designate of the nations geography that needs to recieve a good smack upside the head for not being able to figure out how to manage their children? You take New York, LA, Chicago and everyone is fine. I'm just...I don't know. Ticked would be the word. Has anyone else noticed this?
---------
Launch all sig
When I read item 1, I said "right on!" Parents need to talk to their kids extensively. That is how you're gonna know if something is going on. That is also how you are goin to teach them to have "common sense" which, IMHO, is the most valuable skill in the world.
When I read item 2, I thought that you might actually be on to something there. I was read to at a very little age and have always read a lot since. However, I have also used a computer since I was about 6 or 7 and I believe that kids should be familiar with technology from a very young age.
Things were going fine until I read item 3. Then it became very clear to me that you do NOT trust your kids! This is the most crucial aspect of any parent-child relationship. If you show your kids that you trust them, they will trust you more, which becomes especially important in item #1. And besides, who wants to use the computer in a family room? People can then read your email, instant messages, and see whether or not you are actually doing your homework. While this may appeal to many parents, they must realize that responsible behaviour on the computer is something that kids must learn on their own!
Item 4 didn't do much to redeem you. As far as I'm concerned, my point is this: impart your knowledge and concerns to your kids, but then TRUST them to take them into consideration! My parents almost always followed this philosophy, and while it did have some pitfalls, nothing really bad ever really came of it. I can't emphasize it more, give your kids some time on the comp by themselves if they want it. If you have done your job as a parent and your kids trust you, no serious harm will come of it.
P.S. Seeing as I'm 17, and barely finished the stage in my life that you seem to be concerned about, I would say that my perspective on this situation is fairly important. So please give some thought to what I have said, and give your kids a chance.
> These kids went to a bank to open a business account
> where they were told by the manager that they were only 15y.
Great. Next time I forget my age I will check with my
bank manager.
The Catholic religion has perverted/butchered the gospel of Christ. They have attempted to highjack Christianity by a bunch of Mob Bosses and queer bishops. Heck, I bet the "good" bishops refer the "good" young boys right to the Pope!
I remember when i was 11 and trying to get on to an adult BBS. I somehow managed to screw up the BBS and a couple minutes later, *ring* *ring*..
me: "hello?"
nerd: "you just call my BBS?"
me: "no, it was my brother"
nerd: "if you ever call again i'll come over there and bash your fucking head in"
*click*
Angry BBS nerds were somewhat less subtle than these modern AOL pervert types. Ahh the good old days.
I did not call again and, sadly, had to wait for the porn revolution known as the internet.
Christ a Jesu! I wish I was a moderator because I would mod this way the hell up. Your openness and frankness about your personal experience is amazing and it can be taken in two ways:
If I were a paranoid, over-protective parent, I would think, "yep, this is exactly why kids/teens should never chat or use e-mail. I mean look at this! This proof is right here! This guy almost had sex with her the first time she kissed a boy! I know my kids will never use the internet. No-sir-ee."
If I were a 16-year old boy, I would think, "THANK YOU for your point! If parents would just take an _interest_ in the kid's internet life instead of demanding to see every e-mail they've written, something like this would not have happened. If parents would just be calm, cool, and understanding, things like this just wouldn't happen." But of course, parents need show this kind of 'interest' at an early age...remember its an interest, that's all, an interest in the kid's life. Ugh, I doubt I'm making any sense...I'm too emotionally stirred by this.
Hargun
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
You realize the Catholic religion is THE Christian religion right? And that the other churches (ie Protestants) broke away from it?
And judging an entire institution based on the actions of a few is quite silly.
Ok not that I do this stuff myself, but this is what I try to do:
I try and encourage my children to learn things on their own, with as little help as possible, to be proud of the things they've learnt. But privacy is an issue for me. They are really small so privacy is not such a big deal, but I know it will be.
I was really sad to read that post and see what had happened to you in london. I've heard a lot of people: my partner, her mother, her ex husband, as well as many friends - who have gone through similar experiences. The key is that whilst most people had to deal with this on their own, or had even worse experiences after they said it to someone, a precious few actually were able to say it to their parents, and miraculously, their parents did not freak out but actually helped deal with the situation!
I know it comes with experience. It's not something you can learn and apply from theory, but when my children get to the age where they will be more in danger of having this kind of experience (and the days are getting closer) - I don't want it to happen of course, but I want to be able to help! When my partner told her mum it had happened, she just comforted her, and told her about when she'd gone through the same. And then, without involving her daughter at all, she dealt with the guy who'd tried to rape her, and he was never seen again.
So what should I do? I want my children to know what's best, but I don't want to invade their space... I think strength, wisdom, respect are the key. Maybe these are the qualities that guarantee that my parenthood will be positive.
Ale
All of those things have been said by someone or another to be corrupting kids today. You know what? I don't buy it. The major danger, in my opinion, is that those kids will be the ones raised not to be able to think for themselves, to make any sort of decision or to trust in their own moral system without checking with mommy/daddy/church first. Those kids worry me a lot more than the ones who are out there on the internet living and learning, because the overrestricted kids are the ones who will grow up looking for someone to lead them around by the hand, more likely to fall into a cult or an abusive relationship because they want someone to take charge of their lives. They won't know how.
Oh, I'm not saying that there aren't dangers out here on the internet for kids. For adults too, come to that, but hey, life is dangerous. You can't escape danger, not even by shutting yourself in the house with no connection to the outside world, you could still slip and crash your head against a wall. What's important is that people learn what the dangers are and what to do about them.
Several of you have already stated that the best way to deal with kids on the internet is to have their parents know what they are doing online, and talk to them. I definitely agree. I have seen kids who will believe almost anything and who are out there digging for attention because I know someone who seems to attract those kids. Some of them are trying to find too adult relationships for themselves. This speaks not only for the need for parental supervision on the internet, but for the need of some sort of intervention or supervision in the rest of their lives--they wouldn't be looking for something so inappropriate for them if they didn't know it existed somehow. These kids scare me too.
I am freshly through with a Juvenile Delinquency class in college (I graduate on Saturday with a BA in Psychology! yay!) and so I've seen too much that has me absolutely convinced of two things...
It's definitely a scary world out there, no matter who you are...and what's happening to kids these days scares me more than most things.
Kris