by Larry Magid
August 1, 2006
Last week the House of Representatives passed a well-meaning but
ill-conceived piece of Internet safety legislation that could actually
make the Internet a more dangerous place for children and teens.
The Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA), approved Wednesday by an
overwhelming margin of 410 to 15, now moves on to the Senate. While it's
easy to understand why Congress would approve a bill like this, it is
ill-conceived because, rather than "deleting" online predators, it
deletes the ability of schools and libraries to determine whether kids
can constructively take advantage of social networking and other
interactive services that are extremely popular among teens. Maybe the
law should be called DOTA (the Deleting Online Teenagers Act)?
As a bit of background, I've been working on Internet safety issues
since 1993 when I wrote "Child Safety on the Information Highway" for
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. I'm on the board
of that organization and I also run SafeKids.com and SafeTeens.com and
am co-director of BlogSafety.com. BlogSafety is a not-for-profit project
that derives funding from social networking sites, including those
affected by this legislation.
The bill (H.R. 5319) amends the Communications Act of 1934 "to require
recipients of universal service support for schools and libraries to
protect minors from commercial social networking websites and chat
rooms."
The legislation, said Tim Lordan, Executive Director of the Internet
Education Foundation which advises U.S. lawmakers on technology, "lumps
social networking sites and chat rooms with previously blocked sites
that are obscene or contain child pornography, as if social networking
was somehow the same as those horrendous sites."
The bill defines social networking sites as being "offered by a
commercial entity; permits registered users to create an on-line profile
that includes detailed personal information, permits registered users to
create an on-line journal and share such a journal with other users;
elicits highly-personalized information from users; and enables
communication among users."
That covers more than just chat and social networking and could force
school and library officials to ban a wide range of sites, including
Amazon.com and many news sites that allow for user feedback and
interaction.
But even if the bill weren't overly broad, it would still be troublesome
because it is the wrong – and I would argue a dangerous approach – to
Internet safety.
While nearly everyone agrees that Internet predators should be
"deleted," this bill doesn't address that issue. Unlike the Adam Walsh
Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which the President signed into
law on July 21, DOPA does nothing to strengthen penalties or increase
prosecution of criminals who prey on children. Instead, it punishes the
potential victims and educational institutions chartered to serve them,
by denying access to interactive sites at school and libraries.
It would be like trying to protect children from being injured or killed
by drunk drivers by ruling that kids can no longer walk, ride a bike or
even ride in a car or bus to school.
Aside from punishing potential victims rather than the perpetrators, the
bill doesn't even address the issue where it matters.
If children are going to get into trouble online, chances are it won't
be at school. They'll be home, they'll be at a friend's house or they
could even be completely away from adult supervision using their mobile
phones. Schools and libraries are relatively protected environments
where adults are never far away and, for the most part, computers are in
public locations that make it difficult for users to hide what they're
doing.
If anything, schools and libraries should be encouraging kids to use
blogging and social networking services. They have enormous educational
potential for such things as writing, interviewing, collaborative
research, media literacy, and photography, but even if not used as part
of a formal supervised education program, they encourage kids to
communicate and reach out to others.
I don't know of a federal law that prohibits kids from playing football,
soccer or basketball on school grounds even though there are cases of
kids being hurt and killed in these activities. Instead, schools teach
kids how to play these games as safely as possible and if a child is
hurt, teachers and coaches reach out to help the child recover from the
injury and prevent it from happening again.
Also, social networking sites can serve as a potential safety valve. As
part of the research on "MySpace Unraveled: What it is and how to use it
safely", a book I co-authored with Anne Collier - I spoke with John
Draper of the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, who said that
at-risk kids are increasingly using their online profiles "to in some
ways convey they had suicidal intent."
Draper said that these sites have "the very real potential for saving
lives because the first people to hear about kids at risk are other
kids." His organization is setting up profiles on MySpace, Xanga and
Facebook as a resource for teens.
The bill does exempt the use of social-networking sites or chat rooms
for "an educational purpose with adult supervision," but it doesn't
define what that means. Does that mean that an adult has to be with the
child at all times? Do they have to be looking over a shoulder or just
in the room?
And even if schools were to block such sites, it wouldn't stop kids who
were determined to get access. To begin with, there are hundreds –
potentially thousands – of social-networking sites in addition to the
ones that school authorities (and companies that make filtering
software) know about, and it's pretty easy to set up new ones from
anywhere in the world.
I could even envision someone setting up "a non-commercial site" that
would be exempt from this law in a foreign land with absolutely no
accountability or safety procedures. Today's popular social-networking
sites all make some effort to protect users. Many of them, including
MySpace, Xanga, Bebo and Tagged, have dedicated security officers with a
strong background in Internet safety and/or law enforcement.
There is also the question of whether the bill is dealing with a
widespread problem. There clearly are a lot of potential predators out
on the Internet in general, but we don't know whether there are a lot of
victims.
Sting operations performed by law enforcement have lead to the arrest of
numerous people who – if given the chance – would have sexual contact
with children they meet online. But these operations involve an adult
undercover officer who is posing as a child. The potential predator may
think he's dealing with a kid, but he's really dealing with an adult
cop.
So while we do know that adult predators are using the Internet to try
to lure children, we don't know how many children are being lured, and
we have no idea yet how many are on being approached on the social
networks. This might be a good to know before legislation is passed.
Even if the number of cases of children being sexually molested by
people they meet online is underreported, we are still talking about an
extremely small percentage of the millions of kids and teens who are
online.
What's more, when those few tragic situations do occur, in every case
that we know about, the child went willingly to meet with the predator,
and in most cases - according to a 2004 report from the University of
New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center (www.unh.edu/ccrc)
- the children knew what they were getting into. Only 5% of the
offenders tried to deceive their victims about being older adults and
only 21% misrepresented their sexual motives, according to the report.
And then there is the issue of the real risk. What I'm about to say is
facetious but based on real data. If the federal government wants to
protect children from sexual predators, it would be better off banning
kids from school, church, sports activities and being around their own
families.
The fact is, again according to the Crimes Against Children Research
Center, 70% to 90% of sexual abuse is committed by persons "known to the
child." For girl victims, a third to one-half of the crimes are
committed by family members. For boys it's between 10% and 20%.
I'm glad Congress is concerned with Internet safety but rather than pass
DOPA, it ought to be funding campaigns to educate children, parents, and
teachers on how to use the Internet safely - while giving the cops and
prosecutors the resources they need to truly delete online predators.
--
Edited by Larry at 08/01/2006 3:25 PM
--
Edited by Larry at 08/01/2006 3:26 PM
--
Edited by Larry at 08/01/2006 3:28 PM
--
Edited by Larry at 08/01/2006 3:29 PM
--
Edited by Larry at 08/30/2006 11:14 AM
|
son of liberty
Posts:
94
From:
anytown, USA
Registered:
6/28/06
|
|
(15 of 15)
Re: STAFF EDITORIAL: Deleting Online Predators or Deleting Online Teens?
Oct 30, 2006 4:27 PM
|
|
Apparently you people aren't keeping up with your political satire. Have a look at George Orwell's Animal Farm -- When did parents get so irresponsible as to have people do their parenting for them? Are they so spineless as to not be able to confront their kids and have a talk? Why is it that crooked politicians can manipulate fear to destroy our rights (patriot act) and ruin what separates this great country from the countless others that simply block people from things to teach them? How have we let this happen?
|
|
|
son of liberty
Posts:
94
From:
anytown, USA
Registered:
6/28/06
|
|
(14 of 15)
Re: STAFF EDITORIAL: Deleting Online Predators or Deleting Online Teens?
Oct 27, 2006 11:31 PM
|
|
Just remember, the government is ALWAYS right and we should never quetion it (sarcasm) Comrade Napoleon is always right. All animals are equal but some are more equal than others. -- When did parents get so irresponsible as to have people do their parenting for them? Are they so spineless as to not be able to confront their kids and have a talk? Why is it that crooked politicians can manipulate fear to destroy our rights (patriot act) and ruin what separates this great country from the countless others that simply block people from things to teach them? How have we let this happen?
|
|
|
ThePrimeSpot.com
Posts:
4
From:
Long Beach
Registered:
8/15/06
|
|
(13 of 15)
Re: STAFF EDITORIAL: Deleting Online Predators or Deleting Online Teens?
Aug 15, 2006 8:40 PM
|
|
Other sites re: Sexual Predators: www.StopitNow.com www.SataSort.org
|
|
|
Larry
Posts:
136
From:
Silicon Valley, California
Registered:
6/19/06
|
|
(12 of 15)
Re: STAFF EDITORIAL: Deleting Online Predators or Deleting Online Teens?
Aug 10, 2006 11:51 AM
|
|
Hiram, Not really sure what assumption you say I'm making. As far as I know I got the bill down accurately. These bills are hard to decipher so there's always the possibility that either of us misread it but I'm pretty sure I got it right. As per enforcement, that's another issue. I think a bill like this would be very difficult to enforce. -- Larry Co-director BlogSafety.com
|
|
|
Hiram
Posts:
1
From:
Tolland Connecticut
Registered:
7/15/06
|
|
(11 of 15)
Re: STAFF EDITORIAL: Deleting Online Predators or Deleting Online Teens?
Aug 10, 2006 11:27 AM
|
|
I downloaded and printed the legislation recently passed by the House and found that the penalties were not really being greatly enforced in the past. Yet, it appeared to me that the future penalties are there. As for the use by schools and libraries either I didn't read it very throughly or you are making assumptions based on what they did not say, rather than what the legislation does say. Either way, the losers are always going to be the kids. Scott
|
|
|
Anne
Posts:
507
Registered:
6/26/06
|
|
(10 of 15)
Re: STAFF EDITORIAL: Deleting Online Predators or Deleting Online Teens?
Aug 8, 2006 3:11 PM
|
|
Ginger, we just got a message from MySpace Customer Care that the group and moderator you reported have been deleted. Thanks to you and the alert member of your musicians group who caught that. You guys are doing great things. Tx again,
Anne
BlogSafety co-director
|
|
|
BlogSafety
Posts:
91
Registered:
6/9/06
|
|
(9 of 15)
Re: STAFF EDITORIAL: Deleting Online Predators or Deleting Online Teens?
Aug 7, 2006 3:03 PM
|
|
Mike, Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I just deleted that link and noted that in the message. I'm sure she didn't mean to do anything offensive but you're right. A link to a page like that has no place in this forum. Thanks Larry Magid Co-director BlogSafety.com
|
|
|
Michael Goldberg
Posts:
15
From:
West Chester Pa
Registered:
6/22/06
|
|
(8 of 15)
Re: STAFF EDITORIAL: Deleting Online Predators or Deleting Online Teens?
Aug 7, 2006 1:23 PM
|
|
Hello: I hate to say this, but maybe that link provided should be removed or not something that can be clicked on. I use a work computer and am monitored and I mistakenly clicked on that link. I was not aware it was going to redirect me to what it did. While I think that turning those people in are a great idea, maybe removing the link would be a good idea for those that might mistakenly click on the link. Mike
|
|
|
Anne
Posts:
507
Registered:
6/26/06
|
|
(7 of 15)
Re: STAFF EDITORIAL: Deleting Online Predators or Deleting Online Teens?
Aug 7, 2006 11:53 AM
|
|
Thanks so much for the heads-up, Ginger. I've already passed along this info. All best,
Anne
|
|
|
awyldchyld
Posts:
2
From:
los angeles
Registered:
7/13/06
|
|
(6 of 15)
Re: STAFF EDITORIAL: Deleting Online Predators or Deleting Online Teens?
Aug 5, 2006 11:02 AM
|
|
Hey Anne, That's funny, the singer who reported it to me is named anne. So, she sent me this, this is the link to it. Apparently it's a web cam that if you click on it to "join" the group it takes you to a porn site. See below. If you could pass it on that would be great. We sent it to the "report a profile" So i am not sure if that's the ones to send it to. They don't have a "report a group" thingie. So, here is the info she sent me. It's been going around bands i guess, seems like other bands have alerted me to it today. Thanks and thanks to my bands for being so diligent! Hmmm ok - they have a link to report a profile for inappropriate content but not a group. I reported the profile that is running this group - they just set the group to private - so I did a name search for the group and there is another one close to the same name (the 1st one was called 'myspace cams' this second one is called 'free myspace cams' and on the 'free myspace cams' group if you click on the profile of the group owner (which I did to report him) it takes you offsite to a porn site. So I reported to MySpace customer service here is the letter I sent them: I just reported a profile that had emailed a bunch of bands an invite to join a group on here called 'myspace cams' - which is a group all about hooking up with underage girls. Here is another group close the the same name that has the same picture that was up on the first group I reported. You guys have a link to report a profile - but not a group - so I'm doing it in this form. Here is this second group: LINK REMOVED BY BLOGSAFETY ADMIN Also, if you click on the profile of the person who runs this group it takes you out of myspace into a porn site. If you click on the photos for this group it also takes you out of myspace into a porn site. So, maybe together we can report them and get it removed! thanks anne! (both of ya) Ginger Back Alley -- Edited by BlogSafety at 08/07/2006 3:02 PM
|
|
|
Anne
Posts:
507
Registered:
6/26/06
|
|
(5 of 15)
Re: STAFF EDITORIAL: Deleting Online Predators or Deleting Online Teens?
Aug 4, 2006 8:54 PM
|
|
Hi, Ginger. Thanks for the heads-up. The only real reporting channel is through customercare@myspace.com, but we'll pass your message along too in case that helps. Best,
Anne
BlogSafety.com co-director
|
|
|
awyldchyld
Posts:
2
From:
los angeles
Registered:
7/13/06
|
|
(4 of 15)
Re: STAFF EDITORIAL: Deleting Online Predators or Deleting Online Teens?
Aug 4, 2006 7:43 PM
|
|
Hello Larry, Long time no hear! It's been a while since i have checked out the site, wow what changes have been made! Looks great. Hey, I had a question about reporting people to myspace. One of my bands in my group-that I got together for you btw., informed me of a webcam group going around for younger girls for older men. How do we report this to myspace so that it gets checked out and deleted? Thanks! ginger back alley
|
|
|
Anne
Posts:
507
Registered:
6/26/06
|
|
(3 of 15)
Re: STAFF EDITORIAL: Deleting Online Predators or Deleting Online Teens?
Aug 2, 2006 10:57 AM
|
Thanks for your post, DrKris. Your Virtual Mystery Tour workshop sounds like something that should be nationwide (maybe you should have a virtual Virtual Mystery Tour on the the Web!). It is definitely challenging right now to take a balanced position on teen social networking. I think the Wired News piece about your work expresses both the positive (reassurance) and negative message (being alert to risks) that needs to go out: "[Dr. Gowen] reassures parents that if their kids have common sense and they trust them in other ways, they're probably going to be able to talk intelligently with parents about what they should and shouldn't do online. And she reminds us that teens, like adults, generally feel freer to express themselves online in a false sense of anonymity and safety, but they often don’t realize the potential consequences that over-sharing can have." I hope you have time to check in here every now and then.
Anne
BlogSafety co-director
|
|
|
DrKris
Posts:
7
From:
Portland, OR
Registered:
7/27/06
|
|
(2 of 15)
Re: STAFF EDITORIAL: Deleting Online Predators or Deleting Online Teens?
Aug 2, 2006 9:26 AM
|
|
Kudos to you Larry for this wonderful editorial. Slowly I am seeing more voices of reason getting media attention (I saw this on CBS News' site) when it comes to social networking. I hope your book is well received and read by any and all concerned parents. I too have been interviewing youth about their MySpace pages. I consulted with a high school who actually used MySpace to teach teens HTML coding. This side of the story needs to come out more in order to balance out the panic that has emerged from this issue. Thanks again, Kris www.virtualmysterytour.com www.myspace.com/virtualmysterytour
|
|
|
Larry
Posts:
136
From:
Silicon Valley, California
Registered:
6/19/06
|
|
(1 of 15)
STAFF EDITORIAL: Deleting Online Predators or Deleting Online Teens?
Aug 1, 2006 3:16 PM
|
by Larry Magid
August 1, 2006
Last week the House of Representatives passed a well-meaning but
ill-conceived piece of Internet safety legislation that could actually
make the Internet a more dangerous place for children and teens.
The Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA), approved Wednesday by an
overwhelming margin of 410 to 15, now moves on to the Senate. While it's
easy to understand why Congress would approve a bill like this, it is
ill-conceived because, rather than "deleting" online predators, it
deletes the ability of schools and libraries to determine whether kids
can constructively take advantage of social networking and other
interactive services that are extremely popular among teens. Maybe the
law should be called DOTA (the Deleting Online Teenagers Act)?
As a bit of background, I've been working on Internet safety issues
since 1993 when I wrote "Child Safety on the Information Highway" for
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. I'm on the board
of that organization and I also run SafeKids.com and SafeTeens.com and
am co-director of BlogSafety.com. BlogSafety is a not-for-profit project
that derives funding from social networking sites, including those
affected by this legislation.
The bill (H.R. 5319) amends the Communications Act of 1934 "to require
recipients of universal service support for schools and libraries to
protect minors from commercial social networking websites and chat
rooms."
The legislation, said Tim Lordan, Executive Director of the Internet
Education Foundation which advises U.S. lawmakers on technology, "lumps
social networking sites and chat rooms with previously blocked sites
that are obscene or contain child pornography, as if social networking
was somehow the same as those horrendous sites."
The bill defines social networking sites as being "offered by a
commercial entity; permits registered users to create an on-line profile
that includes detailed personal information, permits registered users to
create an on-line journal and share such a journal with other users;
elicits highly-personalized information from users; and enables
communication among users."
That covers more than just chat and social networking and could force
school and library officials to ban a wide range of sites, including
Amazon.com and many news sites that allow for user feedback and
interaction.
But even if the bill weren't overly broad, it would still be troublesome
because it is the wrong – and I would argue a dangerous approach – to
Internet safety.
While nearly everyone agrees that Internet predators should be
"deleted," this bill doesn't address that issue. Unlike the Adam Walsh
Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which the President signed into
law on July 21, DOPA does nothing to strengthen penalties or increase
prosecution of criminals who prey on children. Instead, it punishes the
potential victims and educational institutions chartered to serve them,
by denying access to interactive sites at school and libraries.
It would be like trying to protect children from being injured or killed
by drunk drivers by ruling that kids can no longer walk, ride a bike or
even ride in a car or bus to school.
Aside from punishing potential victims rather than the perpetrators, the
bill doesn't even address the issue where it matters.
If children are going to get into trouble online, chances are it won't
be at school. They'll be home, they'll be at a friend's house or they
could even be completely away from adult supervision using their mobile
phones. Schools and libraries are relatively protected environments
where adults are never far away and, for the most part, computers are in
public locations that make it difficult for users to hide what they're
doing.
If anything, schools and libraries should be encouraging kids to use
blogging and social networking services. They have enormous educational
potential for such things as writing, interviewing, collaborative
research, media literacy, and photography, but even if not used as part
of a formal supervised education program, they encourage kids to
communicate and reach out to others.
I don't know of a federal law that prohibits kids from playing football,
soccer or basketball on school grounds even though there are cases of
kids being hurt and killed in these activities. Instead, schools teach
kids how to play these games as safely as possible and if a child is
hurt, teachers and coaches reach out to help the child recover from the
injury and prevent it from happening again.
Also, social networking sites can serve as a potential safety valve. As
part of the research on "MySpace Unraveled: What it is and how to use it
safely", a book I co-authored with Anne Collier - I spoke with John
Draper of the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, who said that
at-risk kids are increasingly using their online profiles "to in some
ways convey they had suicidal intent."
Draper said that these sites have "the very real potential for saving
lives because the first people to hear about kids at risk are other
kids." His organization is setting up profiles on MySpace, Xanga and
Facebook as a resource for teens.
The bill does exempt the use of social-networking sites or chat rooms
for "an educational purpose with adult supervision," but it doesn't
define what that means. Does that mean that an adult has to be with the
child at all times? Do they have to be looking over a shoulder or just
in the room?
And even if schools were to block such sites, it wouldn't stop kids who
were determined to get access. To begin with, there are hundreds –
potentially thousands – of social-networking sites in addition to the
ones that school authorities (and companies that make filtering
software) know about, and it's pretty easy to set up new ones from
anywhere in the world.
I could even envision someone setting up "a non-commercial site" that
would be exempt from this law in a foreign land with absolutely no
accountability or safety procedures. Today's popular social-networking
sites all make some effort to protect users. Many of them, including
MySpace, Xanga, Bebo and Tagged, have dedicated security officers with a
strong background in Internet safety and/or law enforcement.
There is also the question of whether the bill is dealing with a
widespread problem. There clearly are a lot of potential predators out
on the Internet in general, but we don't know whether there are a lot of
victims.
Sting operations performed by law enforcement have lead to the arrest of
numerous people who – if given the chance – would have sexual contact
with children they meet online. But these operations involve an adult
undercover officer who is posing as a child. The potential predator may
think he's dealing with a kid, but he's really dealing with an adult
cop.
So while we do know that adult predators are using the Internet to try
to lure children, we don't know how many children are being lured, and
we have no idea yet how many are on being approached on the social
networks. This might be a good to know before legislation is passed.
Even if the number of cases of children being sexually molested by
people they meet online is underreported, we are still talking about an
extremely small percentage of the millions of kids and teens who are
online.
What's more, when those few tragic situations do occur, in every case
that we know about, the child went willingly to meet with the predator,
and in most cases - according to a 2004 report from the University of
New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center (www.unh.edu/ccrc)
- the children knew what they were getting into. Only 5% of the
offenders tried to deceive their victims about being older adults and
only 21% misrepresented their sexual motives, according to the report.
And then there is the issue of the real risk. What I'm about to say is
facetious but based on real data. If the federal government wants to
protect children from sexual predators, it would be better off banning
kids from school, church, sports activities and being around their own
families.
The fact is, again according to the Crimes Against Children Research
Center, 70% to 90% of sexual abuse is committed by persons "known to the
child." For girl victims, a third to one-half of the crimes are
committed by family members. For boys it's between 10% and 20%.
I'm glad Congress is concerned with Internet safety but rather than pass
DOPA, it ought to be funding campaigns to educate children, parents, and
teachers on how to use the Internet safely - while giving the cops and
prosecutors the resources they need to truly delete online predators.
--
Edited by Larry at 08/01/2006 3:25 PM
--
Edited by Larry at 08/01/2006 3:26 PM
--
Edited by Larry at 08/01/2006 3:28 PM
--
Edited by Larry at 08/01/2006 3:29 PM
--
Edited by Larry at 08/30/2006 11:14 AM
|
|
|
|
|