by Larry Magid

A long awaited report from the Internet Safety Technical Task Force concludes that children and teens are less vulnerable to sexual predation than many have feared. The report also questions the efficacy and necessity of some commonly prescribed remedies designed to protect young people.

The task force was formed as a result of a joint agreement between MySpace and 49 state attorneys general.

Over the past couple of years, several state AGs have been looking into potential dangers to youth, and some have called for social-network sites to use age verification technology to confirm the ages of users in an attempt to prevent adults from or interacting online with minors. The task force includes representatives of Internet and social-networking companies, security and identity authentication vendors, and nonprofit advocacy organizations. It’s chaired by John Palfrey of Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society.

Disclosure: I served as a member of the task force, representing ConnectSafely.org, a nonprofit internet safety organization I co-founded along with Anne Collier. ConnectSafely receives financial support from MySpace, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and other Internet and social-networking companies. I am also founder of SafeKids.com and am on the board of directors of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which is represented on the task force.

Based on data analyzed by its Research Advisory Board, the task force concluded that “actual threats that youth may face appear to be different than the threats most people imagine” and that “the image presented by the media of an older male deceiving and preying on a young child does not paint an accurate picture of the nature of the majority of sexual solicitations and Internet-initiated offline encounters.”

While the task force found that youth risk from predators is a concern, the overwhelming majority of youth are not in danger of being harmed by an adult predator they meet online. To the extent that young people have received an unwanted online sexual solicitation, data from a 2000 study and a 2006 follow-up from the Crimes Against Children Research Center concludes that “youth identify most sexual solicitors as being other adolescents (48 percent in 2000; 43 percent in 2006) or young adults between the ages of 18 and 21 (20 percent; 30 percent), with few (4 percent; 9 percent) coming from older adults, and the remaining being of unknown age.”

What the task force did find is that “bullying and harassment, most often by peers, are the most salient threats that minors face, both online and offline.” Partially because researchers can’t agree on a definition of bullying and harassment, the actual risk is hard to quantify, but it is clearly much higher than the risk of being harmed by a predator. Some studies suggest that as many as 49 percent of youth have experienced some type of bullying or harassment. In many cases no serious emotional or physical harm occurred. However, a study by Michelle Ybarra and Janice Wolak found that “39 percent of victims reported emotional distress over being harassed online.”

There is also a widespread belief that deception is often involved where adults pose as teens to engage with young people, but research shows that that’s rarely the case. The report found that “although identity deception may occur online, it does not appear to play a large role in criminal cases in which adult sex offenders have been arrested for sex crimes in which they met victims online.” Interviews with police show that “most victims are underage adolescents who know they are going to meet adults for sexual encounters.” This does not imply that such relationships are healthy or safe, nor that we should blame the victims or tolerate the actions of adults who engage in sex with minors. But it does suggest that child safety advocates need to take a more proactive role in helping teens understand the risk of seeking engaging in relationships with adults.

Importantly, the task force found that online risks “are not radically different in nature or scope than the risks minors have long faced offline, and minors who are most at risk in the offline world continue to be most at risk online.” For example, “a poor home environment full of conflict and poor parent-child relationships is correlated with a host of online risks.”

The attorneys general who called for the task force were anxious for us to study the efficacy of using age verification to help limit inappropriate contact between adults and children online. To help in that job, the task force formed a technical advisory board (TAB) composed of technology experts from Harvard, MIT, Dartmouth, University of Massachusetts, University of Utah, Rochester Institute of Technology, and Bank of America. This board looked at a wide range of technologies including age verification and identity authentication, filtering and auditing, text analysis, and biometrics.

What the TAB found was that age verification technology can be used to identify adults and therefore help prevent minors from engaging in adult-only activities such as accessing adult content or purchasing alcohol or tobacco. There were several technologies submitted by companies that could identify adults based on accessible records such as credit reports, criminal history, and real estate transactions, but these relatively automated systems cannot reliably identify or verify the age of minors because, as the TAB concluded, “public records of minors range from quite limited to nonexistent.” Documentation about young people such as birth certificates, passports, and school records are restricted by federal law for some very good privacy and security reasons.

Age verification options presented by some companies would allow parents to request that their child’s school verify his or her identity and age, but these proposals have their own critics including those who worry about the cost, the possibility of privacy or security leaks, and the financial model presented in some cases that includes providing marketers with information about kids.

The TAB also looked at “peer-based” verification schemes that “allow peers in a community to vote, recommend, or rate whether a person is in an appropriate age group based on relationships and personal knowledge established offline” but worried that with these methods “users can vote as many times as they wish to artificially raise or lower a peer rating.” There were concerns that “minors might organize against another minor in their ratings or recommendations in an online form of bullying.”

At one task force meeting, a company presented technology that tries to distinguish between an adult and a child by analyzing the bone density of the person’s hand. Another tool attempts to identify an individual through facial recognition to match that person against a database of registered sex offenders.

Although the TAB expressed “cautious optimism” about the possibility of using technology to protect kids, it concluded that “every technology has its problems” and that “no single technology reviewed could solve every aspect of online safety for minors, or even one aspect of it one hundred percent of the time.” The bottom line was that “technology can play a role but cannot be the sole input to improved safety for minors online” and that “the most effective technology solution is likely to be a combination of technologies.”

But even if these technologies can be employed effectively, there remains the question of whether they are necessary or helpful. Using technology to separate kids from grown-ups doesn’t address the fact that kids are far more at risk from other kids than from adult predators.

Another danger is that age verification or new rules could be used to keep kids off of social networks or require parental consent. But before issuing rules about this, authorities should explore possible unintended consequences such as isolating kids, causing them to go underground, failing to serve kids from dysfunctional families, and preventing kids from accessing vital services such as the Suicide Prevention Hotline or one of the many online self-help groups.

The task force report will have its critics, including possibly some attorneys general and others who feel that it underestimates the risk of online predators. Indeed, sting operations from law enforcement (as well as the TV show To Catch a Predator) demonstrate that there are plenty of adults who, if given the chance, would engage in sex with youth they meet online. But, based on the research presented to the task force, it appears that the vast majority of young people are savvy enough to avoid such encounters.

Still, there remains a minority of youth who–for a variety of psychological and social reasons–are vulnerable both online and offline. More research needs to be done to identify these young people and provide them with resources and protective services. The fact that most kids are safe is reassuring but it’s not sufficient. If even one child is in danger, then there is work to be done, and that is one thing everyone who cares about this issue can agree on.

It’s New Year’s Eve, and your teen is all decked out and ready for a big party. She’s got her iPhone, BlackBerry, or some other cell phone with a camera in her pocketbook. And she’s ready to roll. You’re glad she’s got these gadgets so you can get in touch with her. You tell her to call to check in, to let you know she got there safely, to ask for permission to stay later. She agrees. You give her a quick hug and run upstairs to get ready for your own party to celebrate the arrival of a new beginning. You even remember to put the new digital camera you got for Christmas by your purse so you don’t forget it.

Of course, you talked to your teen about not drinking, not driving too fast, and not staying out past curfew.

Did you chat with her about all the photos that she and her friends will take with those gadgets? Photos that might have her kissing another girl on a dare, doing a shot with her best (boy)friend, flashing for the camera as the new year rings in.

Did you chat with her about all the photos that she or her friends might want to put up on their MySpace or Facebook page?

Myspace, Facebook? That’s all that techie stuff the kids do … what will you say, what can you say?

Too often it seems too complicated to talk to your teens about online safety. After all, it’s the online world and they know it better than you do. But is it? Did you know how a car engine works, what the transmission does, or how an airbag gets deployed when the car bumps something at 30 mph? Yet, you got right in there and taught your teen how to drive. Correction, you taught your teen how to drive safely.

And that is exactly what we’re talking about – teaching your teen how to drive online safely. You’ve done it all your life – these lessons on safety. “Look before you cross, don’t talk to strangers, respect your friends and neighbors, don’t go anywhere alone”.

The world may have changed, but the lessons are still the same. Don’t stop the dialogue.

Here’s a way to start an online safety dialogue:

1. Start a Conversation

Talk to your kids about why they use MySpace, how they communicate with others, and how they represent themselves online. Recognize the importance of social networking in their daily lives, similar to that of cell phones, email, or instant messenger, and express an interest in understanding the role it plays.

2. Talk About MySpace and the Internet

* MySpace, like the rest of the online world, is a public space. Members shouldn’t post anything they wouldn’t want the world to know (e.g., phone number, address, IM screen name, or specific whereabouts).
* Remind them not to post any photos that could embarrass them in the future or expose them to danger. Although MySpace is public, teens sometimes forget that the information and photos they post are accessible to others. A good way to explain it — tell your teens they should avoid posting anything they wouldn’t be willing to share in front of a school assembly.

3. Remind Teens to Be Cautious

* Just as in the offline world, people aren’t always who they say they are. Remind your teens to be careful about adding strangers to their friends list. It’s fun to connect with new MySpace friends from all over the world, but members should be cautious when communicating with people they don’t know.
* Encourage teens to be themselves, but to exercise the same basic safety principles they do in the physical world. They wouldn’t chat with a stranger at the mall or give someone they don’t know their cell phone number. Remind them that reckless online behavior can be just as dangerous.
* They should talk to you if they want to meet an online friend in person, and if you think its safe, any meeting should take place in public, with friends or a trusted adult present.

Remember, you’re the parent in the offline and online worlds. You can do it.

by Larry Magid

What Lori Drew allegedly did to Megan Meier was despicable, but it doesn’t justify her conviction late last month for violating federal laws designed to keep hackers from invading computer networks.
Two years ago, Megan, a 13-year-old Missouri girl, hanged herself after her online friend “Josh Evans,” who had befriended her on MySpace, reportedly told her that he didn’t want to be friends with her and that the world would be better off without her. But Josh was in fact Drew, a 49-year-old mother of one of Megan’s former friends.

According to published reports, Megan had been mean to Drew’s daughter and Josh’s fake online relationship with Megan was a way for Drew to retaliate.

During the trial in Los Angeles, it was revealed that some entries made by Josh were typed by Ashley Grills, a then-18-year-old employee of Drew who was a witness for the prosecution and was not prosecuted.

The case has widely been characterized as a legal assault on cyberbullying, though it is extremely unusual for an adult to bully a teen. There is no reason to believe that Drew intended for Megan to kill herself, but the case against Drew is frequently cited as a warning to would-be bullies that their actions could bring severe consequences to both their victims and themselves.

From what I can gather, this is a case of a squabble between two 13-year-old girls and a mother who intervened in a terribly immature and inappropriate way. Adults are supposed to help young people peacefully resolve problems, not exacerbate them. This is not so much a case of cyberbullying as a case of bad parental intervention that had tragic consequences.

We need to fight against rude, deceitful and cruel behavior on and off the Internet. But that doesn’t justify a reinterpretation of anti-hacking laws to jail people who misuse Internet services.
The legal theory behind the prosecutor’s case is that Drew violated MySpace’s terms of service that prohibit misrepresenting your identity and harassing others. MySpace rules, which Drew says she hadn’t read, require that “all information you submit is truthful and accurate.” Clearly Drew lied. But so have a lot of other people.

She was prosecuted under Section 1030 of the U.S. Code, which was crafted to protect against unauthorized access to computer networks to cause damage, steal information or money or jeopardize national security. As far as I can tell, the law was not designed to prevent people from lying about their identity or otherwise violating rules on a publicly available online service. But that didn’t stop the jury from convicting Drew of misdemeanor violations. The jury refused to go along with the prosecution’s felony charges.

Based on this case, I’m one of millions of people who might also be guilty of a federal crime. I didn’t harass anyone, but I did violate MySpace’s terms of service by creating several fake identities with a variety of ages to test privacy features for teenagers while I was researching a book about MySpace in 2006.

And what about police officers who pose as teenagers to lure would-be predators? Should they have to request immunity from federal prosecution each time they engage in such a sting operation? I’ve even heard cases of law enforcement people advising kids to lie on their profiles to protect their privacy. Should they be indicted for conspiracy?

There are plenty of adults who lie online about their age. I have a friend who set up a profile on an online dating service using a false age, an old photograph and the exaggerated claim that he was “athletic.” A date might have cause to be disappointed or angry at him, but should she have the right to demand a federal prosecution?

Even Megan, with her mom’s knowledge, lied about her age. She was 13 and, at the time, MySpace required users to be at least 14. MySpace recently started allowing 13-year-olds to sign up.
The usual penalty for violating terms of service is to be kicked off the service. Had MySpace decided to go after Drew in court, it could have done so as a civil matter. But it’s not up to federal prosecutors to take it upon themselves to enforce a company’s online agreement with its members, especially if that company never asked for federal intervention.

I can understand why a jury wanted to punish Drew for what happened to Megan. But it’s not clear to me that putting Drew in prison on a hacking charge will help prevent cyberbullying or future tragedies.

What is needed is an educational campaign that makes bullying or harassing just as unacceptable as racial epithets or subjecting others to secondhand smoke. Cyberbullying is a real problem but it requires serious long-term solutions, not quick fixes and prosecutorial hijinks.

News that Microsoft had to issue an emergency patch to fix a flaw in all versions of Internet Explorer reminds me how important it is for parents to make sure that all the computers in your household have up-to-date anti-malware software and the latest updates to the operating system.

While Windows PCs seems to attract a lot more attacks than Macs, the Apple Macintosh is not invulnerable to malicious software.  That’s why Apple regularly updates its operating system as does Microsoft — and why some leading security software companies including Symantec and TrendMicro offer Macintosh security software.

The latest threat is a flaw in all versions of Internet Explorer that makes it possible for an attacker to take remote control of your PC, capture user names and passwords and log keystrokes.  All you have to  do to be exposed is to visit an infected ‘Web site, whether it is a site set up by a hacker or even a legitimate site that been injected with the malicious code.  The Associated Press reports that “thousands of Web sites already have been compromised by criminals looking to exploit the flaw.” That’s because the flaw was disclosed about a week before Microsoft issued a fix.

Microsoft was expected to release a fix on Wednesday, December 16, which would be automatically applied to any machine that has automated updates turned on.  To be sure, you can manually scan your computer to see if its security fixes are up-to-date by visiting WindowsUpdate.microsoft.com.  For this particular site, you must use Internet Explorer (other browsers such as Google’s Chrome and Mozilla Firefox works with the vast majority of sites but not this one).Speaking of other browsers, only Internet Explorer is affected by this particular flaw but that doesn’t mean that Firefox and Chrome are exempt from other vulnerabilities.

PC security is a cat-and-mouse game. The good guys are always trying to catch up, but, with billions of dollars of ill-gotten gain at stake, the bad guys are always thinking up something new.

And parents, be sure your kids know not to download anything without your permission  — and don’t you download anything unless you know it’s from a reputable site. Even then, make sure you have a good Internet security suite installed and that it’s up-to-date. ]]> http://www.safekids.com/2008/12/17/parents-keep-family-pcs-secure/feed/ 0 http://www.safekids.com/2008/11/10/obama-raises-hopes-for-online-civility/ http://www.safekids.com/2008/11/10/obama-raises-hopes-for-online-civility/#comments Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:29:40 +0000 larrymagid http://safekids.com/?p=156 Continue reading →]]> As a columnist and radio commentator, I avoided endorsing a candidate in the recent presidential election. But as an Internet safety advocate and co-director of ConnectSafely.org, I have to say how happy I am to see a setback for the politics of fear and rumor mongering.

I say this because over the past year or so, many of us in the Internet safety field have been retooling our messages to focus more on digital citizenship and civility as we realize that the fear of predators has been grossly exaggerated. In terms of numbers, the larger danger to both kids and adults is “cyberbullying,” harassment and defamation — often between people who know each other in the real world.

And that’s exactly what we saw during the campaign: fear mongering and defamation. It was especially sad to see this coming from Sarah Palin, the mother of five children, including three teenagers. Children learn from their parents and other adults including our leaders.

Palin’s “leadership” during this campaign served as a negative role model, implying that it’s OK to spread rumors and call people names. While she never said that Obama was a terrorist, she did say he pals around with them. She also called him a “socialist,” which gave ammunition to some on talk radio and in the blogosphere to imply that he’s a “Marxist” and “communist” and therefore a likely dictator.

It wasn’t just the presidential campaign that nauseated me. There was the comment by Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews implying that some members of Congress are un-American. And who can forget defeated North Carolina Sen. Elizabeth Dole’s implication that her opponent (a Sunday school teacher) was “Godless.”

What happened during the campaign parallels what happens online. Too often, online discourse is not civil. Going back to the late 1980s and early 1990s, we have seen too many “flame wars,” in e-mail, on forums and now on social networking sites. People seem to forget that the other people online have the right to be treated respectfully even if they strongly disagree with you.

Several surveys of teenage Web users have found that cyberbullying is a significant problem. Cyberbullying, says Nancy Willard, director of the Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use, is “the use of electronic technologies to engage in repeated and/or extensively disseminated acts of cruelty towards others.”

Willard added that “it’s really hard to talk to young people about avoiding harmful and cruel behavior when they are bombarded with political ads with nasty rumors, innuendoes and attacks.”

The connection between politics and Internet behavior doesn’t stop at bullying. For the past seven years, the politics of fear has dominated the political landscape. A certain amount of fear is productive if it keeps us from taking unnecessary risks. But when fear becomes pervasive or is based on false information, it can lead us in the wrong direction.

A recent study commissioned by McAfee, an Internet security company, and conducted by Harris Interactive, found that “about two-thirds of mothers of teens in the United States are just as, or more, concerned about their teenagers’ online safety, such as from threatening e-mails or solicitation by online sexual predators, as they are about drunken driving (62 percent) and experimenting with drugs (65 percent).” Perhaps these moms aren’t aware that 6,552 people last year were killed in auto accidents involving young drivers, while there were only a few known cases of teens who were physically harmed by adults they met online.

What the Internet — and indeed, our entire society — needs is greater civility. I’m hopeful that the Obama administration will encourage a culture of respect in which people engage one another in dialogue rather than name calling. There has been a lot of talk about Obama — as first African-American president — showing young people around the world that artificial barriers can be shattered. But that’s only one measure of progress. Another measure is a society where everyone — regardless of your appearance, or your sexual, religious or political orientation — can be treated with dignity and respect.

If we can accomplish that, we can easily solve the problems of cyberbullying and Internet harassment.

It’s a new day.

There have long been workarounds.  For example, DVD X Copy from 321 Studios allowed PC users to make backup copies of DVDs. 321 was sued by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and ultimately closed up shop after its product was found to be in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA). Similar programs are still floating aroudnd the Internet. PC Magazine recently did a round-up of DVD ripping programs.
I’ve been testing a pre-release of RealDVD and it pretty much works as advertised. I copied several movies from my DVD collection to my PC’s hard drive and, after putting the original DVDs back on my shelf, was able to play the movies on my PC.  By recording to an external drive, I was able to watch the movies on both my desktop and laptop.
For families, having movies on a PC hard drive could be very convenient, especially if you have children who love to watch movies over and over.  By putting them on the drive, your kids don’t have to fiddle with DVDs and you don’t have to worry about the discs being damaged. And the ability to restrict kids to certain ratings means that the adults in the family can still have age-appropriate movies in their collection while preventing kids from watching them.

Street view of home with bedroom window

As if the TV series “To Catch a Predator” wasn’t enough paranoia, now there’s a campaign to protect our children against predators who use Google Street View.

I admit, there may be some privacy concerns as a result of Google taking pictures of homes and businesses around the country but StopInternetPredators.org’s “campaign to highlight child safety concerns over Google’s ‘Street View’ strikes me as absurd. The organization, which is headed by Stacie D. Rumenap, former Deputy Director for the American Conservative Union, argues that Google Street View “can be misused by child predators to target children.”

In a video that appears on the site, Rumenap says that it’s “frighteningly simple” for anyone “to find out detailed photographic information about you and your family.” The video and accompanying text make it seems as if Google Street View is a predator’s best friend for targeting children for abuse. Rumenap calls it “an entirely new threat to our families and children” that “makes it simple to map the most likely route your child walks to school… view entrances to community parks and even find the location of your family’s bedroom windows.” She wants people to “urge local leaders to ban Street View in your neighborhood until the technology is safeguarded.” She does, however, admit that “banning Street View might not safeguard our children 100% from child predators.”

I don’t know where to start with this. To begin with, Google Street View would be a very inefficient way for a predator to find a child victim. It would be much more effective to simply walk or drive around the neighborhood. It’s not as if you need the Internet to find parks, schools and homes where children live and play. There are schools, parks and homes with bedroom windows in just about every neighborhood.  And, statistically, the vast majority of predators know their targets anyway — in real life, not online.

Instead of banning Google Street View, maybe we should put up walls between streets and sidewalks so that predators can’t see children walking home from school. And while we’re at it, let’s ban public outdoor parks and recreation areas or at least find ways to hide the children playing there. Or just keep children away from churches, schools, scouting and other places where pedaphiles have been known to operate.

Second, it completely distorts the way predators operate – at least those who are “successful” in finding actual victims. There is plenty of research to show that trolling online for victims is not the way that predators typically find young people to exploit. In about 80% of child sexual abuse cases, the victims and the perpetrator know each other in the real world either through family ties, friendships, schools, youth groups and situations that bring kids and adults together.

Based on what we know from arrest records, survey research and other data, the actual danger of Internet predators, strangers harming victims that they find online has been greatly exaggerated and this campaign simply adds fuel to that fire. If a child is to be harmed online, it is much more likely because of bullying or harassment from a fellow young person, something inappropriate the child posts online or by taking extraordinary risks in a chat room or other public forum.

If anything, campaigns like this actually increase danger to children by alarming people unnecessarily and distracting us from dealing with real risks.

I’m not suggesting that Google Street View doesn’t bring up some privacy concerns. It’s probably a good idea for people to look up their own address just to make sure there’s nothing posted that could be embarrassing or a possible security threat. But finding a serious security risk is pretty unlikely. A Google spokesperson said that “if you are not comfortable with the imagery available on Street View, we have easily accessible tools for flagging sensitive imagery for review and removal.”

And, of course, it’s essential for parents to talk with their children about safety. Adults should study the child safety tips from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and remind kids to follow some basic guidelines like “Always check first with a parent, guardian, or trusted adult before going anywhere, accepting anything, or getting into a car with anyone,” “Do not go out alone. Always take a friend with when going places or playing outside” and “Say no if someone tries to touch you, or treats you in a way that makes you feel scared, uncomfortable, or confused. “ That, along with age appropriate parental supervision, is what will protect our kids – not going ballistic about the possible safety implications of every new piece of technology that comes our way.

(Disclosure: I serve as co-director of ConnectSafely.org, a non-profit Internet safety organization that receives financial support from several Internet companies, including Google.)

© 2008 – Larry Magid

Many cars these days have DVD screens in the backseat – some have two. And for those who don’t have a DVD player built-in, there’s always the possibility of watching movies on a laptop perched on the backseat.

But is keeping kids entertained the whole time really such a good idea?

When my kids were young, my wife and I didn’t allow them to watch movies when we took car trips. Patti argued that kids should spend their time looking out the window or engaging in conversation and I agreed.

We did allow our kids to listen to music, on CDs or their iPods, but they weren’t allowed to use headphones in the car. Instead, we played the iPod through the car’s audio system so that everyone could share the same music and same experience.

For one particularly long trip I created different playlists with the favorite music of various family members. Again, plugging it into the car stereo, we took turns listening to each other’s music. The whole idea of the car trip was to be together as a family and not have anyone isolate themselves with their earbuds.

Sharing music had its advantages and difficult moments. I’ll never forget when our 15-year-old daughter brought home one of rap artist Eminem’s CDs with some pretty disturbing lyrics. We didn’t ban the music but played it through the audio system for all to “enjoy.” Actually, I did like his voice and beat, but Patti and I objected to the way he objectified women and to some of his more explicit language. But rather than turning it off, we turned it into a teachable moment, asking our daughter what she found appealing about the songs and pointing out what we considered objectionable.

I remember one particular discussion about the “B Word” – the one that likens a human female to a female dog. My daughter thought it was fine, but we disagreed. Years later, she came around to our way of thinking, which goes to show that sometimes you do have an impact, even when you don’t see it in the moment!