Comments: 350 +- Your Rights Online: How Dangerous is Online Chat for Kids? on Tuesday May 14 2002, @09:27AM
The hearing launched with Congressman Upton touting his internet record -- notably the .kids domain, now .kids.us. Personally, I like the idea of .kids.us, though some disagree.
The witnesses were Katie Tarbox, who in 1995, at age 13, had been inadequately briefed on the "rules of the net" and disasterously agreed to meet a child predator she'd chatted with online; two local law enforcement personnel, John Karraker and Jim Gregart; Ruben Rodriguez, the Director of the Exploited Child Unit for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children; Caroline Curtin, the Director of Children's Policy for AOL; and Kathleen Tucker, the Director of Curriculum Development for I-Safe America.
Everyone was concerned about keeping children safe online. It goes without saying that this is a desirable goal, as long as it's done in accordance with the Constitution and doesn't interfere with everyone else's legal use of the internet.
The problem is a serious one. Real kids are being lured into dangerous relationships over the internet; charges were filed in one more case here in Kalamazoo County just last week.
The preferred pickup method for child molesters nowadays is the internet: chat, instant-messaging, and email. The old tricks of "would you like some candy?" and "your parents were in an accident, I'll drive you to the hospital" -- those are yesterday's news. Kids growing up now need to be aware of different dangers, ones involving formation of long-term relationships, questions about online identity, and trust.
I wasn't able to find any reliable statistics on how often children are victimized using the internet. The best numbers I found were from a phone survey of 1,501 children, ages 10 to 17, who used the internet regularly. Of them, 19% had "received an unwanted sexual solicitation" (imprecisely defined) but only 3% had been solicited with "attempts or requests for offline contact" or actual offline contact.
And precisely 0 of the 1,501 children said they had been sexually contacted or assaulted due to online solicitations. This seems significant to me, given that 21% of all children -- statistically, hundreds of the children in the phone survey -- are sexually abused (by some definition of the term) before age 18. Unfortunately, 0 is not a number that extrapolates well to estimate how many of the United States's 70 million children will be physically victimized with help from the internet. But if I understand the numbers, it seems the internet is not the most likely source of danger.
A study called JOVIS is in the works and should provide some concrete numbers. According to Mr. Rodriguez, we can expect data from it in four to five months.
In any case, the message our lawmakers heard yesterday was not that we need more laws.
All six witnesses said, using almost the same words, that there is no substitute for parental involvement. Three called for more money and training for law enforcement, to give existing laws teeth. It sounds like law enforcement, especially at the state and local level, is still coming up to speed on this issue. And Ms. Curtin, for AOL, emphasized that ISPs were already taking steps, and suggested patience to allow them to develop an industry standard.
The testimony and discussion was so removed from proposing new legislation, in fact, that Rep. Bass seemed a little bored and annoyed. He had to remind everyone twice that he and his colleague were lawmakers: "As a member of Congress, I would like to hear what recommendations you have for what we might do -- I haven't heard anything about that so far. ... If I could reiterate: we make policy. This is a very interesting problem, but precisely what suggestions would you have for us as policymakers? If you could draft the bill, what would it say?"
Proposals were hesitant. Our local prosecutor suggested mandated inclusion of a CD with every new computer sale, which would explain how to keep children safe online. I'm not sure why existing explanations (here's one) are insufficient; why not just link? And Kathleen Tucker of I-Safe suggested standardizing on "digital certificates," client-side certs issued by an authority which confirms your identity using proof ranging from photo ID up to DNA (!) -- thus allowing children to verify that screen name BritneyRulez333 does not actually belong to a 45-year-old man.
That excepted, Ms. Tucker's testimony was refreshingly sound. She squarely faced the problem of child predators, and quoted Judith Krug of the American Library Association's Office of Intellectual Freedom: children "need to be taught the skills to cope in the virtual world just as they are taught skills to cope in the physical world."
Parents aren't there to watch over kids every minute. Just as they learn to cross the street without holding an adult's hand, so they need to learn how to wander the internet safely. "The value of empowering our children, through education," she concluded, "with the knowledge and critical-thinking skills that they need to be able to independently assess the every-day situations they will encounter while online cannot be overstressed... Education and empowerment are key."
In my opinion, that's exactly right.
But I wonder how effectively government will be able to help alleviate the problem. Knowledge is key, but kids are, as usual, embracing and understanding change, while bored Congressmen sit behind tables and listen to prepared speeches. Last week, I contacted three students, ages 14 to 17, and asked them about their experiences chatting online.
What they thought, and what they reported their friends thought, was pretty savvy. They understand the dangers, are well aware of the internet's advantages, and know how to stay safe. One student reported:
If kids know not to give out their personal information, and what could happen if they do, then there is really no danger. I would feel like I was missing out on a lot if I didn't have the opportunities to communicate online. It gives me a chance to stay in touch with my current friends, make new friends, meet interesting people, and find a group where I feel like I belong.
Another student reported:
I chat to other people almost every night, or whenever I get the chance to. I do not see chatting on-line as being dangerous, or otherwise harmful. Sure you always hear those stories about 12 year old girls chatting with 45 year old men, but I see online chatting as a way for people with similar interests to discuss and debate interesting topics. ...I strongly believe that if you chat online with people that you do not know personally, you should figure out what this person is really like, and if you can trust them or not.
Finally, I traded several emails with one girl who had chatted online extensively for years, and has met in person "at least 10 or so" other kids whom she first found on AOL -- including a meeting with some boys from another state.
This might seem like a recipe for disaster. But, not only was her protocol for establishing trust detailed and thorough -- paranoid even -- but she readily explained to me her reasoning for each step along the way. She's a poster child for "education and empowerment." And I doubt she's unique:
How did I know to be careful about creeps on the internet? It would be hard not to know nowadays. With an Oprah special about it practically every week, and news documentaries and polls, the facts are pretty much right out there for you. It's like taking candy from a stranger, it's common sense I guess... The types who would fall prey to an online creep would just as easily be a victim to a creep in real life... If the topic of internet chat comes up in school, teachers will almost always preach about safety and weirdos and such. So pretty much the topic of internet safety is inescapable -- it just depends on how well you listen to it.
I hope that's true for every young person.
Related Stories
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
only danger (Score:5, Funny)
Re:only danger (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:only danger (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd also advise lawmakers to look to what the kids do to lead on adults. It doesn't take long on Yahoo! or GeoCities to find underaged kids [geocities.com] selling themselves.
Re:only danger (Score:3, Funny)
the only danger of kids chatting on irc is them becoming script kiddies
pfft, scr00 j00! 3y3 h4v b33n 4wnl1ne ph0r y33rz ch4tt0r1ng 0n 3y3 y4r 533 4nd h4d n0 pr0bl3mz. d0nu7 m4k3 m3 h4x0r j00r b4wkz3n! h4w h4w!
my thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)
Tom
Re:my thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
__Thomas Tuttle__
Email: ThomasTuttle@@@EarthLink.net
AIM: MooseGuy529
Yahoo: MooseGuy88
ICQ: 1484(space added to prevent spam)03856
Most (un)likely matches in Real Life(tm):
Thomas T Tuttle, (617) 928-016X, XX Lowell Ave, Newton, MA 02460
Thomas R Tuttle, (617) 923-923X, XX Bailey Rd, Watertown, MA 02472
An X was added to protect privacy (just a little). I don't believe this is you, since you were probably born in 1988 and probably don't have your own phone line.
Some of your hobbies: Cybiko, reading books (such as "The Giver": taken from here [sparknotes.com]), HAM Radio, Lego Mindstorms.
Member of the Boston Ham Radio Club
You're probably still using AOL as your primary net connection (you're still young, probably paid for by parents). You're also probably frustrated by this.
You have a TI-85 (or similar) calculator that you like to fiddle with (and want to play games on)
All this in just a couple quick searches. Maybe you SHOULD be paranoid. I haven't even looked at your slashdot info (just google'd a bit).
Parent
Re:my thoughts (Score:4, Funny)
__Thomas Tuttle__
*snip*
Parent
To-Do List for Parents (Score:5, Insightful)
(2) Ask yourself whether your kid needs a computer that soon. And why. Books might be better.
(3) Take the computer to the living room and out of the kids bedrooms. Keep a watch over what they do.
(4) Be frank with them. Tell them what worries you and what they should not be doing. Take action. Dont be passive.
Re:To-Do List for Parents (Score:4, Insightful)
(6) Be paranoid. Kids respect unfounded fears.
(7) Tell them what they can and can't do, because you know best. Teenagers especially have great respect for authority.
(8) By all means, don't let them make their own mistakes. That's not how we learn.
Parent
Re:To-Do List for Parents (Score:3, Insightful)
At the same time the original poster had some good points. Number four, in particular, is something every parent should do, regardless of the age of the child. The rest are more appropriate for children under the age of 13 or so, but are *important* while the kids are younger.
Re:To-Do List for Parents + personal experience (Score:3, Interesting)
"(1) Take Interest in your kids dammit. No matter how important your work is, family always come first. Get your friggin priorities straight."
Letting your children or teenagers use the internet by themselves is not necessarily due to a lack of parental interest. Often it is an escape from the overly interested parents that a child can finally have the freedom and privacy s/he craves for through personal use of the internet.
"(2) Ask yourself whether your kid needs a computer that soon. And why. Books might be better."
We all need computers. Firstly, young children use them invaluably as educational resources where books are seen as "boring". A dyslexic child will find it very hard to read a book, but an interactive program can help enourmously build confidence back by removing the difficulties the child experiences in being restricted to books. Older children need to learn computing skills for later work, and for effective use of resources. A school project on solar energy would take hours of trauling through useless books in a library often several miles away, where learning how to effectively search the internet can produce useful information in minutes.
"(3) Take the computer to the living room and out of the kids bedrooms. Keep a watch over what they do."
A computer in the living room? What is this world coming to? Televisions are ugly enough, but a computer being encouraged to become an integral part of family life? Children need privacy. Parents wanting to read emails is just as insulting as them opening your letters. I'm sure you can remember the absolute fury and feeling of lack of trust when your parents cannot leave a child or teenager to write their own emails.
To be honest, children under 12 are not interested in porn and cannot type fast enough to enjoy chat properly. The most we can do is encourage written communication through email- I sincerely doubt children would be writing letters by hand to each other so emailing is wonderful for encouraging this. Teenagers need their freedom so long as it is informed.
Teenagers chatting is perhaps more of a concern than young children. I know only too well that it is easy to think you have found the perfect partner on the internet, particularly if you are having difficulties in real life friendships. When I was 16 I met a guy off the internet who was 20. I'd never had a bf, and never kissed a boy. I met him in London, 50 miles from home, telling my parents I'd gone to the local town to meet friends. He took me to a park and did everything to me except actual sex, and I let him because I was too afraid.
So why did I not tell my parents? Because with all the hype about 40 year old men claiming to be 17, they would never have let me. I asked, they said no. Paranoia can work against parents. If my parents had been less against internet chat, an arrangement could have been made where the guy came to my house with my parents always there.
How did I end up giving him my phone number? Well, I trusted him, and what could he do with a phone number? Okay I now have a strange guy from texas phoning me (in England) pronouncing my name wrong claiming he loves me every few months, but it's not exactly harassment.
So what do I think should happen? Stop parents becoming paranoid! It simply accentuates the distance between the child and the parent. The child feels trust towards those s/he chats to, and the parent feeling convinced whoever it is s/he chats to is a serial rapist does not help. Teenagers who use chat feel like they have finally made real friends. Real friends chat on the phone, meet up occasionally and have a good time. Parents must try to understand this, and should two children decide to meet, then simple precautions must be taken. Other than that, children should be encouraged to chat on the internet. I have talked to many interesting people, ordinary people, culturally different people and males and females of all ages, and I can only say that it has enriched me and my ability to understand people in the real world too. Lastly, I totally agree with (4)
From Modern Humorist (Score:3, Funny)
Nasty stuff happens... (Score:5, Interesting)
The journalist spoke with the parents and together they let the boy make an appointment. When the time was there not the boy stepped in this man's car, but the (famous) reporter. The man turned out to be a teacher and I believe trainer of a boys football team. This will surely wreck his career and personal life, in spite of the fact that nothing really happened.
But the important part is that *if* the boy had not spoke with his parents about this, then what would have happened if he did make an appointment. Surely this sort of thing happens all the time in chatboxes.
Re:Nasty stuff happens... (Score:2)
Why is this so sure? I don't mean to come out one way or another on this issue, but extrapolating from one case seems to be a pretty bad method.
Moreover, how many child abusers do you think that there are in society? Do you really think that there are enough that the average child is in great danger the moment that they can communicate with someone? If so, if there really are that many child molestors, then what percentage of the population do they make up?
You see, if child moslestors make up 50% of the population or so, then it's really time to worry as fairly soon child molestation is going to become legal.
Extrapolation is a dangerous thing. Always be wary of it.
it IS Dangerous!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Be careful! (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, please, please, don't entrust your child's safety to a $29.95 piece of software!
Re:Be careful! (Score:3, Interesting)
Pi
For Great Justice|ecitsuJ taerG roF
Re:Be careful! (Score:3, Insightful)
scary stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
As a parent I would be extremely wary about letting my children participate in such things in the big-name systems like AOL and Yahoo.
Ironically, I'm sure any legislation would go after the "unsupervised" systems like IRC, while leaving AOL chat rooms to their own devices.
how about the case when the parents dont care ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally have come across a 13year child when i was 20y and she claimed to be 18y and would drool and sigh all day as i listened to her as i coded some crap
One day she said her little brother was dead by drowning in the tub - very obvious that she was loving the attention - and to think for a few mins. i was so concerned and then i had to coax her out her father's name...the emails she used to send me had her last name and traced her static IP to a state in the eastern US and used www.switchboard.com hoping to get a hit which i did and called her mom up and gave her a short lesson in how to raise kids.
The scary part was she did actually have an infant brother and she might have actually done something to him. Before you say the kids need to do something more productive, i would put the entire responsibility on the parents.
Depressing confirmation (Score:5, Insightful)
This confirms the worries I have seen here over and over: That lawmakers believe the only solution to a problem is more laws. It is completely inconceiveable to them that a problem may exist that is not best solved by increased legislation.
What do you expect (Score:5, Insightful)
When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Lawmakers make laws, they see a problem, then try to come up with a law to solve it, that is what they do.
The summary suggests that more laws will not help. It is just as important to make the right laws, as it is to NOT make the wrong laws.
Although even from the simple quotes they feel helpless, they see children being victimized, they have the power to make laws, and they want to help. They just don't know what to do, and it is quite upsetting to be helpless to solve such a problem.
Now in business speak here is my solution. Get a cross functional team to come up with an action plan.
Get lawmakers, enforcement, money people and experts together. Come up with a plan of attack, ie enforce existing child abuse/predator/stalking laws, educate PARENTS and children. Then go do it.
I think that lawmakers would be satisfied not making new laws if they saw the problem being effectively attacked in other ways.
Parent
I don't think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
Questions weren't specific enough (Score:4, Informative)
Billy12345: Hey Jenny, do you have the answer to homework question #4?
Jenny12345: No I haven't done my homework yet.
Billy12345: Well what if I came over to your place and gave you the answer.. and maybe gave you a kiss too..
Parents - and the general public at large alike - please keep in mind that "unwanted sexual solicitation" is not representative of "sexual predators" much less "perverts" or "pedophiles." The unwanted sexual solicitations these kids are getting could very well be from classmates, not random perverted strangers.
Shaun
Re:Questions weren't specific enough (Score:3, Interesting)
Very imprecisely defined indeed. You make the excellent point that this "unwanted sexual solicitation" may be from classmates and peers.
However, I believe these kids were talking about something else. What were they thinking about when they answered this question, you ask? Well, ask yourself (as an adult) where you receive the most "unwanted sexual solicitation."
I'm guessing this sexual solicitation comes not from 60-year-old balding perverts in trenchcoats or from more-or-less innocent classmates. It comes from advertisers. Unscrupulous advertisers. The ones that spam you with herbal viagra offers, penis enlargement schemes and links to hot teen websites with cascading javascript popups, both through email and in instant messaging/chat rooms. I haven't used instant messaging since the heydays of ICQ, so they may have fixed this by now - but, considering the morals of these sub-humans, I wouldn't be surprised if they figure out ways around anti-advertisement measures (or, more likely, they pay a hungry programmer to figure it out for them).
If there's any good that can come about from these parents' misdirected rage, it's that perhaps they'll convince congress to put restrictive sanctions on advertisers, severly limiting advertisers' possibilities.
Re:Questions weren't specific enough (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to put this in perspective. Suppose you're a 16 year old girl. Suppose someone asks you, "have you ever received an unsolicited sexual comment while chatting online?" Suppose your parents raised you to answer truthfully. If you were IMing your [boyfriend|guy friend you like] yesterday and he told you that he wanted to lick you up and down, you'd answer "yes" to the survey question, even though his comment may have been perfectly OK by you. Even though you may have told him about a similar desire before he said that.
"Unwanted sexual solicitation" does not equal pervert, it does not equal adult, it does not equal predator, it does not equal pedophile. This is how surveys get skewed... By not asking the right kinds of questions. A more appropriate question would have been "have you ever been approached sexually by an adult online?"
I'm not defending anyone, and I'm certainly not defending adults who go after kids, either online or off. What I am tired of, and have been tired of for some 6 or 8 years, are the ideas that:
- kids are stupid and must be sheltered
- kids can't think for themselves or decide who to talk to (or not talk to)
- underage == incompetent
- anyone over 18 who talks to anyone under 18 about anything is a pervert, because nobody over 18 could possibly have friends who are under 18
- the government has to protect kids from conversations with adults
A lot of my animosity in this regard dates back to the time when I was remote staff for AOL, and AOL issued an edict stating that remote staffers could not talk to anyone underage, period. As that rule was worded, remote staff weren't even allowed to have conversations with minors offline; not even their own kids. What if a child was approached by a pervert on AOL, and sought out a Host or Guide to help deal with the problem? If the remote staffer acted in accordance with AOL's policy, he'd close the message (since he's not allowed to talk to minors) and leave the child to fend for himself. Some protection. I was not AOL remote staff for long after.I'm not a kid anymore, but I still remember being one. And I still remember being pissed that the government assumed I couldn't think for myself, that I couldn't ignore the random idiot who IM'd me asking if I wanted to get my dick sucked. A random sexual solicitation - even if it is from an adult - is not something that should invoke horror in the minds of parents, assuming the parents have done their job!
The occasional stories about Jane Q Minor accepting bus tickets from some pervert, those stories are as much the parents' fault as the pervert's fault. And yes, I seriously believe that. My parents raised me well enough to know when someone was trying to take advantage of me, they raised me well enough to know what is and isn't appropriate. Perhaps more parents should be as involved.
Laws are not the answer, especially when they're based upon bad survey questions and bad stats. It's a good thing IMO that the conclusion of this hearing was that no further legislation is needed.
Shaun
Responsible steps in the right direction (Score:2)
The real problem lies with ... (Score:3, Insightful)
People should really start to think logically (and yes I know this is hard for a young child or teenager), but if common sense is applied, you should know that giving your name, address, phone number and pantie size to a stranger you've never met in real life is a tad stupid.
I remember when I was young and my parents told me about "stranger danger". You didn't see parents saying "DON'T GO OUTSIDE, ITS DANGEROUS" back then. They taught their children right and wrong, common sense and most importantly, if something doesn't feel right, don't do it.
Conclusion: Don't ruin something that you don't understand for those of us that do understand.
Perverts (Score:3, Interesting)
His grandmother then refused to let him use the internet at all, and the computer for games only when someone else was in the office to supervise.
Sad, when a kid can't just be a kid anymore, on the net or anywhere else for that matter.
Re:Perverts (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep - the kid was definitly tought a lesson:
- Next time something like this happens (online or offline) don't tell anybody or else you're the one that will get punished.
Then again IANAP (I Am Not A Parent).
Parent
They don't know yet? (Score:2)
good example of what happens when kids get online (Score:2, Interesting)
http://members.tripod.com/ornitech/
heres the kids's site. Its a nice thing that they could get online, atleast for the kids.
Repeat after me... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is not the medium.
The problem is not the medium.
Some kids can handle it well. Others...simply can't. I'm an administrator on a large IRC network [webchat.org], and I've received only a few (three at most that I can think of) complaints about online {stalkings,pedophiles,unwelcome advances} in the two years that I've been an operator.
I think a much more prevalant problem are kiddiots [antioffline.com] with WinNuke and friends that have abused the medium by {flooding,hax0ring,cloning}. They're not mature enough to understand that their actions have consequences, and that they *will* be held responsible for them -- both on IRC and the real world. I can't count the number of times I've had some idiot constantly abuse, only to sulk back and beg for forgiveness once they realize that it's easier for me to remove them than they previously thought.
My 12 Year Old Daughter (Score:3, Insightful)
She thinks I just don't get it.
Kids are stoopit. Even the smart ones. It scares the shit out of me.
How Dangerous is Online Chat for Kids? (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously - chat is an extremely positive thing. I've learned more in Yahoo! Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris:1 than anywhere. Had it not been for that room and the people in it I would have never even heard of Linux or *BSD or anything non-Windows. How about that? And I haven't been raped or molested or whatever. Chat is not dangerous - if the children on it have enough common sense and intelligence to know how to protect themselves (this is where parenting comes into play - a thing that is all too often absent).
The problem is not chat - it's stupid children.
Uhhh, yeah... (Score:3, Interesting)
You're uncritically repeating nonsense like this and you're using the word 'alarmist' to describe others?
Come on -- doesn't that figure (27% for girls, 16% for boys, according to your link) challenge even your limited common sense? At least according to any definition of 'sexually abused' that is consistent with common usage, as opposed to getting one's bra strap snapped in fifth grade?
And no, linking to another site that simply says 'a national study' found it is hardly documentation.
My usual rule of thumb with stats like this is to divide by 10 and then start thinking about whether that makes sense -- 2.7% for girls, 1.6% for boys sounds like it's getting in the ballpark.
Yes, but sometimes IRC can SAVE lives. (Score:4, Interesting)
I frequent a channel that is used by a wide range of users, from teens to adults. There are something like 10 people who are there on a regular basis.
One afternoon I got an email from one of the regulars. It was a suicide note. I rushed into the channel and flooded it with the text of the note.
After some brief discussion, three of us went into action. None of us had the person's address, phone number or even a last name, but we contacted 911 in this person's neighborhood and after figuring out a few more items tracked down this person's information. The paramedics got there just in time.
This person is alive now, in treatment for depression, and has a chance for a bright future. If a means for instantaneous communication on the Internet didn't exist, this person might not either.
It is fscked that you hear so much about the bad things that can happen in IRC/chatrooms/IM etc but never do you hear a single word about how they might be facilitating communication and even saving lives.
Put that into your mIRC and smoke it!
The REAL Dangers of Internet Communication (Score:5, Funny)
My 12-year-old neighbor had one of her friends over yesterday and was playing with my 5-year-old in the yard. I asked her about chatting online. She said, "We're always really careful not to go to those bad places on line."
Even though she was just a neighbor, I felt proud of her savvy.
Then her friend "Alex" spoke up: "You know, I was on the Disney site and saw a listing of places not to go because those places would have like subversive ideas and people I shouldn't talk to. I mean, 'slashdot' is such a cute name. Who would have known it was filled with criminals and perverts?"
Re:The REAL Dangers of Internet Communication (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone browsing at -1.
Parent
Sound advice.... (Score:3, Funny)
The Myth of Parental Involvement (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Myth of Parental Involvement (Score:3, Interesting)
Excellently stated.
Another point about parental involvement is that often, parents aren't properly educated about how to monitor and supervise their kids. Parenting is difficult, folks, and there's no user manual or README file for a kid. And, keeping this study [apa.org] in mind, many of the parents who think they're good at it actually are not.
So, what perhaps would have been a good suggestion to the legislators, to ease their boredom, would be the establishment of a federal department or program that would help educate parents on how to monitor their kids's usage of the internet. Proactive help, not reactionary restriction.
Where is the Danger? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not. Just as the dark parking garage is not the most likely place to be raped.
In both molestation and rape, the perps are most often someone that is close or known to the victim. A woman is more likely to be raped by a coworker, or someone she's gone on a date with, than she is by a stranger. Similarly, a child is far more likely to be sexually abused by (in this order) a sibling or a parent, another relative, a trusted family acquaintance or someone that has authority over the children.
What is peculiar about these facts are that the dangers that are most feared, obsessed about, and reported, are those that are least likely! I don't think this is mere coincidence.
Firstly, the idea that an immediate family member might be the primary danger in terms of child sexual abuse is so frightening and discomfitting that it's just something most people can't process. For women, who simply can't avoid working with men, or dating or being social with men; to be in constant fear of assault is also frightening and discomfitting. As a result, people concentrate on the threat that they perceive as being more controllable -- teaching kids to not take candy from strangers and being escorted to your car at night.
The other side of this is that there is, nevertheless, an awareness of just how insecure personal safety really is. There is very real fear, and that fear needs a target. So the less likely sources of danger are emphasized both by default and because they are recieving the fear that is transferred from the more likely sources.
And, of course, there's the base human instinct to identify a villainous "other" as "the enemy".
As someone who worked in Rape Crisis for a year or so, I've always been very, very annoyed at the attention that stranger rape gets in the media and around the water cooler and in the dorm. Yes, it happens. And, yes, it's horrible. But while an entire college campus might be mobilized to be on the defensive from an individual (stranger) rapist, over the same period of time there are probably several times the number of acquaintence rapes that occur. The obsession with stranger rape certainly does come at the expense of awareness of the greater risk of acquaintence rape.
And just so with various fears about child abuse: Internet pedophiles, satanic ritual abuse, day-care center pedophiles -- even the current uproar over the Catholic clergy -- all of these only account for a small portion of the total child sexual abuse that is perpetrated. But they get all the press, all of the outrage, and most of the funding and education, and support services.
Parents, in particular, have the very natural desire to protect their children absolutely. Any risk is seen as significant. This is a natural instinct. But the truth is that to truly be responsible for the safety and well-being of their children -- as they have a moral imperative to be -- parents must make the mental effort to identify and protect their children from the threats they actually face, not the threats that are the most sensational. Being outraged, or extremely fearful, or disgusted, or any other strong emotion doesn't validate a "policy" that insufficiently protects your children.
NEWSFLASH - Electronic Media Is Not Necessary (Score:3, Funny)
Tuesday, May 14 2002 - New York, NY
In a nationwide epiphany the likes of which haven't been seen since people realized due to the Enron collapse that (GASP) investment analysts might not have their best interests at heart, parents nationwide suddenly realized that television, video game consoles, and computers are not actually necessary to the raising of a child.
May Johnson, mother of Jonathan, age 8, and Michelle, age 11, was stunned when she realized over the weekend that a mid-day power outtage due to high winds in the Tuskaloosa area allowed her to have the longest conversation she's ever had with her children.
"When the TV popped off, at first Shelly & I just sat there kinda stunned, looking out the window at the trees being blown around. Then Jon came in from his room & said something about the wind must've blown down a line, & how it messed up a game he was playing. We talked about the weather a bit, & that led to Michelle talking about how windy it was at soccer practice & how it affected her shooting. We ended up in the dining room playing Trivial Pursuit, talking and laughing about the questions before they helped me make dinner. I was watching Shelly cut up the veggies when I realized we hadn't really talked to one another about anything for a couple of weeks, 'till then. Heck, it was about 7 before we realized the power had come back on about 2 hours before, but we were having too much fun to go back to whatever it was we were doing. When my husband got home that night we talked about it, and decided that we're cancelling our cable. For the $50 a month it costs we figure we could take the kids camping or something & get more fun for our money.
In the wake of similar comments, investment analysts for the tech industry were widely downgrading the stocks of such stalwarts as Sony, Disney, and AOL/TW.
"We don't quite know what people are doing with their time lately, but they sure as heck aren't watching TV or surfing the 'net" said Derek Cashmacher of Citicorp as he downgraded AOL/Time Warner from "BUY BUY BUY" to "buy".
The reality is (Score:3, Funny)
Of them, 19% had "received an unwanted sexual solicitation"...
...the other 81% were the ones who were SENDING unwanted sexual solicitation. (Think horny, puberty-laden 14-year-old boys...)
Did you read before you copied? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I've been using personals and IRC for a long ti (Score:2, Interesting)
Given these not totally unreasonable premises:
1) You do, on occasion, meet some of those you chat with and find interesting in real life
2) Lester the Molestor can fake being interesting
it's not very easy to see how you could avoid meeting him even though you are not "a complete MORON."
Not that this was anything but a shameless troll anyway, but I'm bored.
Re:Stranger Danger (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree that education is often a good solution, but it may be difficult as the children can not see that the bad guy is actually 45. For all they know, the bad guy is another 12 year old just like them. Most children are not suspicious and jaded like adults.
Equiping the children to identify these people themselves is the only way we can be sure they are safe, they cannot be supervised 24-7.
Will kids use it? How will it be enforced? Could they be faked? Will kids know why they should use it? Can you trust content comming from a potentially malicious user?
Secondly, no, kids probably can't be supervised 24-7, but the parents are still responsible for their kids 24-7. It was the decision of the parents to have the kids, not the other way around. It's about time that parents started taking responsibility.
Realistically, I see no easy solution. If anyone has kids that are actively using the net, then the parents should know what they're getting up to.
Perhaps it's not just the children who need to be educated... perhaps it's parents as well.
Beware TPB
CENSORSHIP is not the answer! (Score:3, Insightful)
If you censor and shelter your children, they NEVER learn!
You want to do the opposite, you want to expose them to the real world, but in a pace which you know they can handle.
You dont censor the net from them, you just dont get the net until they are old enough to use it without being censored. You tell them what to watch for and why, you tell them the net is not a game, a toy, or entertainment, but its real life.
You treat the net seriously, dont sit it next to the VCR and TV in the living room, you put it in the computer room with the books and materials.
You teach them to be serious on the net, and guide them, and after you guide them for about a year or so, you release them to the net and let them learn on their own.
Its the only way.
A bird cant learn to fly without being pushed out of the next, you have to do the same with your kids, you have to push them into the real world at some point, but you do it at a pace they cant accept.
Re:Compared to real life...? (Score:3, Interesting)