Bullying has always been a problem among adolescents and, sadly, so has suicide. In the few known cases of suicide after cyberbullying, there are other contributing factors. That’s not to diminish the tragedy or suggest that the cyberbullying didn’t play a role but–as with all online youth risk, we need to look at what else was going on in the child’s life. Even when a suicide or other tragic event doesn’t occur, cyberbullying is often accompanied by a pattern of offline bullying and sometimes there are other issues including long-term depression, problems at home, and self-esteem issues. And the most famous case of “cyberbullying”–the tragic suicide of 13-year-old Megan Meier–was far from typical. Cyberbullying is almost always peer to peer, but this was a case of an adult (the mom of one of Megan’s peers) being accused of seeking revenge on a child who had allegedly bullied her own child.

And, as per “epidemic,” it depends on how you define cyberbullying.

The most commonly recognized definition of bullying includes repeated, unwanted aggressive behavior over a period of time with an imbalance of power between the bully and the victim. In theory, that also covers cyberbullying, but some have taken a broader approach to cyberbullying to also include single or occasional episodes of a person insulting another person online. Indeed, because of the possibility of it being forwarded, a single episode of online harassment can have long-term consequences. “‘Power’ and ‘repetition’ may be manifested a bit differently online than in traditional bullying, Susan Limber, professor of psychology at Clemson University, said in an interview that appeared in a publication of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. She added, “a student willing to abuse technology can easily wield great power over his or her target just by having the ability to reach a large audience, and often by hiding his or her identity.”

Manifestations of cyberbullying include name calling, sending embarrassing pictures, sharing personal information or secrets without permission, and spreading rumors. It can also include trickery, exclusion, and impersonation.

Fuzzy numbers

Partly because there is no single accepted definition of cyberbullying, the extent of the problem is all over the map. I’ve seen some reports claim that up to 80 percent of online youth have experienced cyberbullying, while two national studies have put the percentage closer to one-third. A UCLA study conducted in 2008 found that 41 percent of teens surveyed reported between one and three online bullying incidents over the course of a year.

A recent study by Cox Communications came up with lower numbers, finding that approximately 19 percent of teens say they’ve been cyberbullied online or via text message and 10 percent say they’ve cyberbullied someone else.

One thing we know about cyberbullying is that it’s often associated with real-world bullying. The UCLA study found that 85 percent of those bullied online were also bullied at school.

Signs of cyberbullying

It’s not always obvious if a child is a victim of cyberbullying, but some possible signs include: suddenly being reluctant to go online or use a cell phone; avoiding a discussion about what they’re doing online; depression, mood swings, change in eating habits; and aloofness or a general disinterest in school and activities. A child closing the browser or turning off the cell phone when a parent walks in the room can be a sign of cyberbullying, though it can also be a sign of other issues including an inappropriate relationship or just insistence on privacy.

Preventing and stopping cyberbullying

After struggling with a school-wide bullying problem, Aaron Hansen, principal of White Pine Middle School in Ely, Nev., told Fox News that he asked the kids to fill out a survey indicating when the bullying took place and who the bullies were. He then invited the alleged offenders into his office to tell them “your peers feel that like you’re not very nice to people at times and they feel like sometimes you’re a bully.” Based on working with those kids and working with their needs–including problems at home–the school was able to reduce the problem.

Not every situation will resolve itself quite so easily, but identifying the reasons kids are acting as bullies can go a long way toward preventing it as can educational programs that stress ethics and cyber citizenship (”netiquette”). It also helps kids to know what to do if they are victims of bullying. At ConnectSafely.org (a site I help operate) we came up with a number of tips including: don’t respond, don’t retaliate; talk to a trusted adult; and save the evidence. We also advise young people to be civil toward others and not to be bullies themselves. Finally, “be a friend, not a bystander.” Don’t forward mean messages and let bullies know that their actions are not cool.

If your child is a victim of cyberbullying, don’t start by taking away his or her Internet privileges. That’s one reason kids often don’t talk about Net-related problems with parents. Instead, try to get your child to calmly explain what has happened. If possible, talk with the parents of the other kids involved and, if necessary, involve school authorities. If the impact of the bullying spills over to school (as it usually does), the school has a right to intervene.

Be careful what we legislate

There are lots of state laws that focus on cyberbullying, some requiring schools to provide educational resources. While I’m all for education, I think we need to be careful about any legislation that outlaws cyberbullying. U.S. Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) has proposed H.R. 1966, well meaning legislation that could imprison for up to two years, “whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.” On the surface, it seems fine but as UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has pointed out, it could also be used to punish political and other forms of speech. “I try to coerce a politician into voting a particular way, by repeatedly blogging (using a hostile tone),” he writes, “I am transmitting in interstate commerce a communication with the intent to coerce using electronic means (a blog) “to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.” Professor Volokh said that if the law is passed, he expects it to be “struck down as facially overbroad.”

Like technology itself, Internet safety has to evolve. Back in 1994, when I wrote the first widely disseminated Internet safety publication, I advised parents not to let kids put personal information or photos online and — because of what turned out to be an exaggerated fear of predators — I urged them to avoid online conversations with strangers. Back then, along with trying to keep kids away from porn, Internet safety was mostly about protecting children from dangerous adults.

But starting around 2005, a new phase of the Web — often referred to as “Web 2.0″ — prompted some Internet safety advocates to focus on ways kids could get in trouble for what they post on social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook. It was in that year that Anne Collier and I founded BlogSafety.org (later renamed ConnnectSafely.org) so we could provide a forum for discussing safety issues on the Web. It was also around that time that politicians and the media, especially the TV show “To Catch a Predator,” started whipping up fears of predators trolling the Web for vulnerable children.

But after carefully reviewing available research, statistics show that the likelihood of a young person being harmed by an online stranger is quite rare, and sexual solicitations and harassment are most often from peers. And to the extent it has occurred, it affects teens, not young children. Based on studies by the Crimes Against Children Research Center, the overwhelming majority of crimes against youths continue to take place in the “real world,” mostly by adults known to the child.

But that doesn’t mean that the Internet is a risk-free zone. It’s just that young people are far more likely to be harmed by other youth or the consequences of their own online behavior than by adult criminals.

Their interactions are largely with people they know from the real world. As danah boyd (she prefers a lower case d & b) observed in her doctoral dissertation, Taken Out of Context: American Teen Sociality in Networked Publics (PDF), “teen participation in social network sites is driven by their desire to socialize with peers. Their participation online is rarely divorced from offline peer culture; teens craft digital self-expressions for known audiences and they socialize almost exclusively with people they know.”

This understanding of youth risk led to a whole new phase of Internet safety education focusing on such things as cyberbullying and urging youth to avoid posting material that could be embarrassing or get them into trouble with authorities and potential future employers. Recently, the focus has turned to the emotional and legal consequences of “sexting,” — kids sending nude pictures of themselves via cell phones or the Web. But Anne Collier observed in NetFamilyNews.org, we run the risk of “technopanics” over sexting and bullying.

What we’ve learned from observing how kids use the Net, mobile phones, gaming devices and other interactive technology is that there is really no distinction between online and offline behaviors. Technology is woven into their lives. They don’t go online, they ARE online. So it’s really about youth safety — not Internet safety.

It’s about helping young people make wise choices not just in how they use technology but in how they live their lives. Internet safety is more than just the absence of danger. It also includes finding ways to use technology for learning, collaboration, community building, political activism, self-help and reaching out to others.

These are not just philosophical arguments. They’re pragmatic because preaching about safety or trying lock down the Internet doesn’t protect kid. Trying to instill fear — especially based on myths — actually increases danger because it causes kids to tune out good advice.

Sure, there are technologies that can keep kids from using social networking services or visiting inappropriate Web sites. But, like fences around swimming pools, the use of filters at home and school can’t protect them forever. That’s why we teach kids to swim. Not only does knowing how to swim help prevent drowning, it empowers them to thrive in the water instead of fearing it. The same is true with technology. As kids mature into teens, we must pull back on the technological controls in favor of self-control.

In an email interview,  Dr. Larry Rosen, Professor of Psychology at California State University, Dominguez Hills and author of Me, MySpace and I: Parenting the Net Generation observed, “sadly, too many parents think that using technology to track their children’s keystrokes or restrict access to certain websites is sufficient parenting.  It is not.  Parents must be involved with their children’s virtual lifestyles developing trust, being aware of any potential problems, learning about the technologies they use, and communicating often.”

I’ve been an Internet safety advocate since 1993 and right now I’m discouraged and angry about what’s going on in this field.

I’m angry because people who ought to know better are trying to mislead the public with false information about online risks, which is diverting attention away from real risks. And I’m not alone.

Many respected online safety organizations and leading youth-risk researchers are trying to shift the discussion away from mostly predator danger to youth behavior risk. Thanks to some politicians, it’s an uphill battle.

Online safety groups and public officials should be spending our time educating families on how to avoid real risks that affect most kids – like bullying, harassment and unwanted exposure to inappropriate material. We also need to do a better job of identifying and reaching the small minority of “at risk” kids who are putting themselves at greater risk by the way they behave online.

At issue is the constant drumbeat of predator panic coming from state attorneys general, including Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Roy Cooper of North Carolina, who are co-chairs of the Multi-State Working Group on Social Networking, which represents attorneys general from 49 states. Although their rhetoric is purported to help protect young people from harm, the actual impact of their campaign to rid social networks of predators may be inadvertently putting young people at greater risk.

In addition to shifting attention away from more common online dangers, they have proposed the use of age-verification and parental controls which could actually increase risk by driving teens “underground,” possibly to overseas sites that are far more dangerous than sites like MySpace and Facebook.

What’s more, all the hoopla is disrupting the work of several of the most respected non-profit Internet safety organizations which, ironically, have to spend resources countering this misleading information at the cost of focusing on how to help young people use the Internet more safely.

A bit of background

For more than two years, these and other elected officials have been talking about predator dangers on MySpace and other social networking sites and calling for the use of age-verification technology to help separate minors from adults. A year ago, the working group of attorneys general entered an agreement with MySpace to form a task force to study the issue.

After months of careful consideration, including a review of all research, the task force came back with a report that questioned the prevalence of predator danger and also questioned both the desirability and effectiveness of using any single technology to verity the age of users. Instead of carefully considering the report, it was rejected out of hand.

The justice officers’ reaction to the report was best summed up by Blumenthal, who recently said it was, “based on outdated and incomplete data – falsely downplaying the threat of predators on social networking sites.”

I have a great deal of respect for much of the work that Blumenthal, Cooper and other attorneys general do for public safety and to protect consumers, but when it comes to Internet safety, they continue to rely on anecdotal evidence rather than available peer-reviewed academic research (PDF).

Disclosure: I served on the task force as co-director of ConnectSafely.org, a non-profit Internet safety organization that receives financial support from several Internet and social networking companies including MySpace and Facebook. I also served as a member of the Internet Safety Technical Task Force and am the founder of SafeKids.com.

Now there’s a new argument based on the disclosure last week that MySpace has evicted 90,000 registered sex offenders from its roles. In a press release, Blumenthal said, “This shocking revelation – resulting from our subpoena – provides compelling proof that social networking sites remain rife with sexual predators.”

But what Blumenthal failed to point out is that 90,000 is not the number of currently or recently evicted registered sex offenders (RSOs) on MySpace, but a cumulative number based on all the RSO’s MySpace has ejected since two years ago when it adopted technology to identify and remove them from its roles.

Facebook, too

In the meantime, Facebook has been under attack for its own reported predator problem. Tech Crunch ran a story last week with the headline “Thousands Of MySpace Sex Offender Refugees Found On Facebook.” It reportedly got the information from John Cardillo, CEO of Sentinel, the security company that helps MySpace and other social networking sites identify registered sex offenders so they can be removed.

Facebook is not one of Sentinel’s customers, but says that it employs other methods to attempt to identify registered sex offenders and others who might endanger its members. This includes relying on Facebook members and working directly with state databases and state attorneys general, according to Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt.

But, the attorneys general who are screaming about predators don’t seem to have information about specific individuals harming children. Facebook, according to Schnitt, “is not aware of a single case where a registered sex offender has contacted a minor through Facebook.”

The same is true on MySpace. According to MySpace chief security officer Hemanshu Nigam, “not one of the deleted MySpace offenders has ever been prosecuted for criminal misconduct with a teen on MySpace.”

Based on surveys with teens, I suspect that this is largely because the vast majority of teens are savvy enough to avoid these creeps. As you would expect, officials from both Facebook and MySpace say that they are doing all they can to rid their sites of registered sex offenders.

Of course, that doesn’t mean they’ll be 100% successful. Short of shutting down their services, I can’t think of anything that can be done to completely eliminate even registered sex offenders, let alone the much larger number of offenders who haven’t been caught and convicted.

They’re everywhere

At the risk of contributing to the paranoia, it’s important to point out sex offenders are also in the real world. Unless we decide to keep them in jail forever, they are going to be among us. They go to malls, they shop at grocery stores, they live in neighborhoods and many have jobs. I know for a fact that there are registered sex offenders living within walking distance from my house and I have no doubt that my children have encountered them in the real world.

And then there are the ones who haven’t been caught. It’s a known fact that some of them teach in our schools, patrol our streets, preach in our places of worship, work in our hospitals and clinics, and coach our kids.

What’s worse, family members, according to the Crimes Against Children Research Center, account for “a quarter to a third of offenders.” Strangers make up the smallest group with estimates ranging between 7 and 25 percent.

Strangers who meet their victims on the Internet represent an extremely small percentage of all cases, especially compared to family members. It’s analogous to worrying about being killed in a plane crash instead of focusing on driving safely. The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children is one of several safety organizations that no longer condone the use of the phrase “stranger danger.”

As I’ve pointed out in previous articles, researchers who study sexual assault cases have found very few actual cases of children being sexually molested as a result of a contact they made on the Internet. It happens, but it happens in far fewer numbers than other forms of sexual abuse. And when it does happen, it is almost always a case of a teenager who is taking extraordinary risks online, including – in most cases – engaging in sexual conversation with a person known to be an adult.

I’m not saying this to place blame on the victims or excuse illegal behavior of some adults, but rather to point out that how young people behave online affects their risk.

It’s time that all of us – politicians too – start looking for real solutions and talking with real experts, not just relying on anecdotal data and provocative sound bites.

For more perspective, check out CNET News’ Caroline McArthy’s post on this subject.

]]> http://www.safeteens.com/2009/02/11/predator-panic-a-risky-distraction/feed/ 0 http://www.safeteens.com/2008/12/26/prosecution-in-teen-suicide-misguided/ http://www.safeteens.com/2008/12/26/prosecution-in-teen-suicide-misguided/#comments Fri, 26 Dec 2008 08:46:48 +0000 larrymagid http://safekids.com/?p=166 Reposted from San Jose Mercury News
December 8, 2008

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.

By Larry Magid

San Jose Mercury News

The online gossip site JuicyCampus.com carries this slogan: “Always Anonymous . . . Always Juicy.”I’m a strong advocate of free speech, and I recognize that there are legitimate reasons to protect people’s ability to be anonymous on the Internet. But JuicyCampus.com is exercising these rights in ways that are hurtful and possibly dangerous. I also understand the interest in gossip. But there’s a difference between gossip among friends, or published gossip about celebrities, and spreading nasty rumors about private citizens.

The site, which was reportedly founded by a 1995 Duke graduate, encourages students at selected colleges ranging from the Air Force Academy to Yale to anonymously post “juicy” comments about other students. And some of these comments can be downright vicious.

All of this is under the veil of anonymity. In support of its slogan “Always Anonymous . . . Always Juicy,” the site’s privacy and tracking policy states that “it is not possible for anyone to use this website to find out who you are or where you are located.” It further warns people who want to be “extra-cautious” that “servers do, as a matter of course, keep logs” that can include geographic information and IP addresses, the string of numbers that identify a computer on the Internet. It goes on to recommend ways to find free services that shield IP addresses.

A quick look at the site revealed a number of posts that use derogatory terms to out people as homosexuals, whether true or not. There were also posts suggesting that specific women students are sluts, often giving details about their supposed sexual activities. In some cases, these posts contain a phone number or even a dorm address, encouraging others to seek contact with the person. Other comments are sexist, racist, hateful and downright mean. Many mention names of what appear to be real students. Some postings might be best described as virtual terrorism. One posting implied a certain named female student was available for sex with strangers and included her cell phone number and dorm information. If not terrorism, this is at the very least cyberbullying. Posting false information about people, impersonating others or simply being mean are all classic examples of cyberbullying.

There is nothing new about Web pages that contain rumors or lies about people. ConnectSafely.org, a Web forum I help run, receives regular reports about such postings on legitimate social Web sites.

In some cases there is nothing that can be done – free speech does give people the right to say what they think. But if the postings are libelous, defamatory, hateful or otherwise contrary to the site’s terms of service, we are typically able to get them taken down. The same is true if there is evidence that the posting or profile is impersonating someone else.

Michael Fertik, CEO of ReputationDefender.com said the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects the owner of the site against prosecution or civil action for user postings but doesn’t protect individual users. In other words, if you post something libelous or defamatory, you can be sued by the victim.

Trouble is, says Fertik, it’s a “right without a remedy” as there is often no practical way to find out who did the posting. It might be possible to find someone from their IP address, but that doesn’t always work. Besides, as JuicyCampus points out, there are ways to hide your IP.

Ironically, said Fertik, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides victims of copyright infringement greater protection than the Communications Decency Act gives victims of libel or defamation. A record company has a better chance of getting a judgment against a college student sharing music than a college student has against someone jeopardizing his or her reputation, privacy or even safety.

It’s tempting to argue there ought to be a law against sites like this. But before reacting too quickly, we need to think about the unintended consequences of going after this type of site.

I don’t think we want to outlaw all forms of gossip, nor do I think it’s a smart to require authentication before anyone can post anything online. That could have negative consequences on political dissidents, whistle-blowers and others for whom anonymity can be vital. But just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. As a parent, I would discourage my kids from using a site like this, and I think it’s reasonable for college campuses to at least discuss what they ought to do about sites that encourage hateful comments.

About the only good thing I can say about JuicyCampus is that on the two days I tested it last week, access was extremely slow. Perhaps it was overwhelmed because of all the press coverage. Whatever the reason, it’s the first time I’ve ever been happy about a site being hard to reach.