Wednesday, May 25, 2011

The dark side of dating websites -

The dark side of dating websites - thestar.commany have found love online, but a few have found death. be careful out there!!!

Parry Aftab receives RCMP Missing Children's Award

The RCMP presented Parry and her husband, Canadian child safety advocate, Allan McCullough with its annual RCMP/ Air Canada Child Recovery Award today. Parry accepted her award on behalf of the children in Canada who are safer because of the Facebook/Amber Alert collaboration in Canada. The RCMP formally thanked Facebook Canada for its leadership role.

Sunday, May 15, 2011

New Data Breach Notification Regs Proposed

In response to the data breach by Sony's PlayStation Network (PSN) and Qriosity, the Whote House proposes a comprehensive federal data breach notification scheme that will bring all state breach notification laws into conformity.

Letters to House of Representatives and Senate on the Administration’s cybersecurity proposal (2 pages, 933 kb)

Law Enforcement Provisions Related to Computer Security (8 pages, 152 kb)
Section by Section Analysis (1 page, 93 kb)

Data Breach Notification (11 pages, 172 kb)
Section by Section Analysis (4 pages, 156 kb)

Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity Authority and Information Sharing (11 pages, 202 kb)
Section by Section Analysis (7 pages, 240 kb)

Cybersecurity Regulatory Framework for Covered Critical Infrastructure (7 pages, 258 kb)
Section by Section Analysis (5 pages, 230 kb)

Coordination of Federal Information Security Policy (10 pages, 193 kb)
Section by Section Analysis (5 pages, 230 kb)

Personnel Authorities Related to Cybersecurity Positions (4 pages, 89 kb)
Section by Section Analysis (1 page, 72 kb)

Preventing Restrictions on Data Center Locations (1 page, 67 kb)
Section by Section Analysis (1 page, 8 kb)

Complete Cybersecurity Proposal (52 pages, 1.0 mb)
Complete Section by Section Analysis (24 pages, .99 mb)

Friday, May 06, 2011

msnbc tv: How to help curb cyber-bullying

msnbc tv: How to help curb cyber-bullyingParry shows off one of her Teenangels to talk about their upcoming June 8th summit in DC and the new stopcyberbullying game, located at

Thursday, May 05, 2011

Phoebe Prince bullies sentenced, but how do they make things right? -

Phoebe Prince bullies sentenced, but how do they make things right? - CSMonitor.comWhen Parry was speaking with Barbara Colorosa after a conference where they were both keynoting, Barbara explained her concept of "restorative justice." That was Monday. Tuesday Parry began building a new program for to help schools and criminal justice professionals understand how the cyberbullies need to work as hard to "make things right" as they did to ruin their target's reputation and life.

Sunday, May 01, 2011

What can US schools do to adress cyberbullying that occurs out of school?

Free Speech and Public School Students – A Thumbnail Summary as of April 2011
The US Supreme Court has addressed the free speech rights of students in public schools repeatedly. But, to date, it has not issued a decision on cyberspeech or expression. The lower federal courts and state courts have been grappling with the challenge of applying an offline speech standard to digital speech. The US Supreme Court decisions have established the following basic rules relating to the legal authority of public schools to discipline student speech and expression:
• Student speech that causes, or is reasonably anticipated to cause, a material and substantial disruption of the school environment or interferes with the rights of others may be disciplined or restricted by the public school. (Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 509 (1969).

• In addition to the Tinker “disruption” test and its “interference with the rights of others” test, a public school may also:
o punish lewd, vulgar, or offensive student speech. (Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 479 U.S. 675, 678 (1986).)
o restrict student speech and expression based on “legitimate pedagogical concerns,” when the student speech is school-sponsored (such as a school newspaper) or if it could be reasonably inferred that the speech bears the school’s “imprimatur” (Hazelwood Sch. Dist. V. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 271-273 (1988).)
o discipline and regulate off-campus speech, at a school sponsored event, when the speech or expression can be reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use. (Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007).)

Because of the lack of clear Supreme Court guidance on the off-campus cyberspeech issues, the lower-court decisions have varied considerably and frequently conflict. This is particularly clear with two conflicting decisions (Layshock v. Hermitage Sch. Dist., 593 F.3d 249 (3d Cir. 2010) and J.S. v. Blue Mountain Sch. Dist., 593 F.3d 286 (3d Cir. 2010)) rendered by two panels of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals on the same day in February 2010.
The facts of each case are very similar. In each, the students created the offending profiles off-campus, using non-school equipment, after-hours and offended their principals. The key difference was the type of reputational attack used by the students in each case. In Layshock, the student made overweight-centric attacks against the principal. In J.S. vs Blue Mountain, the student described the principal as a pedophile and sex addict.

In Layshock v. Hermitage, the court found for the student and held that school officials could not suspend a student for creating a derogatory fake Internet profile of his principal. Even though the student had taken the principal’s image from the school website and had accessed the offending profile during school hours from school equipment, the 3rd Circuit panel held that there was insufficient nexus between the off-campus speech and any possible disruption of the school environment. But, in J.S. v. Blue Mountain, a 3rd Circuit panel ruled for the school officials, holding that the nature of the off-campus speech could reasonably cause a significant disruption of the school environment.

Although the only real difference between these two cases is the nature of the attack (overweight barbs vs allegations of pedophilia) , each was decided using the Tinker standard, and weighed the likelihood of substantial disruption. While Blue Mountain found the substantial disruption test was satisfied, the Layshock panel found it was not. They then weighed whether a sufficient nexus existed between the off-campus activities and the school itself and found it lacking.

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals followed Tinker, along the lines of Blue Mountain and ruled for the school officials based on what they saw as reasonably foreseeable disruption of the school environment. (Doninger v. Niehoff, 527 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2008); Wisnewski v. Bd. of Educ., 494 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2007).) And a well-thought-out recent New Jersey District Court decision cited to the 3rd Circuit’s continued adherence to the Tinker standard in student cyberspeech cases.

While the law is still evolving, there are general guidelines that schools can follow. As a general rule, if the speech was created and distributed using school equipment, during school hours and/or on campus, schools may discipline students for inappropriate expression subject to the Tinker standard. The guidelines set out in Tinker are that public schools can punish student speech only when it causes, or is reasonably anticipated to cause, a material and substantial disruption of the school environment or if it interferes with the rights of others.

On the other hand, if the activity occurred using the student’s own computer or mobile device, outside of school hours, not related to a school-sponsored activity, which does not give the appearance of being condoned by the school while at the same time being off campus, schools have very limited authority to regulate or seriously discipline that activity. Such expression is generally constitutionally and statutorily protected from school regulation.

But just because school officials may not be able to regulate the speech, it may still be subject to criminal laws or be actionable under civil law. This is far more likely if the speech is harassing under state law or poses a true threat or involves wiretapping violations or digital intrusions under state or federal law or, under the federal Cyberstalking Act, if it is anonymous and intended to annoy the victim.