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.
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.
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
(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
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!
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
how is this a troll? Just look at the news and you'll see it's ontopic and true!
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Yep - the kid was definitly tought a lesson:
- Next time something like this happens (online or offline) don't tell anybody or else you're the one that will get punished.
Then again IANAP (I Am Not A Parent).
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.
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.
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.
You have to put this in perspective. Suppose you're a 16 year old girl. Suppose someone asks you, "have you ever received an unsolicited sexual comment while chatting online?" Suppose your parents raised you to answer truthfully. If you were IMing your [boyfriend|guy friend you like] yesterday and he told you that he wanted to lick you up and down, you'd answer "yes" to the survey question, even though his comment may have been perfectly OK by you. Even though you may have told him about a similar desire before he said that.
"Unwanted sexual solicitation" does not equal pervert, it does not equal adult, it does not equal predator, it does not equal pedophile. This is how surveys get skewed... By not asking the right kinds of questions. A more appropriate question would have been "have you ever been approached sexually by an adult online?"
I'm not defending anyone, and I'm certainly not defending adults who go after kids, either online or off. What I am tired of, and have been tired of for some 6 or 8 years, are the ideas that:
- kids are stupid and must be sheltered
- kids can't think for themselves or decide who to talk to (or not talk to)
- underage == incompetent
- anyone over 18 who talks to anyone under 18 about anything is a pervert, because nobody over 18 could possibly have friends who are under 18
- the government has to protect kids from conversations with adults
A lot of my animosity in this regard dates back to the time when I was remote staff for AOL, and AOL issued an edict stating that remote staffers could not talk to anyone underage, period. As that rule was worded, remote staff weren't even allowed to have conversations with minors offline; not even their own kids. What if a child was approached by a pervert on AOL, and sought out a Host or Guide to help deal with the problem? If the remote staffer acted in accordance with AOL's policy, he'd close the message (since he's not allowed to talk to minors) and leave the child to fend for himself. Some protection. I was not AOL remote staff for long after.I'm not a kid anymore, but I still remember being one. And I still remember being pissed that the government assumed I couldn't think for myself, that I couldn't ignore the random idiot who IM'd me asking if I wanted to get my dick sucked. A random sexual solicitation - even if it is from an adult - is not something that should invoke horror in the minds of parents, assuming the parents have done their job!
The occasional stories about Jane Q Minor accepting bus tickets from some pervert, those stories are as much the parents' fault as the pervert's fault. And yes, I seriously believe that. My parents raised me well enough to know when someone was trying to take advantage of me, they raised me well enough to know what is and isn't appropriate. Perhaps more parents should be as involved.
Laws are not the answer, especially when they're based upon bad survey questions and bad stats. It's a good thing IMO that the conclusion of this hearing was that no further legislation is needed.
Shaun
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
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
The moderation on this says "funny". It's not funny. This is serious folks. Thinkers are being branded in this brave new world. Put on a stupid mask quick before you get loaded into a cattle car.