How Dangerous is Online Chat for Kids?

The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held a hearing in my home town yesterday: "Chatting On-Line: A Dangerous Proposition for Children." Six witnesses came to Kalamazoo, Michigan and described the perils of on-line chat to Rep. Fred Upton (R-Michigan) and Rep. Charles Bass (R-New Hampshire). The most surprising and welcome news of the afternoon was that, despite the alarmist title, there was not a panicked call for additional legislation.

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.

Comments

only danger

[tezzery]

the only danger of kids chatting on irc is them becoming script kiddies

Re:only danger

[gazbo]

Nope, kids are definitely in danger if I'm online and horny.

Re:only danger

[JThaddeus]

From what I see, the biggest danger my kids face from chatting is the time it takes away from their school work. Come on, parents! You mean you've never told your kids to beware of strangers? My kids get a lot from online and email chat--not just MSN or Yahoo but gaming and history groups. I don't mind a bit having to okay my kid into a new group but I shouldn't have to stand-by to approve each session.

I'd also advise lawmakers to look to what the kids do to lead on adults. It doesn't take long on Yahoo! or GeoCities to find underaged kids selling themselves.

Re:only danger

[PlaysWithMatches]

the only danger of kids chatting on irc is them becoming script kiddies

pfft, scr00 j00! 3y3 h4v b33n 4wnl1ne ph0r y33rz ch4tt0r1ng 0n 3y3 y4r 533 4nd h4d n0 pr0bl3mz. d0nu7 m4k3 m3 h4x0r j00r b4wkz3n! h4w h4w!

Re:only danger

[geronimo87]

"Caroline" here is actually Jana from Alscans. She is older than 17. This site is toast if Alscans finds out, they love to club people with the DMCA.

Re:only danger

[56ker]

If people are pestering you in an online chat - you just put them on your ignore list. Pity you can't do the same thing in real life!

my thoughts

[MooseGuy529]

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

Re:my thoughts

[Riskable]

It's interesting that you post this because you're obviously not very paranoid AT ALL:

__Thomas Tuttle__
Email: ThomasTuttle@@@EarthLink.net
AIM: MooseGuy529
Yahoo: MooseGuy88
ICQ: 1484(space added to prevent spam)03856

Most (un)likely matches in Real Life(tm):

Thomas T Tuttle, (617) 928-016X, XX Lowell Ave, Newton, MA 02460
Thomas R Tuttle, (617) 923-923X, XX Bailey Rd, Watertown, MA 02472

An X was added to protect privacy (just a little). I don't believe this is you, since you were probably born in 1988 and probably don't have your own phone line.

Some of your hobbies: Cybiko, reading books (such as "The Giver": taken from here), HAM Radio, Lego Mindstorms.

Member of the Boston Ham Radio Club
You're probably still using AOL as your primary net connection (you're still young, probably paid for by parents). You're also probably frustrated by this.
You have a TI-85 (or similar) calculator that you like to fiddle with (and want to play games on)

All this in just a couple quick searches. Maybe you SHOULD be paranoid. I haven't even looked at your slashdot info (just google'd a bit).

Re:my thoughts

[American AC in Paris]

It's interesting that you post this because you're obviously not very paranoid AT ALL:

__Thomas Tuttle__

*snip*

...I mean, Buttle! It's been confusion from the word go! He's been overcharged for Information Retrieval Procedures and someone somewhere is trying to make us carry the can!

Re:my thoughts

[dasmegabyte]

Great job!

Of course, how hard would that have been if his email address were JLoFan51985@aol.com or his AIM SN was SexyGrl^_^LOL. Most people aren't as concerned with alias maintenance as we 'dotters are. Furthermore, how is this any simpler or more dangerous than a creepy guy following you around the mall, or a prank caller from your math class? If anything, the added layer of specialization needed to get that info will deter all but the most technical predators, and hopefully they have something better to do, like take away Sandra Bullock's identity.

Oh, and feel free to do a goole of das Megabyte. I'm quite proud of some of the stuff out there.

Re:my thoughts

[Moonshadow]

Because this information is easily found if you know where to look, which would assist someone in finding/stalking/whatever some kid if they so desired. Not cool.

IMO, it's up to the parents to supervise, and kids SHOULD be taught techniques for retaining anonyminity online. We have safe sex courses in school, why not safe web surfing? Unfortunately, most parents need a clue-by-four across the forehead when it comes to the web. Public schools aren't gonna be much better. Any other ideas?

Re:my thoughts

[btellier]

Nick: Riskable
Name: Dan McDougall
Birthday: 4/12/78
ICQ: 10161253
Phone Number: 978-590-95xx
Address: xxx Prince St, Beverly, MA 01915

You enjoy FPS's, you run BIND, you're a fairly poor shell scripter. Perhaps YOU should be more paranoid as well.

Re:my thoughts

[Riskable]

LOL! There's a difference between the original poster and I. You see, I have no qualms about my alias linking with my real identity. Riskable happens to be my 'public' alias. Also, I'm male and well over the 'age of consent' (which the original poster is not) so I don't think meeting strangers 'over the net' or 'seeing sexually explicit material online' would be too much of a problem.

Where do you get off that I'm a poor shell scripter?!? The only publicly available script that I've written that I could find is here

It was very simple and to the point. Besides, that was TWO YEARS ago. hehe, I've done a lot more scripting/improved since then.

My info is MUCH easier to find than the original poster (just do a whois query on my domain name).

Re:my thoughts

[Riskable]

Google search of das megabyte:

Results 1 - 10 of about 39,000. Search took 0.12 seconds.

This could take a while.

To-Do List for Parents

[cOdEgUru]

(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.

Re:To-Do List for Parents

[FortKnox]

I hate the "I agree with this post" posts, but goddamn you hit the nail on the head!!

Especially this one:
(3) Take the computer to the living room and out of the kids bedrooms. Keep a watch over what they do.

Yeah, kids like privacy, so don't look over their shoulder. Stay in the room and check on them from time to time. Its all about being an authority figure when they are on the net. Just being within eyeshot is usually enough.
Putting a computer in the kids room is telling them they can do whatever they want on the computer. What they SHOULD be thinking is they can do whatever is acceptable in your household on the computer.

Re:To-Do List for Parents

[overunderunderdone]

All excellent advise, BUT, as one of the people at the hearing noted, Parents are simply NOT able to monitor their kids 100% of the time - and it is too bad that the larger environment makes such draconian monitoring necessary.

There was a time when the larger culture largely supported parents in their goal of protecting their children - sadly that is no longer the case. Now, I understand that "protecting the children" can be disengenuisly used to advance all sorts of limitations of our freedoms BUT that does not necessarily mean that it is therefore NEVER a desireable goal of the larger society beyond the bounds of the nuclear family. Frankly (and I'm sure I'll get flamed for this) I don't see how some of the measures often decried on this board as outrageous violations of free speech actually merit such outrage. Free speech has never in the past meant that all speech was allowed in all forums. It has always been and still is illegal to show hardcore porn on broadcast TV, and all but the most insanely dogmatic would probably concede that an airing of "Barney" should not suddenly be interupted by a flashing images from goat.cx. If we are capable of making such a distinction in that case then surely we are capable of making similar distinctions in similar cases.

Re:To-Do List for Parents

[HanzoSan]

your job as a parent is to teach them to judge good from bad, not be overlord

Re:To-Do List for Parents

[Kintanon]

There was a time when the larger culture largely supported parents in their goal of protecting their children - sadly that is no longer the case.

There was also a time when you wouldn't get arrested and sued for disciplining someone elses child if they were doing something crazy. Nowadays if you so much as ask a child to stop kicking you in the leg in the grocery store their parents will bitch at you up and down about "He's only a kid! He doesn't know better! Leave him alone!". Well NO SHIT he doesn't know better! That's why I told him to stop you moron! I'm certainly not going to lend any effort to helping keep their kids safe if they are just going to raise undisciplined little hellbeasts.

Kintanon

Re:To-Do List for Parents

[abolith]

I agree but don't at the same time. I let my kid have a computer in his room and have no problem with it at all..Because it has no internet access and there is no working phone jack. The only computer that has internet access that he can get onto at home is in the Den, where I spend a decent ammount of time working. As you said "Just within eyeshot". I set it up this way so he has his own computer to what he wants with and someprvacy but I will not allow him his own access until he is 14-16, depending on the maturity level he displays later on downthe road. Of course all this does not prevent him from doing whatever he wants at one of his friends houses that is less controlled.

Re:To-Do List for Parents

[MoneyT]

They don't have to be there 100% of the time if they raise their kids right. When they hit their teens, your kids should be quite capable of determining right from wrong and knowing that a situation which makes them uncomfortable is one that they need to get out of. Stupidity is not a reason to make a law. If you can not raise your kid properly, so that they can avoid putting themselve into dangerous situations (including giving out adress, phone number etc online) then you should not be having kids. As my parents were so fond of saying, If your kids don't hate you and think you're the worst parents in the world, you've failed at your job as a parent.

Now I realize that all the preperation in the world can't protect us 100% of the time, but that's what predator laws are in place for.

As for a time when everyone asisted in keeping kids safe, well that was also a time when you could spank your kid (let me tell you, a little public embarrasment goes a long way towards keeping your kid in line). A time when kids could be lectured and ridiculled by their nieghbors and everyone else for something they did wrong. A time when teachers could fail a kid and instead of parents calling about what a lousy teacher they were, parents would ground their kids. The most horrifying comment I ever heard uttered by a parent was "we can't give [our daughter] a curfew, she might get angry!" News flash, your kids are supposed to be angry at your rules.

Let's start by first taking responsibility for our kids and then worry about the laws.

Re:To-Do List for Parents

[jmccay]

You beat me to sayign these things. Nothing will every beat a parent, or parents, being involved in there kids life in preventing bad and unwanted things from happening to their kids. While a parent can't always be there 100% of the time, you can cut down the damage. Like the comment mentioned above, Computers should not be in a childs room. They should be in public rooms such as the living room or the kitchen, and parents should pop in from time to time surprising the kids to see what they are doing.
You cannot legislate parenting. A parent, or parents, must be involved in their kids life whether the problem is drugs, internet predators, or some other problem.

Re:To-Do List for Parents

[dasmegabyte]

(5) Cling to them. It will make them like you more.

(6) Be paranoid. Kids respect unfounded fears.

(7) Tell them what they can and can't do, because you know best. Teenagers especially have great respect for authority.

(8) By all means, don't let them make their own mistakes. That's not how we learn.

Re:To-Do List for Parents

[rark]

Your point on overcontrolling parents is taken (believe me, mine were nuts, I had to ask to go out on the back porch at seventeen years old. my partner, in contrast, raised his younger siblings -- and by this I mean the two oldest were responsible for grocery shopping, finding the money for food, cooking, cleaning, the whole nine yard, before they were in grade school -- parenting discussions between us get interesting ;) I keep hoping that the disperity in our respective crappy upbringings brings us to a more balanced, better upbringing for our kids)

At the same time the original poster had some good points. Number four, in particular, is something every parent should do, regardless of the age of the child. The rest are more appropriate for children under the age of 13 or so, but are *important* while the kids are younger.

Re:To-Do List for Parents

[rark]

1) Of course, if your choice is work two or three minimum wage jobs in order to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads, or have time with the kids but leave them starving and homeless, the priority starts getting a bit fuzzy here. Yes, lots of parents who *don't* need to work all the time neglect their kids because their career is too important, or because they are addicted to the money. And Lots of parents don't have a choice. Some had a choice before the kids were born. Some found themselves in a bad situation afterwards.

2) It's really hard to type papers with books. Books and computers aren't mutually exclusive. There's room for both. That said, my kids will probably be in their teens before they get their own computer, though they are certainly welcome to use mine.

3) Or the office. Having one room for an office or study type room isn't a bad idea. Easier to convince the kids to do their homework when Dad has homework to do too. Easier to keep an eye on the computer usage when you're using a different computer in the same room. Or reading a book in that room.

4) I agree. Conditionally -- at some point (in their teens) you have to let go and let them make their own decisions. You should still offer input, but they aren't going to take it. This should, ideally, be a gradual process. The worst young adults I've seen are the ones who's parents kept a tight leash on them until they were 18 or so, then just cut them loose. No experience making their own decisions, or being anything other than a dependant child, with all the responsibilities carried by a parent, and then the entirety of adulthood. It's not a good thing to do to a kid. (The worst teens I've seen are the ones who's parents cut them loose around the time they hit puberty. but they tend to calm down by the time they hit young adulthood)

Re:To-Do List for Parents

[canadian_right]

1. Great
2. If the kids wants to use a computer they are old enough. It is a parents job to decide which uses of a computer are to be allowed at what age.
3. This is a good idea for kids under, say 12. Around 12 or 13 kids are old enough to want privacy, and if you have done your job as a parent they should be able to handle it.
4. and these are the rules:
   • Never give out your real name
   • Never give out phone number or address
   • Be aware that it is easy to pretend to be who ever they want.
   • NEVER arrange to meet anyone you only know online.
   • Stop the conversation if it makes you feel uncomfortable.
   • Tell a parent if someone is threatening, or otherwise 'bad' online.

As kids get older, say 16 or so, you have to hope they have learned to judge these things for themselves as you can no longer watch them 24 hours a day.

From Modern Humorist

[ch-chuck]

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

Nasty stuff happens...

[HiQ]

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.

Re:Nasty stuff happens...

[raistlinne]

Surely this sort of thing happens all the time in chatboxes.

Why is this so sure? I don't mean to come out one way or another on this issue, but extrapolating from one case seems to be a pretty bad method.

Moreover, how many child abusers do you think that there are in society? Do you really think that there are enough that the average child is in great danger the moment that they can communicate with someone? If so, if there really are that many child molestors, then what percentage of the population do they make up?

You see, if child moslestors make up 50% of the population or so, then it's really time to worry as fairly soon child molestation is going to become legal.

Extrapolation is a dangerous thing. Always be wary of it.

Re:Nasty stuff happens...

[darkonc]

Surely this sort of thing happens all the time in chatboxes.

The press are able to get to the unusual cases. They tend to broadcast the unusual cases because they are unusual. You don't hear a big media to-do about kids who drown in their bathtubs, or fall down the stairs and kill themselves, or die in car accidents because that does happen more often. Often enough that it's not longer big news.

The fact that there's a big media blitz about it should be an indicator that it probably is an unusual occurence.

For me, the real scary thing is that this apparent child-predator was the trainer of a boy's football team. That may be something that they stepped over because it was just too damned common.
I'd be calling the TV station who broke the story and asking them if they arranged cautionary counselling for 'his boys' on the football team. Chances are that they didn't, and that's where I see the real threat.

Re:Nasty stuff happens...

[raistlinne]

You can't ignore the problem simply because the percentage of child molesters in society is below a certain percent!

That's nonsense. Every problem that affects under a certain percentage is ignored. How much is the problem of serial murderers who eat their victims being addressed? While this isn't a good example (because any type of murder is illegal), but the point still stands: if something is an incredibly infrequent problem, it doesn't get addressed because most ways of dealing with it will cause more difficulty than the problem really merits.

How many laws are there on the books to deal with the problem of escaped elephants tearing apart residential homes?

Now, I'm not arguing that child molestation isn't a problem, merely that it isn't the society-destroying calamity that every child being impaled on a pike would be. Now, if every child was going to be impaled on a pike, it would probably warrant handcuffing a police officer to everyone (a silly example, I know). However, less severe threats warrant less severe measures to prevent them.

the real question to ask is how much of a problem is child molestation really? If literally every child to get on the net were in really grave danger, than we need laws to keep children off of the net, as we have laws to keep them away from alcohol or tobacco.

The point is that there is great potential for children to be lured into a harmful situation in the Internet chat areas.

There are two types of potential: real and theoretical potential. There is of course great theoretical potential for harm. The important question is how much real potential for harm is there. That dictates how much action should be taken.

That being said, of course children should be educated on how to protect themselves from others, on the internet or off. That should go without saying. The real question is how much further should things go? Should it be legal to give internet access to minors despite the dangers involved?

Re:Nasty stuff happens...

[rark]

Why is that the 'real threat'?

Re:Nasty stuff happens...

[darkonc]

A guy that's trying to solicit a young boy over the 'net, turns out to be the coach of a young boys team. I'd say that it's a relatively high probability that he's attempting to do things with the boys on his team -- and it's probably more likely that he'll succeed there, than on the net. Parents tend to tell their kids to trust the coach. They're much less likely to let them trust some random identity on the 'net.

I'd consider those kids to be in a high risk situation, and would stongly encourage that someone be sent to debrief them and make sure that nothing happened (or, if something did happen, find out what happened and deal with it).

Re:Nasty stuff happens...

[mpe]

This is ridiculous. You can't ignore the problem simply because the percentage of child molesters in society is below a certain percent!

There is a risk that concentrating on an unlikely danger means that far more likely dangers get overlooked. Both in the sense of someone being so paranoid about being followed that they walk into things or "crying wolf" so often that by the time a real "wolf" does come along everyone had lost interest.
There are cases where paranoia can actually make people more vulnerable, both by making them stand out and leading to a sort of binary either trust someone not at all or trust them totally.

Re:Nasty stuff happens...

[mpe]

There are two types of potential: real and theoretical potential. There is of course great theoretical potential for harm. The important question is how much real potential for harm is there. That dictates how much action should be taken.

There is also the perception potential for harm. Which has no relationship to real risk what so ever. But is often the metric by which policys are made.

Re:Nasty stuff happens...

[rark]

Okay. just clarifying. Agreed.

Which is, btw, why most pedophiles work to be respected members of the community, youth leaders, coaches, that sort of thing.

creepy.

it IS Dangerous!!!

[dr_labrat]

My son was chatting online and a piano fell on him...

Re:it IS Dangerous!!!

[dr_labrat]

Everything has to be somewhere...

Did you read before you copied?

[VEGx]

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

Be careful!

[neksys]

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!

Re:Be careful!

[i_am_pi]

Yes. NetNanny/Bess/CyberPatrol/etc are easily circumvented and nothing really can take the place of good, watchful looking. My school filters the internet with Bess and I've found no less than 3 ways around it. It blocks most useful pages and everything fun (UserFriendly, allyourbase.net, mp3.com/tlmom), while letting a LOT of porn slip through, and the offenders never get caught unless they (quite stupidly) print it or store it on the server.

Pi
For Great Justice|ecitsuJ taerG roF

Re:Be careful!

[booyaka]

I agree, the problem must be treated, not the symptom. However, the problem is that in America, anyone under the age of 21 is treated like an infant. If kids were given the freedom to explore and immerse themselves in the rest of the world at ages 12 and 13, they probably would have enough judgement NOT to get into harmful situations. Another post mentioned that he would not allow his kids to run free in the public library for fear of finding 'horrific' things. Sorry, but this isnt disney land, the world does have some weird shit to tout, the sooner people come to terms with this and stop hiding behind oppressive legislation that does nothing to solve the problem, the better. Botton line: let your kids chat, but tell them that there are real dangers out there, educate them, then trust them enough to make an informed decision. Most kids aren't half as dumb as people make them out to be.

Re:Be careful!

[MoneyT]

Most kids are quite intelligent. If your teen is dumb enough to be giving out personal information to complete strangers, and dumb enough to believe everything he/she reads online. And easily influenced by a potentialy offensive piece of liturature, you have failed as a parent. Plain and simple, do your job or don't have kids.

Re:Be careful!

[MoneyT]

I suppose that's what we have laws about negligable parents for, but then again, those are usualy used against parents who spank their kids or send them to their room. And true, watchful parents don't solve everything, a friend of mine has some very caring and attentive family, yet she is still in trouble more often than not, but that's where friends, and teachers come in. There are 3 influences on your child's life, Parents, Friends and Teachers. Establishing communication between parents and teachers is essential to a good upbringing. And parents should trust their children's teachers when the teacher says the student is not behaving or acting abnormaly. Then comes friends, parents should really be trying to regulate friends, but as you pointed out, that isn't always possible. In these instances though, one should hope that kids can choose friends which are simmilar to them in views and opinions. If the first two aspects of influence are done properly, the friends should fall into place. But parents are the first responsibility.

Re:Be careful!

[btellier]

But of course, YOU aren't too dumb to do that, right?

Name: Tevis Money
Location: Niskayuna, NY
Age: 18
Occupation: High School Senior
Hobbies: Boy Sprout, canoeing

I wasn't able to find your phone number, but considering how small your town is I don't suppose it would take more than a few phone calls.

P.S. Do not answer back about MY personal info. I didn't make a post about "dumb teens giving away their personal info".

Re:Be careful!

[MoneyT]

Congradulations, you clicked on the link to my home page, pulled my name from there and plugged it into Google. How very talented of you. Again though, it was my concious choice to provide my name and email adress on my home page. I know the risks associated with that and chose to take them anyway. So what if you know what town I live in, that doesn't change the fact that in order for you (or anyone) to accost me in the way that is described in these horro stories, you would still have to arange a meeting with me. Common sense dictates that I wouldn't go to any such meeting. Some one could just as easily discover stuff about me by following me on the street.

Re:Be careful!

[btellier]

>So what if you know what town I live in, that doesn't change the fact that in order for you (or anyone) to accost me in the way that is described in these horro stories, you would still have to arange a meeting with me

Uhm. The point of your original post was that a teenager would have to be a dumbass to post personal info on the Net. Which you did.

How hard do you think it would be to find you? Calling up the scouts, the school, directory assistance. It would take a few minutes to have your address and "accost" you.

Re:Be careful!

[MoneyT]

There is a difference between putting my name on my personal web page and giving my name, number etc to someone in a chat room. One requires the pedophile to actively search for the information pertinant towards me, the other requires the pedophile to do what it's good at, lureing people.

scary stuff

[tps12]

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.

Re:I've been using personals and IRC for a long ti

[Theodore Logan]

[T]he only possible way to get screwed over by predators online is to be a complete MORON! [...] 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!

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.

how about the case when the parents dont care ?

[atari2600]

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.

Re:how about the case when the parents dont care ?

[yatest5]

I personally have come across a 13year child when i was 20y

I'd be more careful what you say ;-)!

Depressing confirmation

[drew_kime]

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?"

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.

Re:Depressing confirmation

[Kintanon]

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.


These people are Lawmakers. That is their profession. They MAKE LAWS, that's what they do. If someone brings a problem to them of course they are going to look at it from the viewpoint of what laws should be passed if any to solve the problem. Apparently the concensus here was that no new laws would do anything to alleviate this problem. So no, they didn't decide they needed new legislation.

Kintanon

Re:Depressing confirmation

[dirk]

He may think there is a good solution that doesn't require laws, but then it doesn't requeire him. Congress makes laws. Period. They don't enforce them, they don't set public opinion. Unless this is something that can be fixed by making a law, there isn't anything he can do. Making laws is what he does, and if there isn't a law to be made, he is wasting time that could be spent making laws.

Re:Depressing confirmation

[Rupert]

But when one of his colleagues proposes son-of-son-of-son-of COPA, hopefully Rep. Bass will remember that his constituents don't want a law, and he will vote against it.

I don't have much faith that that will happen, though.

Questions weren't specific enough

[ShaunC]

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.

These stats are both good and bad. While I'm happy to hear that none of the kids surveyed had been contacted sexually, I have to wonder about the 19% who received an "unwanted sexual solicitation." That phrase conjures up images of 50-year-old pedophiles, just like CNN and the local news hope for. It gets parents agitated and concerned, and it's good for the ratings. But let's get serious. How many of those "unwanted sexual solicitations" were more along the lines of:

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

Re:Questions weren't specific enough

[ShaunC]

Sounds to me, like you're defending or covering up for people who make sexual assaults on kids. Just by claiming that the assaults aren't valid. You sir are a pervert.

No, I'm not a pervert, I'm a Young Adult(tm). I'm 22 and I was a minor just 5 years ago. While 5 years might seem like ancient history to some, it isn't to me. I vividly remember the girls I dated and talked to when I was underage; and I remember the conversations I had with some of them. Let's just say that some of the chats were less than innocent. I'll admit to making sexual remarks without solicitation, but the girls made the same kind of comments to me. It's called flirting. And while I'm not exactly up on the high school scene today (vice principals are checking girls' panties now!?) I can't imagine that it's too much different.

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

Re:Questions weren't specific enough

[Permission Denied]

19% had "received an unwanted sexual solicitation" (imprecisely defined)

Very imprecisely defined indeed. You make the excellent point that this "unwanted sexual solicitation" may be from classmates and peers.

However, I believe these kids were talking about something else. What were they thinking about when they answered this question, you ask? Well, ask yourself (as an adult) where you receive the most "unwanted sexual solicitation."

I'm guessing this sexual solicitation comes not from 60-year-old balding perverts in trenchcoats or from more-or-less innocent classmates. It comes from advertisers. Unscrupulous advertisers. The ones that spam you with herbal viagra offers, penis enlargement schemes and links to hot teen websites with cascading javascript popups, both through email and in instant messaging/chat rooms. I haven't used instant messaging since the heydays of ICQ, so they may have fixed this by now - but, considering the morals of these sub-humans, I wouldn't be surprised if they figure out ways around anti-advertisement measures (or, more likely, they pay a hungry programmer to figure it out for them).

If there's any good that can come about from these parents' misdirected rage, it's that perhaps they'll convince congress to put restrictive sanctions on advertisers, severly limiting advertisers' possibilities.

Responsible steps in the right direction

[pinkUZI]

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.

The real problem lies with ...

[uq1]

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.

Perverts

[huckda]

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.

Re:Perverts

[Aceticon]

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).

They don't know yet?

[Telastyn]

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.

good example of what happens when kids get online

[atari2600]

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.

Re:Stranger Danger

[ThePurpleBuffalo]

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.

I agree that education is often a good solution, but it may be difficult as the children can not see that the bad guy is actually 45. For all they know, the bad guy is another 12 year old just like them. Most children are not suspicious and jaded like adults.

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.

Will kids use it? How will it be enforced? Could they be faked? Will kids know why they should use it? Can you trust content comming from a potentially malicious user?

Secondly, no, kids probably can't be supervised 24-7, but the parents are still responsible for their kids 24-7. It was the decision of the parents to have the kids, not the other way around. It's about time that parents started taking responsibility.

Realistically, I see no easy solution. If anyone has kids that are actively using the net, then the parents should know what they're getting up to.

Perhaps it's not just the children who need to be educated... perhaps it's parents as well.

Beware TPB

chatting

[PyroPixie]

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.

Good timing...

[daoine]

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.

Re:45 year old men ?

[keep_it_simple_stupi]

Yeah except that usually the 12 year old girl is some other 45 year old guy... Gross.

What do you expect

[nuggz]

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.

Re:What do you expect

[z4ce]

Wow are you actually the Real Action Item Man ?

;)

Re:What do you expect

[flatrock]

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.

They have other tools, they just don't make good sound bytes for campain speeches. I guess more acurately it's the same tool used differently. Rather than pass laws, they can block the passage of bad laws that will either make matters worse, or restrict our rights while not addressing the problem. It should be a significant concern to people that their elected representatives aren't interested in undrestanding the problem, just having a special interest group tell them what to do. They can also pass laws that provide funding for educational programs. I remember being taught how to deal with strangers in elementary school. This is just a different spin on the same problem.

The best solution to this problem is the same solution parents have been using in the physical world for many years. Teach your children to be warry of strangers. Teach them not to give out personal information to strangers. Teach them not to go anywhere with or meet strangers anywhere unless their parents are present with them.

Re:What do you expect

[mpe]

They have other tools, they just don't make good sound bytes for campain speeches. I guess more acurately it's the same tool used differently. Rather than pass laws, they can block the passage of bad laws that will either make matters worse, or restrict our rights while not addressing the problem.

They also have the power to repeal existing laws.

It should be a significant concern to people that their elected representatives aren't interested in undrestanding the problem, just having a special interest group tell them what to do.

In the worst case senario the special interest group is the only entity giving any input into the issue (quite likely trying hard to prevent any other possibly interested party from even making an observartion). The utterly worst case senario is where the special interest group actually writes the legislation.

The best solution to this problem is the same solution parents have been using in the physical world for many years. Teach your children to be warry of strangers. Teach them not to give out personal information to strangers.

Problem is that most abused children are abused by people they already know, including parents. If someone can get a child to trust them once then they are no longer a "stranger"...

Open source: the key to parental supervision

[mikosullivan]

In addition to its many other positive qualities, open source could provide the best resources for parental supervision and control of internet usage by kids. (Note: yes, I favor parents' rights to supervise what their kids see and do on the net. I know that's not a popular idea with many people here. Deal with it.) With a system like Linux it's much easier to set and enforce browser settings and other services on the computer. A parent could decide what access settings to put in the browser, monitor (or threaten to, more on that in a moment) chat sessions, etc.

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.

Re:Open source: the key to parental supervision

[arkanes]

Just thought I'd clarify something... you say:

yes, I favor parents' rights to supervise what their kids see and do on the net.

The key word here is "their". You have every right to tell your kid what they can and cannot do in the internet. I don't think very many people would dispute that. However, you don't have any right whatsoever to tell MY kid what he can or can't see on the internet.

Repeat after me...

[Denium]

...the problem is not the medium.
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.

The greater threat

[leereyno]

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

My 12 Year Old Daughter

[FatHogByTheAss]

Chat scares the shit out of me. Because of it, I've had to explain what a 'pedophile' is. I've had to encourage her to lie. I've had to encourage her to not trust anyone she hasn't put a face on. I've had to tell her that most of the rules that apply to your day to day life mean jack shit when you're dealing with an anonymous no one. That when you are on line, everyone is a liar and a looser.

She thinks I just don't get it.

Kids are stoopit. Even the smart ones. It scares the shit out of me.

Re:My 12 Year Old Daughter

[mickwd]

I've had to encourage her to lie.

Why lie? Why not just teach her not to give out personal information?

I've had to encourage her to not trust anyone she hasn't put a face on.

Do you really mean to say that in "real" life you encourage her to trust everyone she sees?

I've had to tell her that most of the rules that apply to your day to day life mean jack shit when you're dealing with an anonymous no one.

Eh? What about rules such as "don't trust strangers"? They would seem to apply equally as well in real life as when online.

Kids are stoopit. Even the smart ones.

That's because they're children - and even so, I'm sure that many (elder) kids are not as dumb as you say.

It scares the shit out of me.

Don't know what you can do when she's away from home - other than try to educate her - but at home why not just fix the computer up so that the only net connection is in the front room - and if you're not gonna be there, take the connecting cable out with you.

Re:My 12 Year Old Daughter

[rark]

If you're allowing your 12 year old to chat online without at least some supervision from a trusted adult (you, her other parent/gaurdian if she has one, trusted friend of yours, teachers, etc) then I'd question your wisdom.

Beyond that, a 12 year old should probably have at least some working idea of what a pedophile is. Even the very small special needs kids my partner works with know that a pedophile is someone who hurts kids. They don't need details, and it would be inappropriate to tell them much more than that. For a 12 year old (assuming she doesn't have significant language delay, developmental delay or some other complication), she should probably know at least the basics on what sex is (where babies come from, and at least some of the emotional implications -- intimacy, betrayal -- esspecially getting pregnant and being abandoned or getting an STD, *esspecially* an incurable one like HIV, HPV, Herpes or some forms of Hepetitis -- etc), she's going to hit puberty pretty soon if she hasn't already. Belive me, you would far rather be explaining this now then explaining in two years when she's puking every morning and hasn't had her period in three months. You, as a responsible parent, will actually take the time to find accurate information and pass that on. Her friends and future boyfriends most likely won't. So it's probably age appropriate to tell her that a pedophile is an adult who wants to have sex with children, and it's only appropriate for adults to have sex with other adults. Children shoudln't be having sex. It can be harmful to them, physically and emotionally, for the rest of their lives. Unless there is some underlying complication, a 12 year old can understand this.

Obviously, as a parent you have the right to tell or not tell your child whatever you want. You can tell her that charging across busy streets without looking both ways first and ignoring her education in favor of watching television all day is a good idea. But I don't recommend it.

As far as lying and trust on line. Have you taught your daughter that everyone she meets in the real world is safe and to be trusted? I hope not. She should no more trust the random stranger at the supermarket, or the random stranger who walks up your driveway and asks her directions, than anyone online. The online dangers are pretty much only extensions of the dangers of the real world. The biggest difference I see is that parents today grew up with the real world dangers. They know the dangers and teach their children to recognize them: don't go with strangers, even if they offer you candy, want you to help find their puppy or want directions; don't let anyone touch you in your 'swimsuit areas' (or whatever wording you choose). Parents today didn't (with a few exceptions, who mostly are too young to have teens just yet). They don't know (unless they educate themselves) what the dangers are and how to alert their kids to them.

If I were twelve, and someone were telling me that everyone in the real world could be trusted, but absolutely no one online could be trusted, that all were 'liars and losers', I'd probably question their judgement too. If someone told me this *now* I'd question their judgement.

Kids aren't (for the most part) stupid. Kids are born ignorant, some say innocent, but whichever you choose, they can only change this through learning. They can only learn if their parents both teach them and give them opportunity to learn.

And yes, I am a parent.

Re:My 12 Year Old Daughter

[rark]

> It is one thing to have it explained by a parent,
> and quite another to have it explained by
> "superStud4U" in the Harry Potter chat room on
> AOL.

Which is why you explained it to her first. Because kids will be given faulty (put charitably) information from many sources. Keeping kids out of chat rooms is easy compared to protecting them from kids at school. Doesn't AOL have some sort of chat room monitoring system? Why was someone with a name like superStud4U allowed to stay in a kid's chat room? Jeeze. (If not, why was your kid in an unsupervised chat without you around to keep an eye on things?)

> Is illiteracy really that rampant, or does it
> just run in your family?

I fail to see how asking for clarification indicates that I am illiterate. You said:

> I've had to encourage her to not trust anyone she
> hasn't put a face on

The obvious corallary to to that is that you *have* encouraged her to to trust people she has "put a face on". This is (obviously) not the wisest position to take (for a child or adult) either. I was attempting to clarify whether this was the case.

> Do you think that a 12 year old isn't going to
> question your judgment no matter what you tell
> them?

Granted, I'm not (yet) a parent of a twelve year old. Mostly because if I were I would have had to start when *I* was twelve, and, well, that would just be bad. But I am fortunate to be friends with several parents who have quite charming twelve year olds. This isn't to say that they never talk back or never question their parents judgement. But in general they are intelligent and reasonable and will listen to a reasoned argument and treat their parents and other people around them with respect. They may (and will!) fight when presented with a restriction they don't like, but if their parents hold their ground, they'll abide by it. And I've been watching these sorts of parents because that's the kind of twelve year old I want. I figure by the time the kids hit twelve or thirteen they're going to have to be civilized because they are going to be *bigger* than me ;)

I've given birth to one child, he is four and a half, and been a full time parent to two others for four years (eventually I ended up breaking up with their respective parents). My partner and I plan to have three more in the next four to five years. We also may be taking in one or two teens who are family members, so we'll see how we stnad up to *that* challenge. I have to say, I fail to see the horror of being talked back to. Sure, it's not something I think should be encouraged (do it to the wrong person and you'll end up with a fat lip or worse, regardless of your age) but, on my list of the sins committed in childhood it's way down there. Hold your ground, don't let them get your goat, and they'll stop, at least the little ones. I suspect kids do it to a lot of people just because it gets a reaction. Really.

As for gender confused, as the .sig says, *I* am not gender confused -- I know damn well what my gender is. If the rest of the world gets confused, that's their problem. It just offers me quite a bit of amusement ("Check out that pregnant man!" ;) )

Legislate niceness

[gelfling]

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.

Re:Coincidence

[-tji]

Kalamazoo is not far from the home of Slashdot..

And it dwarfs Slashdotville (Holland, MI) in size and enlightenment. Holland is a center for the ultra-conservative, ultra-religious types.

How Dangerous is Online Chat for Kids?

[Ricky M. Waite]

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.

Uhhh, yeah...

[Otter]

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.

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.

Re:Uhhh, yeah...

[Uri]

My usual rule of thumb with stats like this is to divide by 10 and then start thinking about whether that makes sense.

You're so right. I realized something fishy was going on when they started claiming 52% of the world was female...

Re:Uhhh, yeah...

[rark]

It doesn't challenge my common sense, and here's why:

very near to 100% of my female friends were sexually abused as children. Last I checked I had three female friends who hadn't been. I was sexually abused as a child. I've spent years dealing with this crap from several angles.

By sexual abuse I mean sexually penetrated by an adult, nearly always male, most commonly a father, but uncles, much older brothers, babysitters, mothers, grandmothers, teachers and grandfathers have done such things to my friends.

Now, I *don't* think that this means that 100% of people (or near to it) were sexually abused as children. I do think that people (like you) who think "That stat can't be right because 27%/16%/21% of my friends haven't been sexually abused as children" have a few things going on that you probably aren't aware of.

First, sexual abuse is not something most people (there are certainly exceptions to this rule) are going to tell just anyone and everyone. Chances are you know at least a few people who have been sexually abused who haven't told you. Incidently, the stigma of telling is *much* higher for males. But it's pretty high for females, as well. Part of this is societal. Part of this is that secrecy, and threats made in order to continue this secrecy, are a very common componant of abuse (i.e. I'll kill your dog/CPS will take you away to an orphanage/I'll hurt mommy/Daddy will think you're a bad girl/Everyone will know that you're a sick boy who is obsessed with sex if you tell) and it's *hard* to talk about it, for a lot of people, a lot of the time.

Second, sexual abuse survivors have a tendency to become friends with other survivors or with abusers (who have at least sometimes, and possibly often, been abused themselves at some prior time). Thing about (for example) being a geek. Chances are, your friends are more likely to be geeks than not to be. When you have friends who aren't geeks, unless you have some other non-geek interest, you find that they lack a frame of reference for discussing most of what you're interested in, and very likely vice versa as well. Same problem, only that those who grow up with chronic sexual abuse (as opposed to limited incidents) or in an otherwise abusive family have a completely different learned set of social skills and expectations of the reactions of others. These things can be un/re-learned, but it takes time.

Incidently, the only polls I know of that count anything like bra snapping (sexuality-related teasing from other kids) as sexual abuse have reults that run higher than 50%, not 27%.

My guess if that one counted bra snapping, it would be close to 90% ;)

Yes, but sometimes IRC can SAVE lives.

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Yes, but sometimes IRC can SAVE lives.

[Iamthefallen]

Yes indeed, I had a similar experience a while back, friend is in the US, I am in Sweden:

A friend called me up, crying and said she had taken a lot of sleeping pills and just called to say farewell, she was rather hysteric and incoherent, but I managed to get through to her to call her best friend, then call me right back no more than 10 minutes later.

A few minutes went by, no call back, I call her but no reply, has she passed out? Has she left the apartment and drove off somehwere? That thought really scared me. I get on IRC, tell a friend in England who works for a company in the US that I need his help and I ask if he knows any way I can get in touch with US police (can't call 911 from abroad). He calls his company, tells a guy there what's going on, that guy in turn calls 911 and gives her address, 911 calls local police, local police calls apartment, no reply. So we keep this chain going for a while trying to convince the next link that this is actually happening.

Finally I get word that a patrol car and an ambulance are being dispatched to her apartment, we all hang up and just wait for something. Maybe 15 minutes later I call the apartment again, an unknown voice picks up, I ask for my friend and the guy tells me she's ok (well, "ok" as in not dead), but has been taken to hospital.

A while later another friend at the hospital calls me up and tells me she's gonna be fine. BIG! sigh of relief. And it smacked me like a 2x4 that IRC and modern international communications had probably saved her life.

Duh

[Beliskner]

Chatting On-Line: A Dangerous Proposition for Children
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet

So what's new? I would have thought it pretty obvious that if a kid goes to the mall by himself, puts a sticker on his head saying, "I Am A l1ttl3 k1ddi3", and then starts talking to any random strangers that pass by, that he might be in a little bit of danger if the stranger is not a nice man.......

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

ok, maybe I'm just a ninny but...

[argStyopa]

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.

Compared to real life...?

[sydneyfong]

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)

Re:Compared to real life...?

[gorilla]

Actually, if you look at the statistics, you should really be saying "Don't trust relatives & friends of the family".

The REAL Dangers of Internet Communication

[happyclam]

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?"

Re:The REAL Dangers of Internet Communication

[oldstrat]

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.

Re:The REAL Dangers of Internet Communication

[Debillitatus]

The reason it's labelled "funny" is because the story is obviously not true and meant in jest.

Re:The REAL Dangers of Internet Communication

[Nightpaw]

Who would have known it was filled with criminals and perverts?

Anyone browsing at -1.

I don't think so.

[beleg777]

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.

Sound advice....

[wowbagger]

Oompa loompa doompety doo
I've got another puzzle for you
Oompa loompa doompety dee
If you are wise you'll listen to me

Who do you blame when your kid is a brat
Pampered and spoiled like a siamese cat
Blaming the kids is a lie and a shame
You know exactly who's to blame
The mother and the father

Oompa loompa doompety da
If you're not spoiled then you will go far
You will live in happiness too
Like the Oompa Loompa Doompety do

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory

The Myth of Parental Involvement

[MarkedMan]

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.

Re:The Myth of Parental Involvement

[happyclam]

Excellently stated.

Another point about parental involvement is that often, parents aren't properly educated about how to monitor and supervise their kids. Parenting is difficult, folks, and there's no user manual or README file for a kid. And, keeping this study in mind, many of the parents who think they're good at it actually are not.

So, what perhaps would have been a good suggestion to the legislators, to ease their boredom, would be the establishment of a federal department or program that would help educate parents on how to monitor their kids's usage of the internet. Proactive help, not reactionary restriction.

Re:The Myth of Parental Involvement

[MoneyT]

Yet consider what the internet really is. It's a giant community. And like any community, there are rules and comon sense to be applied. If you can trust your kid to go outside and be on his own without supervision, then you should be able to do the same on line. When was the last time giving personal information was a good idea? The same applies online. Teach your kids the think for themselves. To be reliable and dependable. If you do that, they can keep themselves safe.

Re:The Myth of Parental Involvement

[rark]

Well, web pages are generally not going to be too dangerous. Even the worst of them -- most of us probably managed to get ahold of a porn magazine at least once in our childhood. Most of us aren't traumatized by it. Despite what some say, it's not super likely that a random search is going to bring you kiddie porn or even hard core porn. Basically all porn sites have "click to enter, click to leave" buttons. Finding actual kiddie porn on the 'net is harder than the media would have you believe.

Even hate sites and things like that are difficult to accidently stumble upon, though it's more likely than porn.

Chat is, of course, a different beast. But I have an idea that doens't involve more legislation (or it could, but at least it would be productive).

Remember those "Stranger danger" programs from school? Update them. It's the exact same problem. The major differences are that parents today didn't grow up with this, so they don't necessarily know how to teach their kids to protect themselves, and partially because leaving your kid alone in a mall or bar to talk to strangers would get you a nice visit from CPS, leaving your kid alone in a chat room won't. This isn't a perfect analogy, because no one has ever actually been abducted from a chat room -- predators have gotten information from kids in chatrooms that later made it easier to abduct the child, predators have talked kids into meeting them in person in chat rooms, but no one has ever actually reached through the wire and plucked a kid out of a chat room ;)

So update the stranger danger programs, which are pretty common in schools anyway. Push it into schools that don't bother now. Kids have been taught for decades now not to take candy from strangers, not to go near stranger's cars, esspecially if they want directions or are offering candy or toys. When they are teaching this they can just as easily teach that you shouldn't tell people online where you live, or what you look like. Kids have been learning for decades that no one should touch you in the places that your swimsuit covers, and if someone does, they need to tell a trusted adult. They should also learn now that if someone tries to talk to them about those areas, or other inappropriate things, and if someone does so online (or in the real world, for that matter) they need to tell a trusted adult. Kids have been learning for decades that if an adult tells you to keep things a secret from your parents, something is wrong and you need to tell your parents. Teach them that this goes doubly online.

There's already programs in place, they just need to expand. Get the word out in the same way -- through schools, through extra-curricular activities (scouts, etc), through daycares, through commercials during children's television shows, through kids shows themselves, through children's reading materials.

How many kids do you know, in the United States, will take candy from strangers by the time they are in first grade or so?

It works, with or without parents input.

What's funny...

[josh crawley]

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.

...not a panicked call for additional legislation.

[uigrad_2000]

Well, the two congressmen were republicans. Generally the conservatives stand against government legislation whenever possible.

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...

Who are you to judge?

[HanzoSan]

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!

Offline is any diffrent?

[HanzoSan]

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.

Twists and Turns - Trust NoOne?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Where is the Danger?

[kmellis]

But if I understand the numbers, it seems the internet is not the most likely source of danger.

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.

CENSORSHIP is not the answer!

[HanzoSan]

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.

Re:CENSORSHIP is not the answer!

[Beliskner]

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.

Yeah, I think a lot of kids regard the computer as being the same as the TV (see killing - but doesn't affect you) and then transpose this belief to the computer. Trouble is a computer can *bite back*, it's totally different from a TV, and many Joe sizpack kids don't realise that. They should stick with their Playstations and then graduate to a computer *when they're ready*. The more mature scr1pt k1dd13s can grauduate

Re:Dangerous

[Darth RadaR]

I rarely bother with AC posts, but...

AC writes: Parents, watch your kids (and talk to them), and don't expect the government or someone else to do your job.

..that sums it up pretty well. It's pretty annoying that due to irresponsibility, we once again get the government involved into yet another aspect of our lives.

#include <humble_opinion.h>

One thing that does amaze me is that a lot of parents will buy their child a computer and let them get on the 'net without having the vaguest notion of how they are used and what they can do. Pretty much the same way that a parent shouldn't give their kid a horse if both parent and child don't know how it's properly handled and fed.

Thats no diffrent than the Chinese!

[HanzoSan]

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.

Re:You cant group all people like this.

[FFFish]

I dont think kids under 14 should be online.

Unsupervised. Supervised, they should be fine.

Re:You cant group all people like this.

[HanzoSan]

Most kids under 14 even when supervised dont take the net seriously

you cant allow children to play on the net. get them a video game console and let them play online games but the way i see it, a kid shouldnt be on the net before they are ready. If you can handle it at 14 fine, I dont think supervision teaches them anything it just allows them to play online while you watch, the goal is to let them go online without supervision, or not at all. If they need to use the net they should know the rules.
Just like you cant teach someone to read before they can speak, you cant teach someone to be mature and intelligent online until they can do it offline.

Don't they have anything better to do?

[mir]

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.

Re:Don't they have anything better to do?

[Jeremi]

(91% experienced neglect by birth parents)

Maybe I'm just being dense, but isn't it a little difficult for a stranger to neglect a child?
Seeing as how they were never responsible for the child's welfare in the first place, and all...

Take 'em to Church (boys-Cathololic grrls-CoE)

[crovira]

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?

Re:I've been using personals and IRC for a long ti

[MoneyT]

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.

Disable Java and Javascript on the browser

[Skapare]

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.

Re:Preventative Measures

[MoneyT]

Any kid who's smart enough to learn how to defeat parental controls is most likely smart enough not to get lured into a dnagerous situation like meeting a pedophile online.

War Stories

[Royster]

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.

Re:War Stories

[Royster]

We had regularly scheduled chats and those were always monitored. The chat rooms were available at other times, so I would often check to see what was happening there if I was online. (One of the sysop privilidges was no charge on time spent in a forum you opped.)

The one case I recall most vividly becuase it was my first experience of this was a (self-described) 21 year old male who asked a 12 year old girl to describe what she was wearing. He only got to ask a few questions before I banned him and mailed a copy of the log to the primary sysop who took up the case with his CIS contact.

In any case, I don't care if a teen comes on to an adult or the other way around. It's the adult who is responsible if they continue, not the teen. Generally speaking, most of our members were under 18.

Re:45 year old men ?

[Tackhead]

> So 12 yeard old girls and 45 yeard old men have similar interests? Right....

Funniest bait I ever saw was this one: Does ontogeny recapitulate phylogeny?

I can't excerpt enough of it without it being a spoiler. Just read the whole thing - it's hysterical, and the scumbucket being baited more than gets his just desserts.

Re:Danger same offline and online

[MoneyT]

Holy shit! You mean that the laws and common sense that applies to the real world applies to the virtual world too? What a revalation! So that's what we've been doing wrong!

Seriously though, why do people think that just because they're online, the rules of life don't apply anymore?

Re:You cant group all people like this.

[Beliskner]

You cannot say "CHAT IS BAD FOR ALL KIDS"
you can say chat is bad for YOUR kid.

You are correct. Unfortunately people and Governments are too stupid to respect individuality. They're like a Borg cube. The speed limit is 56mph for EVERYONE. If you break it then no matter if you're a University professor, the President, a whino or Joe sixpack you'll still get a ticket.

There's no general way to tell if a kid is mature enough for IRC (SAT--IRC or something?) so....... It's either gonna be OK or illegal. Islamic sharia law as laid down by Hadiths deals with this well - when a kid hits puberty he becomes adult and can do whatever. Trouble is the idea of cops pulling over young drivers all the time and examining their genitalia disturbs me.

Re:Anecdotal Evidence

[MoneyT]

In all truth, anecdotal evidence is the best kind. It reflects the real world. Statistics are very cold and distorded things, for example:

99% of all prisoners have eaten bread in their lifetime therefore, bread causes violent tendencies.

100% of kids age 10+ have been sick after going outside in the winter, therefore, we should not let kids outside in the winter

95% of kids have been teased in school, teasing is bad for self esteem, school is bad for self esteem.

Anecdotes are the only way you will see how the real world works, statistics are twistable

Re:45 year old men ?

[Beliskner]

Yeah except that usually the 12 year old girl is some other 45 year old guy... Gross

Yeah, and when I take a woman home from the bar with some BIG D-cup and then I find out it's a wonderbra or implants. Gross. Why does everyone try to look beautiful for each other even if it means lying?

**Oooooops did I just hit on a profound question?**

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Re:One point about "parental responsibility"

[MoneyT]

The internet isn't spiraling anywhere, the internet is more accurately than you realize reflecting society as a whole.

The Answer: As Dangerous as Society

[gnovos]

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.

Other things to be paranoid about

[Virtex]

Chatting online is dangerous and should be outlawed immediately (pay no attention to the fact that this message is being posted online). In addition, the following partial list of activities is also dangerous and they should be outlawed immediately:

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.

NEWSFLASH - Electronic Media Is Not Necessary

[gdyas]

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".

Be afriad. Be very afraid

[darkonc]

The most surprising and welcome news of the afternoon was that, despite the alarmist title, there was not a panicked call for additional 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:". . . .If you could draft the bill, what would it say?" (emphasis mine)

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.

Statistics

[flatrock]

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?

Re:Statistics

[rark]

While I have no idea why the texas police chose to preface those stats with *that* definition, it appears that that was not the definition used in finding those stats.

The page doesn't reference the study, but some searching strongly suggests that the study is the one referenced here. Two other potentially useful studies are here and here

Been on since I was 9

[Com2Kid]

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. :)

+3, Insightful? you mean -1, Troll!

[No Such Agency]

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?".

Re:+3, Insightful? you mean -1, Troll!

[Alsee]

She thinks I just don't get it

She may be right or she may be wrong, but the primary thing is that the belief exists. She's telling you that there has been a breakdown in comunication. If she thinks you cry wolf too much then she isn't going to trust your warnings. That can become the danger. You can't fix communication by speaking, only by listening. Ask why she thinks you don't get it.

You know more than she does - in general. Every once in a while she will know more about something than you, and she'll know it. That's a critical moment. If you miss it she'll stop listening. Kids listen to people who hear them.

when you are on line, everyone is a liar and a looser.
I bet she knows *some* people are liars and loosers. But she also knows most aren't. You lose credibility in her eyes.

The reason you hear "pedophile" on the news so much is that they have flocked to the internet as a place to troll for kids.

Rule number one of news: Rare events get the most coverage - like plane crashes. Common events get ignored - like car crashes. More than 30 times as many people die yearly in car crashs than in air crashes.

Something like 80% of molestation is done by family members, friends, or other "trusted" individuals. They just never make the news.

There *is* a legitimate danger on the internet, just like there's danger offline. Teachers and uncles are a more likely threat, and they live down the block. Most people on the net are 1000+ miles away.

She thinks I just don't get it
She may be right or she may be wrong. Find out why she thinks that.

Your kid, do what you want. You posted on a public forum. Don't be surpized when people comment.

-

The reality is

[ymgve]

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...)

Re:The reality is

[drinkypoo]

I am 25 years old. When I was 23, I was heavily flirted with by two ~14 year old girls in a video game arcade in a mall. I didn't mention that I'm a big, somewhat scary looking guy.

Children have no sense. Even the girls are probably sending unwanted sexual solicitation.

Re:To-Do List for Parents + personal experience

[waterbiscuit]

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) :-)

Re:Anecdotal Evidence

[MoneyT]

But that's just more anecdotal evidence, look at the statistic!!!!! See it says after going outside in the winter they got sick, so that has to be the cause! SEE SEE?

Seriously, you proved my point right there, statistics are very misleading.

Stranger Danger

[Restil]

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

Re:You cant group all people like this.

[rark]

There are other things besides chat and games online. There's plenty that one can do that doens't ever show the intelligence or maturity of the user. Browing slashdot, but not commenting, for instance.

Kids, in my experience, can be quite intelligent and mature on moment and not the next. It's amazing how, in some age groups, a little adult supervision reinforces the intelligent and mature behavior and minizes the not so intelligent, not so mature behavior. Also, an otherwise intelligent and mature child, a child who can go into a chat room or email conversation and say useful, insightful things, in a polite manner, may not yet have the judgement to know what should and should not be said in terms of identifying information, or when it's safe to meet people in real life and when it's not. (If I had a twelve year old -- or even a yougner child -- who wanted to go to a local LUG meeting, I'd take them, and stay there with them. No problem. Meeting the random guy who's been flirting with them. Hell no!)

It's not a "no supervision or not at all" proposition at all.

Re:To-Do List for Parents + privacy

[shomon2]

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