February 9

Online Security for Kids: How the New York Times article got it wrong

By Trish Smith

red_cardOn January 13, 2009, the New York Times ran an article by Brad Stone on their website entitled, “Report Calls Online Threats to Children Overblown.” In this article, the Mr. Stone discussed a recent report by the Internet Safety Technical Task Force (a task force created by 49 state attorneys general to look into the issue of sexual solicitation of children online). This task force examined, among other things, social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace, to assess the extent of sexual solicitation of children by adults.

The task force (which was led by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University) found that bullying among children is, in fact, a far greater threat to them than sexual predators. It also found that when teenagers do become involved with sexual predators online, they are typically willing participants and already at risk because of their home environments or risky behaviors, such as substance abuse.

Leaving aside the questions raised by that last sentence (is a child not a victim as long as he or she is a willing participant? Is a predator less a predator because his underage victim agreed to participate?), I realized after reading the article that Mr. Stone missed the boat entirely.

How did that happen? Well, first consider the following question. What was the point of this article? Admittedly, Mr. Stone may have simply decided to report what seemed to be an important news story. He probably thought he was writing a factual article, not editorializing. However, his opening sentence communicates the message of his article quite clearly: “The Internet may not be such a dangerous place for children after all.”

So is this the true story?

 

The idea that the internet is actually safer for kids than we thought it was? Before you answer that question, first consider this one: How safe SHOULD the internet be? How safe do we want it to be for our kids? As the mother of a five-year old, I can say from my own experience that there is no such thing as “too safe”. There is also no such thing as “not so dangerous”. 

Articles (and reports) such as these seem predicated on one thing: the idea that we can reduce risk, for ourselves, for our kids, for those we care about. The logical conclusion of that argument is that someday, somehow, with the right technology, we can reduce risk down to nothing. But the truth of the matter is that we cannot. Risk cannot be eliminated; it can only ever be managed. And so the idea that the internet is not “as dangerous” as we thought it was, is a non-argument. It implies that there is an acceptable level of risk to our kids on the internet, and that once we reach that level of perceived safety, we can reduce our safety measures. But no responsible parent is likely to say, “Well thank goodness, the internet isn’t so dangerous! Now I can let my pre-teen daughter roam the chat rooms unsupervised.” It does nothing to help parents make decisions about how to protect their children, whether the chance of something happening is 1% or 100%.. As far as helping those who most need information, this article fails miserably.

 

So what DO parents and other caretakers need?

 

We don’t need to be told that our fears are unfounded, when we know that the level of risk will always be too high, simply by the very nature of the internet. We need, instead, to be given ways – proven ways – to protect our children from the dangers that we know are out there. We need tools that will allow the internet to provide an experience that’s educational, entertaining, and that doesn’t put our children in harm’s way. If Mr. Stone had written an article about that, he’d have captured the real story of child safety on the internet.

 

Note from Michael Santarcangelo: This an other reasons have led to the creation of our “Building the Family Safety Net” seminar and our soon-to-be launched “Family Safety Net Salon.” Look for more details this Spring (and an invitation to join before the public launch). 


Tags


You may also like

Are you using frameworks properly?

Leadership and communication are actually layers, not levels

  1. First, let me say that I’m a father of a two-year old. I am your typical over-protective parent with all the trimmings.

    Now on to my comment: If there is less of a threat to children by online sexual predators, and numerous studies back that up, I think that’s useful information. If bullying is a bigger threat, I think that’s useful information, too.

    Knowing this stuff allows me as a parent to make better choices about how to protect my child. It also allows us to focus resources where they matter most.

    Using basic risk analysis, even if children are not as vulnerable to sexual predators as we once thought, these types of predators are probably still bigger risks because of the potential impact. We can account and plan for that.

    Information is power. Knowing the truth allows us to make good choices.

  2. Call me stupid if you want, but as an informational security professional and a father of a 3yr old. There is an expectable risk level for my child and his activities. Over the holidays we took him to a farm operated and managed by trusted family members. We let him ride on the back of the feed truck and watched as he got to help feed and pet the bulls in a semi-controlled environment with an elevated level of risk. He was talked to about the learning experience and was told about being careful and how dangerous bulls can be, etc.

    Other friends and family who were not there scolded us and told us we were wrong to allow our son to have this valuable learning experience. They went as far as to tell us about people they knew that had been killed by bulls and ask what we would have done, if he had been trampled. I explained I would have called the ambulance, if needed. This was the risk level and countermeasures that we as his parents chose. When we were kids I have seen my own brother laid flat by a horse. I know and understand the risks and can chose what risk level is appropriate for my child.

    I then told about how he and his grandpa walked down the country row by themselves for about a quarter to half mile. When they did not get upset about that I told them that they had captured some feral coyotes on that road the other night. I then tried to get them to explain why that was not an issue, but petting the bulls was. They were still stuck on the bulls, but coyotes with rabies as expectable.

    When it comes to the internet there is an expectable risk level for my son and I talked to him about it and help him learn about what is dangerous and where and when he needs to be extra careful. Why is it that we as parents forget that “TRAINING” is the most effective security measure you can ever provide? Analysis, reports and parent provided controls will never be effect unless you also empower your child to make educated decisions.

    The internet is not too risky for my child. There are dangerous traps there and I am cretin that he will fall into some of them. When he does I will be there to remind him why we fall. We fall so that we can learn to pull ourselves back up. An over protected child will never learn to pull himself back up.

    The biggest risk for childern on the Internet is there own parents. Parents must learn to start taking responsiblity and setting their own accetable risk levels for their own childrens activities.

    Thanks…

  3. Pingback: IT Security » Blog Archive » Cyber Bullying A Greater Threat than Sexual Predation Online
  4. Pingback: Online Security for Kids: How the New York Times article got it wrong | Pandora's Blog
Comments are closed.
{"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}

Subscribe to our newsletter now!