Twitter is a great networking tool. It truly creates a global conversation, where anyone can provide and receive advice and input from others around the globe. It provides a mechanism for people to brand themselves or their company, and make the world just a bit smaller.
There are some dangers with Twitter, however. Here are three specific warnings that I would pass along to anyone entering the Twitter conversation:
- Shortened URLs. Each Tweet must be no longer than 140 characters. In order to provide more information, people either need to send multiple Tweets, or they need to send a link to something on the web (like this blog post). However, many web addresses are too long, and leave little or no space for the actual tweet. To solve this problem, Twitter users make use of URL-shortening sites. These sites act as a proxy for the “real” site, but with a much shorter name. The name itself has nothing to do with the actual content.
The danger here is that we have no indication of where we are being taken, other than the text of the tweet. So, one could receive a tweet that simply says “Check this out!” with a URL pointing to someplace on “bit.ly” or “tinyurl.com”. Clicking on the link could result in pornography, phishing schemes, malware or any other unseemly or dangerous site. As with email, be very wary of clicking on links in Tweets that are from people you don’t know well.
- Twitter Spammers. In my last blog post, I explained that Twitter is a much more open environment than Facebook. The intent is to “put yourself out there”, and to make it easy for those who may have similar interests to find you and follow your tweets. You post some tweets, and those who like what you are saying will find you and follow you. You don’t seek out followers – they naturally find you based on what you are discussing.
There are many, however, who turn this paradigm on its head. They follow anyone and everyone – not because they want to receive updates from these people, but because they want to make these people aware of their existence. Since Twitter includes images with each Tweet, many of these Twitter spammers will use pornographic images – thus spamming you with an image that you neither requested nor sought out.
Unfortunately, there is not much we can do about these types of Twitter users. The best we can do is to use the Twitter “block” feature, and block them from following us. Unfortunately, that means we need to: 1. Know about them, 2. Know what they represent, and 3. Decide we don’t want their influence on our Twitter page. and 4. Specifically "block" them from following us.
- Relationship of trust. Every con artist will first attempt to build a relationship of trust before scamming you. A common problem with all social networks is the relationship of trust that is inherent in these networks. If a scammer can leverage that existing relationship, it makes their job much easier.
Remember that at any time anyone can have their account compromised – it only takes someone discovering the username/password combination and they can start posting as if they were that individual. If any of your online friends ask for personal information, be wary of providing it online. Their account could have been compromised, and you may be handing your information over to a complete stranger.
These are just a few of the unique areas of concern for the open social networks such as Twitter. Don’t let these warnings prevent you from entering the global conversation, but when you do decide to join in, please do so with your eyes open to the dangers, and be vigilant in protecting your digital footprint. Be sure you are not associating with those that would do harm to your online reputation.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Not All Social Networks are Created Equal
The popularity of micro-blogging sites is bringing a new wave of changes to how the Internet is used to disperse information. People are communicating in 140 characters at a time – sharing how they are feeling, issues they are pondering, problems they are facing – and doing so succinctly in just a few words at a time.
Sites like Twitter, Facebook and MySpace started out by simply providing a place where one could post a few words to describe their mood, interests or current activities. But as people starting using these mediums, they changed the usage to create a “global conversation” where questions are posed, advice is offered, and brainstorming occurs.
With this new communication mechanism comes some new dangers that parents need to be aware of. Not all social-networking sites are created equal, and each site serves not only a different audience, but a different intent as well. For example, although often mentioned together, Facebook and Twitter serve almost completely opposite purposes. Facebook is intended to help you keep in touch, or get back in touch, with people you already know in the physical world. In order to read each others updates, you need to acknowledge that you know the other person. While nothing posted on the Internet is ever private, there is a certain (albeit extremely small) expectation of privacy – only those to whom you grant access can read your updates.
Twitter, on the other hand, is intended to make new friends and associates. Every ‘tweet’ sent to twitter is available for anyone else to read – whether you know them or not. Anyone can respond to your tweet, and can strike up a conversation with anyone else. You don’t have to know the other person in the physical world in order to interact. People search all tweets for certain words or phrases, and may begin “following” anyone who uses those terms.
The good news is that teens today understand this, and most of them are avoiding Twitter for that very reason. Many of them find Twitter “creepy”, and prefer to stick with Facebook, MySpace and the other “connect with people I already know” type sites.
However, as we know, the dangers of the Internet are not limited to children – adults can quickly find themselves involved in things they didn’t expect. Twitter is finding it necessary to actively search out twitter spammers as people figure out ways to leverage this open environment in a self-serving way.
In future blog posts we will explore some of the unique dangers that accompany participating in the “meet new people” type sites, such as Twitter.
Sites like Twitter, Facebook and MySpace started out by simply providing a place where one could post a few words to describe their mood, interests or current activities. But as people starting using these mediums, they changed the usage to create a “global conversation” where questions are posed, advice is offered, and brainstorming occurs.
With this new communication mechanism comes some new dangers that parents need to be aware of. Not all social-networking sites are created equal, and each site serves not only a different audience, but a different intent as well. For example, although often mentioned together, Facebook and Twitter serve almost completely opposite purposes. Facebook is intended to help you keep in touch, or get back in touch, with people you already know in the physical world. In order to read each others updates, you need to acknowledge that you know the other person. While nothing posted on the Internet is ever private, there is a certain (albeit extremely small) expectation of privacy – only those to whom you grant access can read your updates.
Twitter, on the other hand, is intended to make new friends and associates. Every ‘tweet’ sent to twitter is available for anyone else to read – whether you know them or not. Anyone can respond to your tweet, and can strike up a conversation with anyone else. You don’t have to know the other person in the physical world in order to interact. People search all tweets for certain words or phrases, and may begin “following” anyone who uses those terms.
The good news is that teens today understand this, and most of them are avoiding Twitter for that very reason. Many of them find Twitter “creepy”, and prefer to stick with Facebook, MySpace and the other “connect with people I already know” type sites.
However, as we know, the dangers of the Internet are not limited to children – adults can quickly find themselves involved in things they didn’t expect. Twitter is finding it necessary to actively search out twitter spammers as people figure out ways to leverage this open environment in a self-serving way.
In future blog posts we will explore some of the unique dangers that accompany participating in the “meet new people” type sites, such as Twitter.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Technology and Smoking Reduction among Teens
I just heard two stories on the radio that cause me to wonder whether technology can take credit for actually making kids healthier. If so, could it also help reduce teen pregnancy, teen vandalism, and other innapropriate activities? Interesting thought...
One recently-released study indicates that kids as young as 2 years old are spending more time online - and the number is growing. The other story indicated that smoking is down among young people (I couldn't find that link, but here is a similar story from a few months ago indicating that marijuana smoking is down by double-digits among teens).
In the report on the decline in pot smoking, they surmise that the decline is due to the fact that kids are not going out at night as much as they used to - and they guess that this is because kids are engaged in on-line activities. So, playing online games and participating in social networks may actually have played a part in reducing smoking among teens. Very cool.
I have blogged in the past about the lack of "natural bounds" when participating in digital activities - that is, kids spend more time online because their bodies don't get tired like they would if they were playing outside, or they don't recognize the time passing like they would if they were outside and the sun went down, etc. Now there is actually scientific evidence that participating in digital activies may actually have a positive "natural bounds" effect - allowing kids to participate in online activities instead of going out at night may keep them more healthy.
Of course, we still need to ensure they are using technology safely - there are plenty of things they can get involved in online that would be just as detrimental to their health as smoking. But the good news is that we have much more control over the technology in our home than we do once our kids leave the house to "hang out" with their friends. Of course, we don't want to swing the pendulum too far to the other side either - kids need peer interaction, and they need some freedom to associate with their friends in the real world.
The bottom line is that we, as parents, should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. No need to unplug the cord and keep our kids away from technology - just be sure we help them understand how to use technology responsibly - and it may just help us reduce some of the difficulties of the "old days" when kids would just hang around outside with their friends in the real world - and would quickly find ways to get into trouble.
One recently-released study indicates that kids as young as 2 years old are spending more time online - and the number is growing. The other story indicated that smoking is down among young people (I couldn't find that link, but here is a similar story from a few months ago indicating that marijuana smoking is down by double-digits among teens).
In the report on the decline in pot smoking, they surmise that the decline is due to the fact that kids are not going out at night as much as they used to - and they guess that this is because kids are engaged in on-line activities. So, playing online games and participating in social networks may actually have played a part in reducing smoking among teens. Very cool.
I have blogged in the past about the lack of "natural bounds" when participating in digital activities - that is, kids spend more time online because their bodies don't get tired like they would if they were playing outside, or they don't recognize the time passing like they would if they were outside and the sun went down, etc. Now there is actually scientific evidence that participating in digital activies may actually have a positive "natural bounds" effect - allowing kids to participate in online activities instead of going out at night may keep them more healthy.
Of course, we still need to ensure they are using technology safely - there are plenty of things they can get involved in online that would be just as detrimental to their health as smoking. But the good news is that we have much more control over the technology in our home than we do once our kids leave the house to "hang out" with their friends. Of course, we don't want to swing the pendulum too far to the other side either - kids need peer interaction, and they need some freedom to associate with their friends in the real world.
The bottom line is that we, as parents, should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. No need to unplug the cord and keep our kids away from technology - just be sure we help them understand how to use technology responsibly - and it may just help us reduce some of the difficulties of the "old days" when kids would just hang around outside with their friends in the real world - and would quickly find ways to get into trouble.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Family Safety = more than just Internet and Cell Phones
I am very pleased to see the recent increase in awareness about Family Safety and the Internet. It certainly seems that parents are becoming more interested in the issues surrounding keeping their children safe while they make use of the Internet, cell phone and other new, digital technology that we find in our world today.
As we strive to keep our children safe in this digital world, however, we cannot forget about some of the other dangers that our children face from the media that we allow into our homes - specifically with regard to television and video games. If we are not vigilent regarding all of the media and entertainment that comes into our homes, our children could be exposed to a huge amount of violence and age-inappropriate sexual behavior through these mediums as well as through the Internet. Dr. Victor B. Cline once said: “The amount of violence a child sees at 7 predicts how violent he will be at 17, 27, and 37. … Children’s minds are like banks—whatever you put in, you get back 10 years later with interest.” He indicated that violent television teaches children, step-by-step, “how to commit violent acts, and it desensitizes them to the horror of such behavior and to the feelings of victims.” In Dr. Cline’s opinion, America is suffering from “an explosion of interpersonal violence like we have never seen before. … The violence is because of violence in our entertainment.” ("Therapist says children who view TV violence tend to become violent,” Deseret News, 24 Mar. 1989, p. 2B, as quoted by M. Russell Ballard). Note that he said this in 1989 - before the Columbine, Trolley Square, or Virginia Tech shootings.
As I have talked in different venues on this subject, it is clear that some parents are not convinced that aggressive behaviors can be learned from violence on television and in video games. Many of the television programs aimed at children are extremely violent, especially some of the cartoons, they argue. Many of us simply brush it off, rationalizing that this is just how it is, and every child is exposed to this level of violence. In a now-famous study referred to as the Bobo doll study, Dr. Albert Bandura found that simply viewing violent behavior can indeed lead children to model that behavior. He conducted his study in 1961 with a group of 24 children between 3 and 6 years of age. He studied each child individually, to ensure that he was observing the behavior of the individual, and not the mob mentality of a group. The intent of the study was to see if the behavior of an adult would affect the way that these children played with different toys. The center piece of this experiment was a Bobo doll-- an inflatable doll that stood about 5 feet tall.
The children were placed in a room with an adult who simply played with a tinker toy set for about 10 minutes, then they were brought into another room where an adult pounded on the Bobo doll with a mallet for about 10 minutes. They were then allowed to play with the toys by themselves. The study became very controversial, especially with the TV stations, because it showed that the children would, indeed, model the extremely aggressive behavior by beating on the Bobo doll with just about anything they could find. As it turned out, they not only physically, but verbally abuse this doll based on the modeled behavior they saw from their adult playmate. In Bandura’s own words, “They added creative embellishments. One girl actually transformed a doll into a weapon of assault.” In the video of this study, one can plainly see a tiny, well-dressed young girl pounding the doll, then searching the room for other things to pummel it with (@ about 3:45 in the clip). Even though the adult model in the study did not play with the toy gun, Bandura noted that “exposure to aggressive modeling increased attraction to guns, even though it was never modeled.” These young children made the connection between violent behavior and guns on their own.
Children model the behavior they see. How much violence and sexual activity are they exposed to on the television and in video games today? It is challenging to find a show on primetime television that doesn’t have some sort of violence or sexual overtones of some sort – and it has become steadily more so since this study. Remember that Dr. Bandura’s study was done in 1961, when it was taboo to show a married couple sharing a bed on television (recall the Dick Van Dyke Show where the bedroom had twin beds) or to show any significant violence (think of Psycho, where you never actually see the knife touch the victims body in the famous shower scene, which recieved an "R" rating back then). Today you cannot get through an episode of most prime time sitcoms without sexual innuendos or overt references, and you cannot watch many dramas without extreme violence. As these shows become available on the Internet where the content is no longer regulated by the FCC, it will become an even greater danger to our children. We need to be very careful about what we allow our children to watch, especially in their formative years.
Being a parent in this digital world is increasingly difficult. As we strive to ensure that our children are safe while they make use of the Internet and their cell phones, let's also ensure that they are playing age-appropriate games and watching age-appropriate television shows.
As we strive to keep our children safe in this digital world, however, we cannot forget about some of the other dangers that our children face from the media that we allow into our homes - specifically with regard to television and video games. If we are not vigilent regarding all of the media and entertainment that comes into our homes, our children could be exposed to a huge amount of violence and age-inappropriate sexual behavior through these mediums as well as through the Internet. Dr. Victor B. Cline once said: “The amount of violence a child sees at 7 predicts how violent he will be at 17, 27, and 37. … Children’s minds are like banks—whatever you put in, you get back 10 years later with interest.” He indicated that violent television teaches children, step-by-step, “how to commit violent acts, and it desensitizes them to the horror of such behavior and to the feelings of victims.” In Dr. Cline’s opinion, America is suffering from “an explosion of interpersonal violence like we have never seen before. … The violence is because of violence in our entertainment.” ("Therapist says children who view TV violence tend to become violent,” Deseret News, 24 Mar. 1989, p. 2B, as quoted by M. Russell Ballard). Note that he said this in 1989 - before the Columbine, Trolley Square, or Virginia Tech shootings.
As I have talked in different venues on this subject, it is clear that some parents are not convinced that aggressive behaviors can be learned from violence on television and in video games. Many of the television programs aimed at children are extremely violent, especially some of the cartoons, they argue. Many of us simply brush it off, rationalizing that this is just how it is, and every child is exposed to this level of violence. In a now-famous study referred to as the Bobo doll study, Dr. Albert Bandura found that simply viewing violent behavior can indeed lead children to model that behavior. He conducted his study in 1961 with a group of 24 children between 3 and 6 years of age. He studied each child individually, to ensure that he was observing the behavior of the individual, and not the mob mentality of a group. The intent of the study was to see if the behavior of an adult would affect the way that these children played with different toys. The center piece of this experiment was a Bobo doll-- an inflatable doll that stood about 5 feet tall.
The children were placed in a room with an adult who simply played with a tinker toy set for about 10 minutes, then they were brought into another room where an adult pounded on the Bobo doll with a mallet for about 10 minutes. They were then allowed to play with the toys by themselves. The study became very controversial, especially with the TV stations, because it showed that the children would, indeed, model the extremely aggressive behavior by beating on the Bobo doll with just about anything they could find. As it turned out, they not only physically, but verbally abuse this doll based on the modeled behavior they saw from their adult playmate. In Bandura’s own words, “They added creative embellishments. One girl actually transformed a doll into a weapon of assault.” In the video of this study, one can plainly see a tiny, well-dressed young girl pounding the doll, then searching the room for other things to pummel it with (@ about 3:45 in the clip). Even though the adult model in the study did not play with the toy gun, Bandura noted that “exposure to aggressive modeling increased attraction to guns, even though it was never modeled.” These young children made the connection between violent behavior and guns on their own.
Children model the behavior they see. How much violence and sexual activity are they exposed to on the television and in video games today? It is challenging to find a show on primetime television that doesn’t have some sort of violence or sexual overtones of some sort – and it has become steadily more so since this study. Remember that Dr. Bandura’s study was done in 1961, when it was taboo to show a married couple sharing a bed on television (recall the Dick Van Dyke Show where the bedroom had twin beds) or to show any significant violence (think of Psycho, where you never actually see the knife touch the victims body in the famous shower scene, which recieved an "R" rating back then). Today you cannot get through an episode of most prime time sitcoms without sexual innuendos or overt references, and you cannot watch many dramas without extreme violence. As these shows become available on the Internet where the content is no longer regulated by the FCC, it will become an even greater danger to our children. We need to be very careful about what we allow our children to watch, especially in their formative years.
Being a parent in this digital world is increasingly difficult. As we strive to ensure that our children are safe while they make use of the Internet and their cell phones, let's also ensure that they are playing age-appropriate games and watching age-appropriate television shows.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Understanding Query Strings
Have you ever wondered whether your child really came across that innappropriate image accidentally, or whether they searched it out? There is a way to find out exactly what they were searching for - by understanding a geeky term called a "query string".
Understanding query strings can help you determine how your computer is being used and what people are actively searching for. By understanding the query string, you can determine whether someone inadvertently came across some illicit content while performing an innocent search (which does happen, and is why you should always employ "safe search"), or if they were intentionally trying to locate that content.
While some web sites make an attempt to render this data unreadable to the human eye by encrypting the data into a large number or set of meaningless characters, most just use standard text formatting which permits easy interpretation. When you understand how to read this, you can understand exactly what someone has been doing on your computer; these query strings act like a trail of breadcrumbs.
A typical query string looks like this (go ahead - click on it - it is a live link to a search):
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=george+washington&btnG=Google+Search
By ignoring the extraneous data encoded in this query string, one can see that someone used this computer to search for George Washington data on Google. The following version of this URL highlights the sections that provide this information.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=george+washington&btnG=Google+Search
The “www” tells us that they performed a text search (rather than an image or video search). In the query string, we see the words “George” and “Washington”, indicating what they searched for. The rest of the characters on this query string are only meaningful to the search engine and can be ignored for our purposes.
In this next example, we see that the search was slightly modified, allowing us to search for images of George Washington, rather than textual references to George Washington. Note that the "www" is replaced with "images" (this is how Google and Yahoo do it - you will notice a slightly different, yet still very readable format for ask.com and bing.com below):
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=george+washington&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
Here are a couple of URLs showing the same searches on different search engines. See if you can pick out the relevant data to understand what search engine was used and what was being searched—that is, text or images, and what topic:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=george+washington&fr=yfp-t-501-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=george+washington&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
http://www.ask.com/web?q=george+washington&search=search&qsrc=0&o=0&l=dir
http://www.ask.com/pictures?q=george+washington&search=search&qsrc=178&o=0&l=dir
http://www.bing.com/search?q=george+washington&FORM=BWFD
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=george+washington&FORM=BIFD#
Understanding how to interpret a query string gives you a powerful tool to help you determine if someone “just happened” to stumble across some inappropriate data, or if they were actively searching for it. This data is kept in your browser history, and it is also tracked and recorded by many of the filters available today.
Become familair with query strings, and keep a watch over what is being actively searched for on your computer. When innappropriate content is found on your computer, review the browser history and/or filter logs to see exactly what was being actively searched for when the content appeared. The best way to keep your family safe on the Internet is to keep yourself informed about the Internet!
Understanding query strings can help you determine how your computer is being used and what people are actively searching for. By understanding the query string, you can determine whether someone inadvertently came across some illicit content while performing an innocent search (which does happen, and is why you should always employ "safe search"), or if they were intentionally trying to locate that content.
While some web sites make an attempt to render this data unreadable to the human eye by encrypting the data into a large number or set of meaningless characters, most just use standard text formatting which permits easy interpretation. When you understand how to read this, you can understand exactly what someone has been doing on your computer; these query strings act like a trail of breadcrumbs.
A typical query string looks like this (go ahead - click on it - it is a live link to a search):
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=george+washington&btnG=Google+Search
By ignoring the extraneous data encoded in this query string, one can see that someone used this computer to search for George Washington data on Google. The following version of this URL highlights the sections that provide this information.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=george+washington&btnG=Google+Search
The “www” tells us that they performed a text search (rather than an image or video search). In the query string, we see the words “George” and “Washington”, indicating what they searched for. The rest of the characters on this query string are only meaningful to the search engine and can be ignored for our purposes.
In this next example, we see that the search was slightly modified, allowing us to search for images of George Washington, rather than textual references to George Washington. Note that the "www" is replaced with "images" (this is how Google and Yahoo do it - you will notice a slightly different, yet still very readable format for ask.com and bing.com below):
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=george+washington&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
Here are a couple of URLs showing the same searches on different search engines. See if you can pick out the relevant data to understand what search engine was used and what was being searched—that is, text or images, and what topic:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=george+washington&fr=yfp-t-501-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=george+washington&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
http://www.ask.com/web?q=george+washington&search=search&qsrc=0&o=0&l=dir
http://www.ask.com/pictures?q=george+washington&search=search&qsrc=178&o=0&l=dir
http://www.bing.com/search?q=george+washington&FORM=BWFD
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=george+washington&FORM=BIFD#
Understanding how to interpret a query string gives you a powerful tool to help you determine if someone “just happened” to stumble across some inappropriate data, or if they were actively searching for it. This data is kept in your browser history, and it is also tracked and recorded by many of the filters available today.
Become familair with query strings, and keep a watch over what is being actively searched for on your computer. When innappropriate content is found on your computer, review the browser history and/or filter logs to see exactly what was being actively searched for when the content appeared. The best way to keep your family safe on the Internet is to keep yourself informed about the Internet!
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Filters - Dynamic vs. URL List
I find this article to be quite ironic. To understand the irony, let me back up just a bit and explain the back story. A few years ago the Australian government decided that they wanted to step up their efforts to protect families in their country from the barrage of pornography that invades our homes via the Internet. Toward this end, they set aside some government money to purchase an Internet Content filter for any family in their country that wanted one. It was actually a great idea.
However, as is always the case, the devil was in the details, and success of this type of program is entirely in the implementation. At the time I was working as the Chief Technology Officer of ContentWatch, makers of the well-known NetNanny filter. We had just recently purchased the NetNanny brand and had changed the underlying technology from a purely list-based filter (i.e., blacklist of URLs, or web addresses) to a dynamic content analysis engine (i.e., the technology "reads" the web page and makes a determination based on linguistic algorithm whether to block or not). We were working hard on educating the industry to the fact that a list-based filter would not be able to keep up with the new URLs that would appear on the Internet in the near future. Of course, I am a bit biased, but I believe that we were ahead of the curve.
When we submitted NetNanny to the government entity that was selecting the handful of Internet filters that would be available through this program, we were found to block 97% of the URLs that the Australian government had found over the years to be pornographic. As we looked into the 3% that we did not block, we found that many of them were websites that were once pornographic, but no longer hosted illicit content - the content had changed, and our algorithm recognized that, and did not block the page. We spent quite a bit of time discussing the difference between a dynamic content filter and a list-based filter, in an effort to help them understand that a dynamic analysis of the content on-the-fly was better than a URL list. However, the rules had been set, and to be selected a filter had to block 100%, regardless of the content.
Now for the irony of the above story: NetNanny would have picked up the wikipedia change that is mentioned in the article, and would have blocked the page - because it looks at the content, not at the website address.
It seems that now, two years later, they are coming to the realization that a list-based approach is not the best way to filter the Internet, and they are now informing parents that a "watchful eye is better than filters". This statement is not entirely true - I would say that a watchful eye is just as imporant as a filter - and that a dynamic analysis filter is better than a list-based filter. Neither is perfect, and both have their weaknesses (the pros and cons of both are outlined in my forthcoming book entitled "Cyber Safety: Maintaining Morality in a Digital World").
It is certainly true that a filter will not block everything, and even that a dynamic filter will block some pages that it shouldn't. Nothing takes the place of a parents' watchful eye, but we need to be very careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater - filters have their place, and provide a needed initial blockaid to the filth available on the Internet - but parents also need to know that a filter is not a "set it and forget it" type of technology.
The bottom line: Every home with children should have a filter on thier Internet connection, but having a filter installed doesn't take the responsibility away from parents to stay involved in what their children are doing online.
However, as is always the case, the devil was in the details, and success of this type of program is entirely in the implementation. At the time I was working as the Chief Technology Officer of ContentWatch, makers of the well-known NetNanny filter. We had just recently purchased the NetNanny brand and had changed the underlying technology from a purely list-based filter (i.e., blacklist of URLs, or web addresses) to a dynamic content analysis engine (i.e., the technology "reads" the web page and makes a determination based on linguistic algorithm whether to block or not). We were working hard on educating the industry to the fact that a list-based filter would not be able to keep up with the new URLs that would appear on the Internet in the near future. Of course, I am a bit biased, but I believe that we were ahead of the curve.
When we submitted NetNanny to the government entity that was selecting the handful of Internet filters that would be available through this program, we were found to block 97% of the URLs that the Australian government had found over the years to be pornographic. As we looked into the 3% that we did not block, we found that many of them were websites that were once pornographic, but no longer hosted illicit content - the content had changed, and our algorithm recognized that, and did not block the page. We spent quite a bit of time discussing the difference between a dynamic content filter and a list-based filter, in an effort to help them understand that a dynamic analysis of the content on-the-fly was better than a URL list. However, the rules had been set, and to be selected a filter had to block 100%, regardless of the content.
Now for the irony of the above story: NetNanny would have picked up the wikipedia change that is mentioned in the article, and would have blocked the page - because it looks at the content, not at the website address.
It seems that now, two years later, they are coming to the realization that a list-based approach is not the best way to filter the Internet, and they are now informing parents that a "watchful eye is better than filters". This statement is not entirely true - I would say that a watchful eye is just as imporant as a filter - and that a dynamic analysis filter is better than a list-based filter. Neither is perfect, and both have their weaknesses (the pros and cons of both are outlined in my forthcoming book entitled "Cyber Safety: Maintaining Morality in a Digital World").
It is certainly true that a filter will not block everything, and even that a dynamic filter will block some pages that it shouldn't. Nothing takes the place of a parents' watchful eye, but we need to be very careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater - filters have their place, and provide a needed initial blockaid to the filth available on the Internet - but parents also need to know that a filter is not a "set it and forget it" type of technology.
The bottom line: Every home with children should have a filter on thier Internet connection, but having a filter installed doesn't take the responsibility away from parents to stay involved in what their children are doing online.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Cyberbullying case prompts new laws
Megan Meier may not be "patient zero" of a cyberbullying epidemic, but the strange twist associated with her case (i.e., that an adult was responsible for the bullying) has certainly caused her name to become synonomous with the plight of the cyberbully victims. Now, in another sad twist to this story, the woman behind the fake MySpace persona that tormented Megan may get off scott free, according to this article. This is simply more evidence that our laws have yet to catch up with the technological advances in cyber space.
When it comes to online behavior and the dangers associated with our children, cyberbullying is quickly becoming more of a concern to parents than online predators. If there is anything positive that has come from Megan's story, it is that it helped to bring cyberbullying to the forefront. Many states have enacted new laws to deal with cyberbullies, but there is still more work to be done.
As always, the more involved parents can be in their child's online activities, the faster they will be able to react to the clues of cyberbullying, and the easier it will be to prevent a tragedy such as Megan's. Know what your children are doing online, and who they are talking to - and what others are saying to and about your children. Watch for cases where your children may be cyberbullying others as well - young kids can be extremely hurtful in person, and the anonymity of the web only magnifies their bravado, causing them to say things online that they would never dare to say in person.
Cyberbullying is a real problem - with a real solution. While our lawmakers continue to strive to enact laws to protect victims of cyberbullying, may we as parents continue to get more involved in our children's online lives, and help them understand the line between harmless banter and hurtfull comments with real-life consequences.
When it comes to online behavior and the dangers associated with our children, cyberbullying is quickly becoming more of a concern to parents than online predators. If there is anything positive that has come from Megan's story, it is that it helped to bring cyberbullying to the forefront. Many states have enacted new laws to deal with cyberbullies, but there is still more work to be done.
As always, the more involved parents can be in their child's online activities, the faster they will be able to react to the clues of cyberbullying, and the easier it will be to prevent a tragedy such as Megan's. Know what your children are doing online, and who they are talking to - and what others are saying to and about your children. Watch for cases where your children may be cyberbullying others as well - young kids can be extremely hurtful in person, and the anonymity of the web only magnifies their bravado, causing them to say things online that they would never dare to say in person.
Cyberbullying is a real problem - with a real solution. While our lawmakers continue to strive to enact laws to protect victims of cyberbullying, may we as parents continue to get more involved in our children's online lives, and help them understand the line between harmless banter and hurtfull comments with real-life consequences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
