Thursday, February 20, 2014

Sexual Predators Online and Grooming of Kids for Industry and Everyone

In direct grooming for offline encounter cases, the goal is to meet the minor in real life for sex. Sometimes the minor engages voluntarily in sexual activities, although “consent” is not a defense against statutory rape in the US if an adult is involved. [see more on the laws] Some teens have been murdered, and others kidnapped and tortured. [we have video on one murder and text from one victim on the kidnapping and torture] But a vast majority are just molested and return home, often keeping this a secret from those who can help them. They are embarrassed and take the blame for what happened, often feeling that they have “led him on.”

A vast majority of sexual predators both in real life and online are men. But we are seeing a growth in female predators grooming young boys online. They often connect with them and groom them on massively multi-player online games, especially the slower-paced role playing games when they have a greater opportunity to build a trusted relationship with their target.

The reaction to older females preying on younger boys is often mixed. While many recognize that this is sexual predation and a serious crime, others think it is not as serious as females being sexually exploited by adult males. In addition, few realize that young boys are almost as often the target of online male sexual predators as their female counterparts. It is estimated that approximately 1/3 of the online sexual exploitation victims are boys.

Because of the lack of understanding about the frequency and the serious nature of sexual exploitation of young males, many networks fail to protect their male users as carefully as they may protect their female users. That is wrong and has to change.

The anatomy of a sexual predator: Most Internet sexual predators don’t look the way we expect them to look. They are typically between the ages of 24 and 50. The may be professionals and well-educated. They may not have molested minors previously and often do this because it’s so easy and they believe they are less likely to be caught. They may start by just watching minors engage in discussions with their friends, or look for sexual banter between minors. Then they may dip their toe into the water by reaching out in a non-predatorial way to see what happens. If this goes well, they may begin the grooming process.


The Internet and digital technologies make it easy for sexual predators to connect with young minors, learn about what grooming ploys might engage them and find ways to build a close relationship with them outside of the parents’ supervision. But, with the right combination of education, privacy tools and moderation best practices, all young people can be kept safe from the risk of meeting online sexual predators in real life. 

Remember that sexual predation, even if the minor chooses to consent to the actions, is a serious crime. And network administrators and moderators must be vigilant to spot grooming early and report sexual predators to the authorities.

Sextortion - When Predators Blackmail Our Teens and Preteens

Direct grooming of minors to send digital images or engage in cybersex: While in the early days of the Web sexual predators didn’t have options when they were targeting minors for sexual activities, they can now do almost as much virtually as they can in real life. Webcam cybersexual encounters, posed still images or videos of sexual activities can often satisfy the sexual predator without them having to risk being seen in real life. And the added security they perceive by hiding behind a cellphone, game device or video monitor means more adults are willing to risk predatorial behavior. They do not fear being caught.

In surveys conducted by WiredSafety’s Teenangels in Westchester, NY (an affluent and connected suburb of Manhattan), 71% of the teen girls polled said they used their webcams in the privacy of their bedrooms. Not surprisingly, 22% said that they regretted something they had done on their webcam. Young people are far more willing to take and share sexual and nude images with others than meet an Internet “friend” in real life. This makes them easier targets for sexual exploitation online. And, for at least the beginning of the “relationship”, sexual images and webcam communications may suffice.

“Sexting” (where one person takes a sexual or nude image to share with another, often via messaging) is becoming more and more common. While the statistics vary, WiredSafety estimates that between 10% and 18% of sexually active teens have taken and shared a nude or sexual image. A survey conducted by WiredSafety’s Teenangels in early 2010 showed that 6% of the preteens polled had taken and shared at least one sexually provocative, nude, partially nude or sexual image with someone else. (They tend to share it more broadly than their older counterparts, seeking the romantic attention of groups of high school teens (such as the football team).)

Often, the lack of a face-to-face real life meeting makes the teen or preteen more comfortable. They may pose in bras when not old enough to wear them, or think they are playing the next top model for a Victoria Secret ad.

A puzzling (but teenage) explanation to their willingness to engage in cybersexual conduct was received in one of WiredSafety’s surveys - “I won’t have sex with someone until I am married. Even though I engage in “cybersex”, but don’t go all the way!”

(WiredSafety’s founder and WiredTrust’s Managing Director, Parry Aftab often responds to this with “Does that mean she wasn’t using punctuation?”)

As with the traditional types of sexual predator ploys, authority, fear and threats may be used when grooming doesn’t suffice to coerce the minor into engaging in more and more revealing and sexually explicit conduct online. In 2000, a young girl from Nashville, Tennessee found herself threatened into engaging in webcam sexual activities following her having given They may start by suggesting that the victim wear “sexier” clothing, bathing suits, skimpy, underwear, lingerie or other less threatening clothing. Eventually the demands escalate in both frequency and in sexually exploitive ways. Once the minor starts down that slippery slope, they are often blackmailed into going further rather than risk exposure to their parents, the public, classmates or the police.

While appearing much less dangerous than offline sexual meetings, the images and videos they share can make them the target of many other sexual predators for years to come. This is especially true when minors engage in sexting that isn’t well-known but gets into the hands of a sexual predator. The media-adopted term for blackmailing minors (and adults) into engaging in actual or webcam sexual activities, or being forced to pose for sexual or nude images or videos is “sextortion.”[

Your role in protecting minors from sexual exploitation online


Sometimes people confuse adult pornography that uses adults dressing or posing as minors (16 yrs old-looking actors, etc.) for legal teen themed sexually-explicit content. In one case it's unethical marketing, and in the other images of a crime seen. Big difference.

This is further complicated by ads and SPAM advertising “barely legal teens.” While most child advocates wish that these were illegal and that no adult content providers could use teen-themed sexual content or market “barely legal” content, in the US this is (generally) not child pornography.

It might be repulsive and violate your networks’ terms of service, but is not illegal.

For everyone: Report what you find to the network where you found it. They will then report it to the cybertipline in the US or other tipline around the world.


For industry risk managers: This is why setting clear rules and guidelines is important. And given the safe harbor requirements, it may be better off if you report items that aren’t technically child pornography just in case. Your policy professionals will advise you better on this. 

And these images may be just as disturbing to you as actual child pornography is. So, make sure you follow up with them to understand your role better and what they can do to help you maintain a safer and healthier work environment.

Child Pornography - Tip for the Industry and Schools


As briefly discussed previously, images of minors engaged in sexual activities, sexually provocative nudity or which are designed to evoke a sexual response (even through a mere focus on the genitalia of the minor with provocative clothing) can qualify as “child pornography” in the United States and many developed countries around the world. They are treated differently from adult pornography in most cases, which has greater free speech protections in the US based upon the fact that a child is molested or sexually exploited in their production. Adult pornography can be legal, even if extremely explicit, if there are artistic, scientific or other redeeming virtues of the content. Child pornography, no matter how artistic, can never be deemed legal in the US.

In many jurisdictions, worldwide, the age of consent controls the ages for determining whether the images are child pornography or adult pornography. In the US, under federal law, pornographic images of minors under the age of 18 can be deemed child pornography and subject to the extreme laws designed to protect children from sexual exploitation.

Anyone in possession of child pornography, under US law, can be charged with serious crimes and convicted unless they can prove that they had no more than 4 images and the possession was temporary for the purposes of reporting the images to law enforcement or they were in the process of deleting the images. To avoid the draconian effects that this would have for networks where user-generated-content can be posted containing adult content, child pornography and legitimate general audience materials in the same way, largely without pre-moderation, safe harbors were created for online services that might find themselves unwittingly hosting child pornography.

To satisfy the US safe harbor, in December 1997, a Cybertipline was created to be operated by the US National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. As long as the networks and online services do not have editorial control over the content and comply with the registration and reporting requirements, they cannot be charged with the possession or facilitation of child pornography even if the images are ultimately discovered on their networks. They do not have an obligation to search for it or screen content to make sure it is not posted. They merely must report that they find in compliance with the law.


The safe harbor doesn’t address the handling of the images or videos from the time discovered until turned over to the Cybertipline, however. That’s where the careful handling of these images and videos is crucial for both the moderators and the network itself. 

Sextbullying, when Cyberbullying Meets Sexting

Sextbullying (cyberbullying, using sexting images as a weapon): When young people target their peers with digital sexual attacks, they do it for one of two reasons – classic sexual exploitation (either through producing, viewing or sharing sexual images or through actual sexual acts) or to damage the reputation of someone they want to hurt. When they do it digitally to hurt someone, rather than for their own sexual titillation, it is a form of “cyberbullying”.

They may take a picture of another minor while in the locker room or while changing at a slumber party. They can hold a cell phone, digital camera of video camera over the top of a dressing room divider to shoot their victim undressed. They can shoot “up skirt” images by holding the video camera in a bag aimed upwards while standing near their victim. They can secretly (or openly) record their own sexual acts with this victim. They can point their webcams in a dorm room, after leaving to “give their roommate some privacy.” Or they can get hold of sexual or nude sexts that the victim took voluntarily and spread them to everyone in the offline or online community.

While the major thrust is destroying the reputation of their victim or getting them into trouble with parents or school authorities, the added risk is that these same materials make their way into the clutches of traditional sexual predators. They may also qualify as “child pornography” and everyone along the chain of production, distribution and possession can face serious felony charges and end up as registered sex offenders (in the US).


Whether the image was taken consensually by the minor and voluntarily shared or posted or taken secretly and used to blackmail them, the images are illegal and carry serious penalties for use or misuse, including for moderation staff and the network itself, if not handled carefully within the safe harbor laws of the applicable jurisdiction. 

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Lessons in Online Safety from the Younger Generation

You are what you post. With so many of us being active online, changing our status, tweeting, writing on Walls and tagging one another,, we are living out loud online. We understand that our digital footprints can be tracked by our employers, significant others, family members, coaches, bankers, insurance providers and the police.

Across the board, the younger, more social networking-savvy users age 16 to 24 take  better care of their personal information online. They search for references to themselves online, use and change privacy settings, remove questionable posts and comments, and delete problematic friends.

They expected and got better and more granular Facebook privacy settings, so only grandma can see their cute baby pictures and only their friends can view their wild party ones. They wanted to be able to limit access to certain information to those it was meant for – their friends, family, boyfriends, girlfriends and best friends. They wanted to be able to promote their band or fashion designs to everyone while keeping their dating status private.

They are taking better control and making better choices than any other age group online. They are the “Facebook Generation.”

Two members of this Facebook Generation, Maeve and Casi, are some of WiredSafety.org’s Teenangels. Teenangels are teen Internet safety experts who educate their peers and advise the industry. When asked why their generation is more careful than the others, here is what they had to say:

Most young people learn about privacy the hard way. They see what problems their friends get into or face it themselves. We live the consequences of not being careful enough. In our experience, digital abuse is very common among teens and young adults.

It’s hard to find anyone our age who has not experienced some kind of problem directly or through their close friends. Whether it is as simple as someone posting an unflattering photo on purpose to embarrass you or as serious as a malicious hate group targeting your classmates, the hurt is real and persistent.

While it is undeniable that all people, regardless of age, care about protecting their privacy, because of our personal experiences, the “Facebook Generation” is strongly motivated to be proactive when it comes to protecting our reputations and personal information online.

Regardless of your age, you can follow some simple steps to help you protect your personal information and your online reputation. The Teenangels suggest you follow these tips:

Delete the dirt: Don’t be afraid to untag pictures that don’t show you in the most flattering light, delete comments on your page that you don’t like, or to ask your friends to check first before posting something about you online.
Think quality, not quantity: When it comes to online information, built your rep on good posts, pics and ideas. Lots of junk posted online won’t win you the kind of friends you want..

No backsies: When you post something online, even for a few minutes, it can stay online forever. In caches, copied to others’ profiles, printed out or downloaded – the bad stuff lives on and on. If in doubt, don’t post it. If it’s up already, delete it fast. (And ask your friends to look over your profile for their thoughts about when something should come down.)

Facebook yourself: You want to be sure people can’t search and find negative information about you on Facebook or anywhere else. So search your name, email, address, cell and telephone number-- anything that defines you. You can even set up alerts (like Yahoo!, Bing or Google alerts) so that you know when new information about you appears online.

If you don’t like what you find, when you search for yourself on Facebook, change your search settings to restrict more information and ask your friends to take down whatever shouldn’t be there about you.

Protect your password: Don’t save your Facebook or any other password to someone else’s computer, or let someone use your cell phone with you signed into Facebook. Don’t even give your password to your best friend or romantic partner. And don’t choose one that’s really easy to guess. “Easy to remember – hard to guess!” is the password golden rule. Make sure you’re using good anti-virus software too, so others can’t spy on you.

Be proactive, not reactive: Why wait until something goes wrong before you review your privacy settings? Set them up before it’s too late. Facebook offers many privacy options to limit profile access and allow you to control who can see what on your profile. The two minutes it takes is well worth it.

So go check out your privacy settings, and your search settings. And while you’re at it, look over your friends’ and family’s settings, too. If you see something that should be changed, show them how to make the changes.


We do have privacy choices: Learn what they are. Use them. Don’t waste them. 

Depression and Cyberbullying

Parry Aftab, WiredSafety’s founder and privacy and security lawyer, hates when she is asked during an interview to contrast the risks of cyberbullying with those of offline bullying. “Both are hurtful and unacceptable,” she responds whenever asked. 
While physical bullying involves physical pain and fear, often the protracted nature of a cyberbullying campaign and its persistence long after the cyberbullies have ceased their attacks leads to higher rates of depression for victims. Over the sixteen years since WiredSafety’s volunteers began their work assisting victims of cyberbullying and cyberharassment, the charity had substantial anecdotal evidence of this fact. But until recently, no credible research existed to support this premise.
Reprinted below, with permission from the US Department of Health and Human Services, are  the results of research conducted at the National Institute of Health demonstrating higher depression rates among victims of cyberbullying than with victims of traditional offline bullying. The research was conducted using survey responses received in 2005/2006. It is important to note that this predated the explosion of social networking use by teens and Facebook’s opening its use to more than university students. Parry Aftab suspects that if this research were conducted with fresher data, the differences between cyberbullying and traditional bullying victims’ depression rates would be even more marked.
Why? There are many reasons why cyberbullying can lead to more depression than offline bullying. And when a campaign involves both offline and cyberbullying, it represents the worst of both worlds. Anonymity is probably the worst culprit, when students feel that they can do things and hide behind the cyber-mask and rarely risk being identified. 
Another big problem is the lack of digital literacy and digital hygiene skills. Passwords are easily guessed and frequently shared. Privacy settings are not used effectively or at all. They don’t screen for malware or use firewalls and often share devices. They share too much, don’t think before they click and misinterpret others’ communications. There is no escape. No changing neighborhoods, schools or cliques can avoid it. It follows the victim to grandma’s house and back again, to the mall, the gym, school, home and camp. But there’s more.
When asked to identify the main reasons cyberbullying results in higher incidents and levels of depression, Parry and WiredSafety’s “KidDoc”, pediatrician and Vanderbilt University faculty member, Dr. Deanna Guy agreed:
1.    It is persistent. Once posted or shared, digital communications and content have a life of their own. Parry’s most frequently repeated quote, “what you post online stays online – forever” underscores the caching, publication, and viral nature of digital information.
2.    Victims tend to revisit the scene of the cybercrime, re-reading text messages, logging in to view hijacked accounts, viewing hurtful images and seeing the latest postings. Each time they do, they are being revictimized. Each time is a renewed hurt.
3.    The written or multimedia message has tremendous power. It enables a single post to spread to thousands of students.
4.    It brings groups together. Messages among students at the victim’s old school come to the attention of students at the new school. Teens from camp connect with teens from church. What was private to a few becomes public and never-ending.
5.    It is credible. After having read and re-read the messages and view and reviewed the images, the victim starts to believe that the cyberbullies have merit.
6.    This is especially the case when a “mean girls” cyberbullying campaign gains traction with active posses, bystanders and rumor-mongers joining in. These campaigns persist long after the original cyberbullies have lost interest.
7.    Cyberbullying is a renewable resource. New groups or individuals pick up the campaign when the victim comes to their attention, and old cyberbullying campaign members renew it when bored or the victim does something noteworthy.
8.    The anonymity of cyberbullying (more than 2/3s of cyberbullying occurs anonymously or through the use of fake accounts or accounts that have been taken over by the cyberbullies) contributes to the problem in two ways – more students cyberbully knowing that there is a limited risk of being exposed and the victims don’t know if the cyberbully is their best friend or worst enemy. They become paranoid about not knowing whom can be trusted. This isolates them further.
9.    There is no safe place to escape to; no place to hide from cyberbullies. Offline bullies need offline environments to do their damage - playgrounds, the walks to school, school buses, locker rooms or hallways. The devices and technologies used by teens to cyberbully others are designed to provide access to users 24/7/365. It can come at victims in the middle of the night, on vacation or in the security of their bedroom.
10.  Cyberbullies often pose as a trustworthy friend, causing conflict and further isolating the victim from those who could help them address the attacks. Students have told Parry that they don’t know if the cyberbully is their best friend or worst enemy – they become paranoid.
11.  Parents are rarely effective in helping students handle offline bullying, largely because it is hidden from them. But even those parents who learn of the cyberbullying are rarely prepared to address cyberbullying. One student told Parry that she wouldn’t bother telling her parents since they would be “clueless” about the issue and “worthless” in providing help or support.
Sadly, the same digital communication tools and devices that allow the students to stay in touch and receive support from their friends are now seen as a source of pain.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that there are more cyberbullies than bullies.
Cyberbullying attracts equal opportunity offenders. Everyone can be a cyberbully, no matter how small, shy or physically-challenged they are. They can act out their fantasies. They can act on impulse with technologies designed to be used impulsively. They aren’t really mean and nasty students, just playing one online. They can masquerade as others harassing friends of that student, providing two victims for the price of one. It is entertainment. It’s fun. It’s empowering. And it rarely involves serious risk of exposure.
With all of this, the NIH findings are not surprising at all.
Depression high among youth victims of school cyber bullying, NIH researchers report
Finding underscores need to monitor, obtain treatment for recipients of cyberbullying
Unlike traditional forms of bullying, youth who are the targets of cyber bullying at school are at greater risk for depression than are the youth who bully them, according to a survey conducted by researchers at the National Institutes of Health.

The new finding is in contrast to earlier studies of traditional bullying, which found that the highest depression scores were reported by another category of youth involved in bullying-bully victims. Past studies on traditional bullying show that bully-victims — those who both bully others and are bullied themselves — are more likely to report feelings of depression than are other groups.

Traditional forms of bullying involve physical violence, verbal taunts, or social exclusion. Cyber bullying, or electronic aggression, involves aggressive behaviors communicated over a computer or a cell phone.

"Notably, cyber victims reported higher depression than cyber bullies or bully-victims, which was not found in any other form of bullying," the study authors wrote in the Journal of Adolescent Health. "…unlike traditional bullying which usually involves a face-to-face confrontation, cyber victims may not see or identify their harasser; as such, cyber victims may be more likely to feel isolated, dehumanized or helpless at the time of the attack."

The analysis, of 6th through 10th grade students, was conducted by Jing Wang, Ph.D., Tonja R. Nansel, Ph.D., and Ronald J. Iannotti, Ph.D., all of the Division of Epidemiology, Statistics and Prevention Research at NIH's Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Dr. Iannotti noted that, although bullies are less likely to report feelings of depression than are bully-victims or victims, they are more likely to report depression than are youth not involved with any bullying behaviors — either traditional bullying or cyber bullying.
Being bullied interferes with scholastic achievement, development of social skills, and general feelings of well being, explained Dr. Iannotti, the study's senior author. In a study published last year, he and study coauthors reported that the prevalence of bullying is high, with 20.8 percent of U.S. adolescents in school having been bullied physically at least once in the last two months, 53.6 percent having been bullied verbally, and 51.4 percent bullied socially (excluded or ostracized), and 13.6 percent having been bullied electronically (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19766941).

The U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration advises parents to encourage children to tell them immediately if they are victims of cyberbullying or other troublesome online behaviors. The agency also lists a number of steps that parents can take to help prevent cyber bullying and how to respond to it, at http://www.stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov/adults/default.aspx. The site also includes extensive information on preventing and dealing with traditional forms of bullying.

The Center for Disease Control also provides information on electronic aggression for parents, educators, and researchers at http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/youthviolence/electronicaggression/index.html
In the current study, the research team sought to examine the association between depression and cyber bullying, which has not been studied extensively.

To conduct the study, the researchers analyzed data on American students collected in the 2005/2006 Health Behavior in School-aged Children Study, an international study of adolescents in 43 countries (http://www.hbsc.org/overview.html). The researchers measured depression by gauging responses to six survey items. Students were asked to indicate, if, within the past 30 days, they felt very sad; grouchy or irritable, or in a bad mood; hopeless about the future; felt like not eating or eating more than usual; slept a lot more or a lot less than usual; and had difficulty concentrating on their school work. Students ranked their response according to a five item scale ranging from "never" to "always."

They were also asked to indicate whether they were involved with bullying behaviors, whether as perpetrators or victims. Survey questions were designed to measure the following forms of bullying: physical (hitting), verbal (such as name calling), relational (social isolation and spreading false rumors), and cyber (using computers or cell phones). The researchers classified bullying others or being bullied "two or three times a month" as frequent, and "only once or twice" as occasional. Respondents were further classified as either not involved with bullying (either as bullies or victims), bullies, victims, or bully-victims (who had bullied others and also been bullied themselves).

Compared to students who were not involved with bullying, adolescents who were bullies, bully victims, or victims tended to score higher on the measures of depression. Those frequently involved with physical, verbal, and relational bullying, whether victims or perpetrators, reported higher levels of depression than did students only occasionally involved in these behaviors.

The researchers found that youth who were frequently involved with bullying behaviors, regardless of the type of bullying involved, reported higher depression scores than did youth only occasionally involved with such behaviors.

For physical violence, no differences were found in depression scores among bullies, victims, or bully-victims. For verbal and relational bullying, victims and bully-victims reported higher levels of depression than bullies.

For cyber bullying, however, frequent victims reported significantly higher levels of depression than frequent bullies and marginally higher depression than frequent bully-victims. The finding that victims of cyber bullying reported higher depression scores than bully victims was distinct from traditional forms of bullying and merited further study.

Victims of cyber bullying scored higher for feelings of depression than did bully-victims, a finding not seen with any other category of bullying.

Because of the association between bullying and depression, bullies, bully-victims, and victims are candidates for evaluation by a mental health professional, Dr. Wang said.
Information about depression and its treatment is available from the National Institute of Mental Health, at http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/depression/index.shtml

Dr. Wang noted that in their earlier study, she and her coworkers had found that students were less likely to bully or to be victimized if they felt they had strong parental support—feeling that their parents helped them as much as they needed, were loving, understood their problems and worries, and helped them to feel better when they were upset.

The NICHD sponsors research on development, before and after birth; maternal, child, and family health; reproductive biology and population issues; and medical rehabilitation. For more information, visit the Institute’s Web site at http://www.nichd.nih.gov/.


The National Institutes of Health (NIH) — The Nation's Medical Research Agency — includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is the primary federal agency for conducting and supporting basic, clinical and translational medical research, and it investigates the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.

Creating and Maintaining a Stop Cyberbullying Zone at Your School - a popular presentation Parry gives globally

Length and Format:
This presentation can be arranged as a workshop, panel or interactive expert presentation, depending on the conference’s needs and time slot availability. It can be delivered (in edited form) from 60 minutes to a 90 minute workshop.

Featuring:
 
Parry Aftab, cyberlawyer, Facebook’s International Safety Advisory Board member (1 of 5 worldwide) and founder and Executive Director of WiredSafety.org and StopCyberbullying.org.

Including local teens and preteens, child protection advocates from North America, Facebook or similar industry leader representative and participating principals in both workshop and panel formats. If in interactive expert session (with Dr. Aftab as the sole presenter), teens, preteens, principals and industry leaders represented in video contributions.

Overview of Presentation:

All principals, from k-12, are addressing cyberbullying in greater and greater numbers. While their ability to regulate off-premises and after-hours cyberbullying varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, cyberbullying prevention and solutions must start in school. The problem with addressing cyberbullying, however, is that no one solution size fits all cyberbullying.

 There are five different kinds of cyberbullies, and four different approaches to cyberbullying. There are 74 different ways a mobile can be used to cyberbully someone as identified by students in middle school.  Girls cyberbully differently from boys and 6 year olds cyberbully differently from their older counterparts. 

Cyberbullying of special-needs student may violate their human rights, as might similar attacks against minorities and students with differing sexual preferences.

Since 1995, Dr. Aftab has been working with her volunteers to help young people (and adults) victimized by cyberbullies and online harassers. Featured in Readers Digest in 2000 (in 82 other countries’ Readers Digests), her organization teaches netizens how to avoid online attacks and address them once they occur and helps investigate cases of serious online attacks.

Over the years, in the trenches, she has learned the methods used by cyberbullies, practical and easy prevention tips and tricks, industry best practices and how students can be part of the solution (instead of just part of the problem). 

Her Teenangels program (where teens and preteens are trained to deliver programs and help to their peers on all cyber-risks, including cyberbullying) have addressed the United Nations, US Congress and the UK Parliament, as well as briefed Facebook, Google, Disney, Webkinz, MTV, Nickelodeon, Yahoo! and Zynga on cybersafety issues. Teen People Magazine, the Girl Scouts of the USA, MTV, Seventeen Magazine, the US Senate and Dr. Phil have featured their work and expertise.

Their research has formed the basis of StopCyberbully’s cyberbullying expertise, as well. They have identified and fine-tuned peer counseling programs, awareness programs and student-developed activities, such as “Don’t Stand By – Stand Up!”

Her StopCyberbullying Toolkit for Schools recently launched in the US. It contains US$1.5 million worth of digital resources, lesson plans, animations, computer games and printables, as well as risk-management guides. Although most of the resources translate well to worldwide English cyberbullying needs, the legal discussions address only US laws at this time. Special editions are being designed for global use.


Whisper? Ask.fm? Here We Go Again!

New networks, apps and technologies pop up all the time. Some recycle a tried and true business model – allow or encourage hate, cyberbullying, cyberharassment or hype. It might not start out as a strategy, but once the management discovers that negativity is very popular and will draw new users, it becomes the default.

We saw it after Murdoch bought MySpace. We saw it with FormSpring and Honesty Box. We saw it with Juicy Campus, and many more. The one thing that management may not understand is that negativity and the network that’s sole draw is allowing negativity to foster have a short shelf life.

MySpace is now only a sparkle in Tom’s eye. (If you don’t know who “Tom” is, I’ve made my point!) Juicy Campus was shut down for fraud by two attorneys general with our help. FormSpring is abandoned by most users. And Honesty Box died a quick death.

The kids find these first. Their business model may be built around honest appraisals of consumer products or allowing someone to be anonymous when asking or answering questions. But once the kids find it and abuse it, the model changes.

When most start-ups are funded, risk management is often forgotten. It is always underfunded. And few managers understand how to build a safer network. And with a quick growth (MySpace grew from 6 million users to 50 million users in 6 months!), little time is allowed for managing risk. There is little incentive to clamp down on user-generated-abuses, harassment and cyberbullying, since the ability to misuse the network is the main reason for its popularity and stellar growth.

Parents sign petitions. Legislators hold hearings. Consumer and privacy protection agencies investigate. The pattern is clear. But unless the network’s investors or banks or insurance providers insist on the adoption of best practices, or unless we can find a legal hole that allows the network to be shut down or heavily fined for its practice, it merely dies a slow death like all the rest of its kind.


Ask.fm is in our crosshairs now. Its management has a choice – do it right or face the same demise as the others before it. Facebook grew based on its not being MySpace. It’s easy to see the difference good risk management makes in long term growth and user-adoption. Here we go again.

We hope that Whisper doesn't follow its lead.

Lots of new readers from Poland too! thank you!

powitanie!
dziękuję

Digital Citizenship: Cell Phone Self-Defense

We’ve seen how many ways cell phones can be abused to cyberbully someone. When unattended, it can be reprogrammed or used to do things that will end up with the target being blamed. And the cell phone can be stolen, lost or damaged and all of its data lost or misused. The cyberbullies and crooks can access your address book, erase photos and music. Cyberbullies can even apply filters without the target’s knowledge. Some malicious code is now being designed for cell phones, too. And with Internet access, many smart phones are vulnerable to standard malware and viruses.

So, when cell phones are so important to us, store lots of our favorite media and information and cost as much as they do, why aren’t we more careful?

Here are a few tips to consider when it comes to using cell phone self-defense:

·         If your cell phone has password capability, use a password (nothing too exotic that you won’t be able to easily remember). Remember Parry’s password mantra “Easy to remember – Hard to guess!”

·         Lock your phone to avoid pocketbook or “butt” calls.

·         Don’t lay it down and forget about it. It’s too easily lost, grabbed by a cyberbully or stolen.

·         If you have a picture or video you wouldn’t want a parent, principal, predator or the police to see, don’t store it on your cell phone. (Better yet, don’t take it at all!)

·         Remember that lots of “free” movies, music and games from P2P sites may cost you more in legal damages and lawsuits than they are worth. Pay for what you use.

·         Don’t download anything that might contain malicious code, like viruses, spyware and malware.

·         Don’t keep your schedule on your cell phone without password protecting it. Do they same with address books and images. (This is important enough that we mentioned it twice!)

·         Keep your cell phone in a safe place when playing contact sports, taking a bath or washing your car. Few cell phones are water proof.

·         Backup your cell phone, so if lost or stolen you still have the contacts, schedules and images you don’t want to lose.

·         Learn how to use the block features to block unwanted incoming texts and calls.

·         Check and see if parental and privacy features are available for your equipment for younger users.

·         Consider buying insurance for the cell phones used by preteens and young teens, especially. They are lost, stolen or broken far more than adult-used cell phones.

·         Know your plan. Free nights and weekends? When does “night” start and end? What about “weekends?” How many texts can you send and when does the new month start? Because you can now take your number with you when you change cell phone providers, you may not know that your BFF has moved from Sprint to Verizon. That means she may not qualify for any in-network calling rates. Find the best plan for your money and needs.

·         If you are passing a cell phone down to someone else, make sure they start fresh and your info stays private. Ask the cell phone manufacturer or the carrier how to reformat the cell phone, so the data can’t be recovered. And back it up somewhere else before you delete it forever.


These will help you get started and help you decide which services and equipment to buy and how to use them. Still confused? No problem, just find a local 8-year-old to help you figure out how they work. J

Parry Aftab's statement for the OSTWG (Congressional working group) report on sexual exploitation of children online

Parry Aftab (WiredSafety) Statement - OSTWG Report (full version – aftab.com/ostwg)

It has been an honor to serve on the OSTWG., a varied and stellar group. Each brings something special to the table. Because WiredSafety and my experience, especially our work with victims, parents and young people, differs from that of many working group members[1], while we concur with most of the conclusions reached in the Report, we differ on several others.

               The most significant differences relate to the importance of law enforcement and the scope and prevalence of cyberbullying (where one minor uses digital technologies as a weapon to hurt another minor), “sexting” (taking, sending or possessing nude or sexual images of minors by minors, including of themselves) and sexual exploitation of minors by adults that is facilitated by digital technology. Based upon our 15 years in the field, we believe that more minors are victimized, victimizing each other and putting themselves at risk than the Report reflects. Things that are obvious face-to-face are less obvious online. While we agree that the education of young people about safe and responsible digital technology use is critical, under the right set of circumstances even a well-educated child could become an unwitting victim. It is the role of our police to keep this from happening. That is why we shouldn’t lose track of the importance of well-trained and equipped law enforcement agencies and their role in our children’s safety online and off.

               At the same time, we recognize that the public (and parents, in particular) often over-estimate the risks children face online, especially when sexual predators are involved. (We fear what we don’t understand, which is why parental education is so important.) While we have to correct their misconceptions, under-estimating the risks is not the answer. In our opinion, the Report leaves the impression that our young people are less at risk than our experience leads us to believe. How serious are the risks? Sadly, we can only guess. When it comes to cyberbullying, sexting and sexual exploitation of minors facilitated by digital technologies, we don’t really understand the facts. We don’t know how often they occur, to whom they occur and the seriousness of the victimization/harm. Why? Because our children often don’t understand that they have been victimized, intentionally hide the victimization from us or don’t share the truth when asked by researchers conducting academic surveys. (Only 5% of students polled told us that they would tell their parents if cyberbullied.) While under-reporting is an offline reality, it is worse when young people feel they have been complicit in some part of the digital abuse.

               We are among the experts who believe that cyberbullying is at “epidemic levels” especially in middle school, and that more minors and at increasingly younger ages are engaged in taking, sending or receiving nude or sexual images. (Our survey of children 10 -12 disclosed that 5% had sent a sexually provocative, nude or sexual image and 6% had received one. Teenangels.org/sexting.) The MTV/AP survey conducted for the digital abuse prevention campaign, athinline.org (for which one of my Teenangels and I are advisory board members), shows a higher incidence of sexting than reflected in the Report, as well. This is particularly concerning, as those admitting to sending a “sext” also admitted to being more than 3 times more likely to consider suicide. The more we know, the better job we will be able to do. For that we have to engage young people, ask the right questions and demand better answers.



[1] WiredSafety served on the Harvard Berkman Center’s ISTTF. It and I bring knowledge of cybercrime, law, privacy, best practices, victim-assistance, youth leadership and peer-education, parent education, mommy blogging and issues involving cyberbullying and the digital technology social and sexual conduct of minors. (To learn more visit WiredSafety.org.)

Netherland Readers...wonderful!

WiredSafety has some wonderful volunteers in the Netherlands.
thank you!

Users trending from Israel and Morocco now.

Amazing.
Thank you!

Our Young People Have to Be Trained - Helping Others in Distress and Knowing What to Do

One of our youth volunteers last night received an email from someone they knew casually. That email conveyed pain in a breakup and the intent to hurt themselves. Luckily, this young volunteer reached out to some of my managers and was able, with their help, to get help for the other student. Relieved, our volunteer was also traumatized. While my young volunteers have a unique role in helping others, this particular young volunteer had not yet been trained in providing support.

Young people are seeing more and more of their peers reaching out for help online. Sometimes they may imply that they are thinking about suicide or other forms of self-harm. Sometimes they imply that they may be planning on hurting others (such as Columbine) and sometimes they just talk about being lost and lone with no where to turn. We have to teach them what to do, where to go for help and how to report these instances when they find them.

Like performing CPR or first aid, all young people (and adults) must know what they have to do to help others and address emergencies online.

The industry leaders and forward thinkers have created extensive report abuse and help resources. Many have specially trained teams of support for users, police and schools. Yet, few young people (or adults) know what to report, where to report it or what to expect when they do.

This year WiredSafety.org is devoting to helping increase abuse reporting awareness and literacy. We will be partnering with other leading help groups to create a "no wrong door" policy, where all of us lead to help.

Want to join us? Have some ideas? Want to help? The kids need us and each other.


So many users from Germany, France and Russia! Thank you. And now, readers from Nigeria too!

Thank you!

Monday, February 17, 2014

Syria! Love seeing new readers' countries, thank you.

I have several teens experts from Syria. They will be so excited to see that I now have Syrian readers.

Digital Surveillance and School Employers (US law)

While school risk managers often focus on student misconduct and risks, they should be well-versed in managing employer/employee risks and setting rules and policies for digital access and permitted conduct. The rights of public schools and districts as employers to track digital activities of employees and contractors align with those of private sector employers, with one important exception. As public entities, federal Constitutional 4th Amendment search and seizure protections apply in ways they do not typically apply to private entity employers. These may not apply to a private or parochial educational institution. But appropriate notice and consent, express or implied, should be sufficient to satisfy both national statutory and common laws and state or federal constitutional protections.

The prime law in the employer monitoring and surveillance area, nationally, is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (“ECPA”), an amendment to Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, commonly known as the "wiretap law." The ECPA was adopted initially to govern third-party interceptions of electronic communications, not to govern employers' rights to monitor their workers. (All states have their own wiretapping” statutes that either mirror the federal law or provide their own unique spin in the federal law.)
The ECPA provides civil and criminal penalties for any person who intentionally intercepts, uses, or discloses "any wire, oral, or electronic communication." The term "electronic communication" is defined as "any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo-electronic or photo optical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce."

Essentially, the ECPA prohibits the interception, use or disclosure of electronic communications to which the interceptor, user or person making the disclosure is not a party – it requires the involvement of a third-party. This is called the “one consent rule.”  One party to the communication can give their consent to its interception, use or disclosure, without violating the ECPA. (As noted below, a small minority of states require the consent of both parties to a communication. This is called the “dual consent rule”, and these states are commonly known as “dual consent states.”)

Most of the cases developed under the ECPA involve criminal justice and investigatory wiretaps of telephone and e-mail communications, with employer-rights getting increasing attention in recent years. Until recently, most of the case law in the civil application of the ECPA in employer-rights involved monitoring telephone communications of employees and customers. But the law applies equally to all digital communications, including email, instant messaging, text messaging, social networking communications, faxes and any other electronic communications developed.

Exceptions
Two exceptions to the prohibition against interception and use of electronic communication of the ECPA afford employers broad rights to monitor their employees: An employer may monitor an employee's conversations if the monitoring occurs (i) in the ordinary course of business or (ii) with the employee's consent.


Consent: Employee’s consent can be express or implied. Express consent can be obtained by written or oral agreement with the employee.  An employee handbook signed and acknowledged by the employee is an example of express consent, as is an employment agreement.

Implied consent can be obtained by conditioning employment or access on the employee’s consenting to the surveillance. The user’s consent is evidenced by their use of the digital technologies or acceptance of employment or remaining in their job after being apprised of such rules.[1] In an employment situation, implied consent can be evidenced by notices of monitoring policies contained in the employee’s handbook, notices appearing on the computer screen or inclusion in the employment application forms. Some employers use several reminders of the monitoring and surveillance, in a “belts and suspenders” approach.

The ECPA also contains a "business exclusion exemption" that exempts interceptions made by equipment "furnished to the subscriber or user by [a communications carrier] in the ordinary course of its business [and being used by the subscriber or user] in the ordinary course of its business." Under this exception, an employer may monitor phone calls made on an employer-supplied telephone system by attaching a device supplied by the employer. The courts look to whether a reasonable business justification exists for the monitoring, whether the employee was informed about the employer's right to monitor, and whether the employer acted consistently in connection therewith.

Additional federal and state legislation have been introduced to afford employees improved rights and weapons in the battle for more privacy. But, so far there's no federal law that requires employers to notify employees that their communications are being monitored. (Union members have protection not afforded to non-unionized workers. The NLRB ruled that the monitoring of employee digital communications and activities. Os a collective bargaining issue.)

Many states have adopted their own version of the ECPA, and the dual consent states require the consent of all parties to the communication for non-exempt interceptions (as opposed to the one-consent ECPA rule). In addition to the state versions of the ECPA, state laws include constitutional provisions, statutes and common law (law that has been developed through case-by-case review and, in the United States is as much part of the law as a statute).

Common Law and Privacy Laws
In some cases, state common-law rights exist and may provide a separate common law right of action. Typically, they seek relief under the common-law tort of invasion of privacy. Invasion of privacy laws don't exist in all states, and in some cases, statutes labeled as "privacy” laws do not deal with privacy matters at all. In New York, for example, the privacy statute deals with protection of celebrities and others rights against the commercial exploitation of their images.

In the states that recognize the tort of invasion of privacy, a violation generally requires an intentional intrusion, "physical or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another upon his private affairs, or concerns if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person."

One of the key conditions to successfully prosecuting an action for invasion of privacy is whether the person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Courts across the country are finding with more and more frequency that no reasonable expectation of privacy exists with e-mail or employee online communications. When the privacy policy or electronic use policy that we all click without reading explains their practices or that users have no expectation of privacy, it is hard to prove that your expectation was reasonable.

Conclusion
Whether they have a right to privacy under employment circumstances or not, many employees find the intrusion of digital surveillance and monitoring offensive. This makes it a practical problem, not a legal one.


Many employers are choosing to notify employees in advance that their activities may be monitored. These notices can be contained in a written e-mail policy or within an employee handbook. Under all circumstances, the employee should acknowledge them in writing and the employer should retain those written acknowledgements. When unions are involved, the NLRB has ruled that employee surveillance and digital communications monitoring is a collective bargaining issue. This further complicates the issue.

Yet, with increasing exposure to litigants seeking to hold the employer responsible for what is said and done by employees, especially within school environments, employers must seriously consider monitoring as a risk management option. But if school employers choose to monitor, they must do it wisely and consistently, and adopt a policy that works for their environment. They should also find a public employment lawyer who can craft one, just for their purposes, rather than using one off the shelf or discovered online. A carefully written, well-enforced policy is smart employee relations–and best educational institutional practices.





[1] An example of how implied consent is utilized in a customer service environment is the “this call may be monitored for quality control purposes” recording. By remaining on the phone, callers have provided their implied consent to being recorded. They evidence their rejection of consent by hanging up.