Teen gets 15 years in prison for Facebook scam

19-year-old Anthony Stancl has been sentenced to 15 years in prison, plus an additional 13 years of extended supervision, for sexual crimes initiated on Facebook. He posed as a female and enticed other teens to send him sexually explicit images of themselves, then used those images to blackmail them.

The District Attorney prosecuting the case said he is not sure the message is getting out to the kids, as sexting continues to grow as a problem among our teens. He is quoted as saying: "I'm just not sure they're hearing this message...I hope their parents are."

I agree. Parents, we need to know what our kids are doing online, and help them understand that there are real, long-term ramifications to their actions.

Parents Beware - random video chat

I am hesitant to even write this post, for fear of generating some curiosity. The only reason I do is because your content filter will probably not automatically block this site - and you will want to keep your children away. Please, take my word for it, and add these two URLs to your block list: ChatRoulette.com and ChatRT.com.

This is a relatively new site that is catching on very quickly. According to this post, it grew from 300 users in December to 10,000 in February of this year. The site allows you to randomly connect via video chat (that is, through the webcam on your computer to the webcam on another computer) to another individual who happens to be using the site at the same time. If you don't like who you are chatting with, you click "next" and are randomly connected to another person.

Although the terms of use state that pornographic content is not allowed, there is no way to actually control what people display on their webcam, and you know as well as I do that there are some really crazy people out there.

You do not want your children accessing this site. If you have a content filter installed, add this to your block list. If you don't, now would be a great time to install one - before your kids stumble across it.

Apple Removes 5,000 apps from IStore

Thousands of applications have disappeared from Apple's iStore in the past few days. Apple has begun enforcing their new policy of not allowing "overtly sexual" applications. I applaud them for this move. There is no age restriction for using an iPod, and many children have access to one. In their first attempt to resolve this problem, Apple enabled a "Parental Controls" feature for the iPod, but taking the additional step to remove these adult-oriented applications completely is another big step in the right direction.

Of course, this is a very controversial move, and Apple is taking some heat from those on the other side of this issue. I just want Apple to know that I am very appreciative of their new policy, and I applaud them for it.

One final note of irony for this post: I really wanted to provide a link to another source (news story, blog post, etc), but I couldn't find one that didn't have an image in the article showing what types of applications have been removed! I can't in good conscience provide a link that would send my readers to view the very material that we are talking about as being inappropriate for the iStore. Yes, I know that one can see most of these images in a magazine rack in the local grocery store, but that doesn't mean that I need to point you in that direction. So, I apologize for not having a link to a full news story on this post...

Cyber Bullying: Legality vs Morality

A Federal Judge has ruled that a former high school student can proceed with her lawsuit against her old high school over a facebook-related suspension. She was suspended for posting unflattering comments about a teacher on a facebook page, and urged others to join her, and is now suing to have her record expunged (you can read full story here). There was a similar ruling in December from across the country - in this case, a student was suspended over cyberbullying content aimed at another student and posted on YouTube (you can read that story here).

In both of these cases the justice system is siding with the individuals who use digital media to post derogatory comments about another person - today referred to as a "cyber bully". The judges in both cases are listening to arguments related to the first ammendment, and extending that right of free speech to digital Internet communications. Seems like an appropriate interpretation of "free speech".

On the flip side of the issue is a now-famous case involving Sue Scheff, who was defamed online. Sue brought a case against her attacker, and eventually won an $11.3M verdict, which has now been upheld on appeal (you can read about her case in her book Google Bomb).

So, what are we to conclude from these cases? That kids can say anything they want without fear of retribution, but adults can be held accountable for their words and actions? I guess that would be one way to interpret these cases. But, I tend to see this just a bit differently. For me, it comes down to a subtle yet dramatic change in the world in which we live.

Today kids are empowered with tools that we didn't have when I was young. If I had a problem with a teacher, or a fellow student, I could tell maybe 20 peolple. My parents would get wind of it, and they would sit me down and have a heart-to-heart. I would then have the "opportunity" to return to the invididual that I was defaming, and apologize. No harm, no foul - and I got to learn a lesson about how we treat others.

Today, our kids can tell thousands, even hundreds of thousands of people - including future employers, college recruitters, future spouses or religious leaders. Word can spread quickly, and once it is in cyberspace, it is there forever. Whether the person we are defaming is a student or an adult, the information is now "out there" for anyone to search and find, and the ramifications are much more far-reaching than they were before digital media. By the time the young one realizes they were too harsh, an apology to the defamed individual is not going to resolve the issue any longer.

For me, these cases highlight the fact that in todays digital world it is even more important than ever for parents to be teaching morality and ethics, rather than just legal right and wrong. They need to teach digital responsibility. Parents need to know what their children are doing, how they are using digital media, and what their children are saying about others - be they students, teachers, leaders, or anyone else. Parents need to know how their children are using technology, just as they need to know how their children are using the car. If the children do not show restraint in their use of technology, it is up to the parents, not the legal system, to reign them in.

Of course, this means that parents need to understand the persistent nature of digital media, and parents need to understand that posting untrue, or even extremely biased opinions about other people can be extremely dangerous to those individuals. A student who posts defamatory comments about a teacher could have a very negative impact on that teachers ability to earn a living - while this may be legal, it may not be morally right. Parents have to instill in their children their moral compas, and help teach them to be guided by this compas throughout thier lives.

In our digital world, a momentary lapse of judgement by an adolescent who doesn't think through the consequences of their actions can lead to very real, and very serious consequences. Informed and involved parents can go a long way toward minimizing the impact of such lapses of judgement.

Family Movie Night

Our family really enjoys watching movies together. Getting the family together and watching a good movie is one way we like to spend our time - but it is difficult to find movies that we can watch as a family - expecially with the age ranges that we have in our home.

Several years ago we looked into ways to get movies that would meet our family standards. We found two different ways of accomplishing this - one was the companies like CleanFilms and CleanFlicks that would edit the movie, re-burn it on a new DVD and rent that DVD to us. The other was ClearPlay, which uses a special DVD player to edit the movie on-the-fly. We chose to use CleanFilms, and enjoyed that service for a couple of years.

Soon, however, CleanFilms, and those like it, were put out of business because Hollywood didn't like someone else editing thier movies - so, we were left without a way to watch movies as a family without worrying that the PG or PG13 rating still didn't meet our family standards (for example, you are allowed one F-bomb in a PG13 movie...we don't want any...).

Because of how their technology works, ClearPlay doesn't have the same legal issues - although they have been challenged in court. That is because they are not modifying the DVD itself at all - instead, they provide a "filter" that you can download from their website, and the movie is "edited" in real-time as you watch it. Once I realized that they had come out with a high-definition version of their player - well, somehow one of them made it under our tree this past Christmas.

Now that I have had a chance to watch a few movies on it, I figured I'd provide a quick review here.

To use a ClearPlay device you will need to purchase the device itself, then pay for the filters on an ongoing basis. We purchased the annual license, which gives us full access to all filters for a full year. Not a bad deal.

Our first experience was not good. After loading the full library of filters, we put in our rented DVD, which was of a fairly new release movie, and sat down to watch the movie. The ClearPlay device told me that there was no filter loaded. I looked on thier website and saw the filter listed as one that they offered, so I ended up calling support. Turns out that the filter is tied to the version of the movie - widescreen is one filter, standard picture is another, etc - and we just happend to get a version that they didn't have a filter for. Bummer. I had to keep the remote handy, and we did indeed have to fast-forward a few scenes. Not fun.

Our next two movies were much better. We inserted the DVD, and immediatly our player found and loaded the filter. The experience watching the movie was not too bad. There are two possibilities when ClearPlay is editing the movie - 1. it will skip a scene entirely, and 2. it will automatically mute the sound.

The first time ClearPlay muted the sound it was a bit odd - I thought something had gone wrong with the DVD. A conversation was going on, and suddently all sound was gone. We saw the actor moving his mouth, but we heard nothing - including all of the background noise (the discussion was happening in a subway). Then, I realized that he was using expletives, and the device had edited them out for us. Very nice.

We could not always tell when a full scene was edited out, but once one of the actors made a reference to something that had happened earlier in the movie, and we realized the scene had been skipped - but it really didn't affect the flow of the story at all. I did notice some slight pauses in some scenes, as though the DVD stuck for a half a second - I am not sure whether that is an indication of a scene being edited out or not - but if so, it is a small price to pay for removing a scene that we don't want our family to see. Still very worthwhile.

So, bottom line: ClearPlay is a great way to watch movies. We are very happy with our device, and plan to use it to, as ClearPlay says, bring back family movie night.

Bypassing Filters

I had the opportunity recently to speak to some teens in a sexual addiction recovery program, along with their parents and therapists. There were about 15 – 20 of these boys in the room, and each of them introduced themselves to me as we began the meeting. Because of the topic I was to present on (Cyber Safety), they were asked to share with me one thing about the Internet that has been a problem for them. While not surprising, their answer to this question was certainly eye-opening.

Every one of these boys informed me that they had viewed pornography on the Internet. However, they didn’t identify that as their “problem” with the Internet – almost every one of these teens told me that their problem with the Internet is that they know how to get around the technical blocks that are placed in their way to prevent access to pornography. Wow. I have long known that children know how to get around filters, and those who have either read my book or frequent this blog know that one of my main concerns with Cyber Safety is that parents will install a filter and think that their job of protecting their children is done. So, this revelation from these teens was not a surprise – but the fact that they consider their knowledge of how to bypass technology as their primary problem with the Internet certainly was a surprise.

In my opinion, every computer should have a filter installed to prevent inadvertent access to pornography – for both adults and children. However, parents need to understand that their job doesn’t end there. Staying diligent with regard to how your computer is used, and maintaining an open dialog with your children regarding their Internet usage is the best defense against inappropriate Internet use.

How old should you be to Facebook?

I ran across an interesting article on KSL today entitled "Is 12 too young for Social Media?" While I agree with the intent of the article, I think there is another angle to explore. The line that caught my attention is this "Stay says there are some dangers with allowing 12-year-olds to use sites like Facebook, MySpace and Twitter". Yes, there are - and those same dangers apply to people who are 13, 15, 18, 25 and so on.

Yes, I understand that as children mature, they improve in their ability to make good choices, and they evolve in their understanding of dangers both in the physical world and the digital one. But, there is nothing magical about ANY birthday - the person is still the same person they were the day before.

Think of it this way: We have a child who recently turned 18. My wife and I didn't all of a sudden start treating him like an adult, just because he had a birthday - rather, we give him the freedoms that he has proven he can handle as he grew up. When he reached 18, he had already shown he could handle certain freedoms. Whether or not the world thinks he is an adult has no bearing on the freedoms that we allow him - other than those afforded by law, of course (in other words, we wouldn't allow him to drive at 14, just because he showed the ability to handle that responsibility).

Similarly, we don't let our 13 year old watch any-and-every PG13 movie, just because some rating system tells me it is appropriate for 13-year-olds. We, as the parents, decide what is OK for our 13 year old to watch. There are some PG13 movies that my wife and I won't watch - and there are some that we allow our 11-year old to watch. It all depends on the content of the movie and the person's ability to handle that particular content or topic. We, as the parents, make the judgement call - not our community, our society, or Hollywood.

Similarly, I believe that there are some 13, 15, 18 and older people who shouldn't be on Facebook. It all comes down to the individuals understanding of the technology and the ramifications of not being digitally responsible. If you don't believe me, just look into the story of Cynthia Moreno, a college student (well over 13) who posted a rant about her hometown on her MySpace page. Not a good idea - and her family has suffered greatly now because of it.

Rather than talk about a specific age when we should allow our children to participate on a social network, we should look at how that child handles themselves, and what they know of the dangers of the web. Those who can be digitally responsible should be able to use technology - just as those of my children who can be responsible drivers are going to be able to borrow my keys. Those who cannot, will have to wait a while longer - no matter how old they are.