Internet Safety, the ‘Moral Panic’ of our age?

[Denise M. Carter]

As another day dawns I have been watching the BBC news, and yet another discussion about the dangers of the Internet. It all seems so reactive to me – then again I know that the press have their own agenda.

For example, I was once asked to appear on a TV news programme to speak about a court case at which the defendant was jailed for murder. The journalist happily told me he had met his victim on the internet and wanted to make the point that adults are at risk too. As usual I said, ‘I’ll ring you back’. On further investigation I discovered it was a case of domestic violence – but – the murderer had met his wife through an online dating site five years previously. Needless to say I declined.

My point here is not that there aren’t a lot of nasty and unwholesome things going on online, but that we are often given a particular view that means the Internet has become the ‘moral panic’ of our age. As a result our responses and strategies are often reactive rather than proactive.

So what is the solution?

My underlying gut feeling is that most internet safety problems can be approached (notice I didn’t say solved) by looking at the management of personal information - your own and others! Whenever I speak to children and young people I always ask how they would feel walking down the street shouting ' my name is... I live at ... here look at my holiday photos...etc', and then ask why they think it is any different in cyberspace!

These children and young people of the Internet Age are now becoming adults, and I am beginning to hear mumblings about those in positions of trust and authority – teachers and doctors face-booking and tweeting confidential information.


So I ask again - what is the solution?

[Marla Coffey]

You've got me thinking, Denise! As a classroom teacher, I was always reminding my students about web safety, and if it gives you any hope, I saw a huge difference between the new-to-the-net students in my first year and the savvy little geniuses I taught in my last year.

By the time they reach 8th grade now, students can pretty much teach their teachers about net safety. But for many there is a disconnect between what they know and what they do, just as there is with adults (doctors tweeting confidential information? where's my lawyer? oh, he's busy tweeting right now :)

A couple of years ago one of my extremely net-smart online students was telling me how good he was at protecting his personal information, so I used only the information he had personally posted in his facebook, myspace, and other social networking sites to pinpoint where he lived, what school he went to, what time school let out in the afternoon, etc. It took 15 minutes or less, and he was horrified when I pointed out that if someone wanted to abduct him (or beat him up for something he said online), he could be found quite easily.

Is it net-o-phobia the "moral panic" of our time? Maybe, because it's new, and because the actual number of incidents compared to the number of people using it is very small but the publicity they get is very big. The need for panic isn't really there but I think it takes hold as people wrap their brains around the fact that the vehicle for the really bad incidents that make the news is not far away, but right in their own homes. It destroys that "can't happen to me" attitude that we insulate ourselves with.

And I would propose that the only reason our kids are so aware of staying safe on the web is that the moral panic has forced parents and schools to be vigilant. If adults believed that it's really not an issue, their children would too. What do you think?

Marla

[RZONZ / Joe Frost - Founder/ CEO]

To hear that there "aren’t a lot of nasty and unwholesome things going on online" tells me that we are concerned more with statistics than addressing an issue one kid at a time.

To think that the Broadband Act, CIPA, or COPPA are just silly laws that one lawyer decided to draft because a kid or two stumbled into the wrong chat room is ludicrous.

Even the federal e-rate program demands differing levels of CIPA compliance.

To think that entire states are imposing online safety education seems to imply a need.

A few years ago I heard MySpace had a problem with a few registered sex offenders, like nearly 30k. And those were just the technically challenged ones that used their real names. Chances are there were a few more.

Last I knew Chris Hansen and his TV crews were still doing their online sting for pedophiles.

Bullying is interesting because we all know it happens on the playground as much if not more than online, but the whole trash talking has evolved due to online gaming. There was a news clip not long ago about that.

The issue I have with gaming is more porn related. Sure there are a ton of “M” rated games, but you can also go to the public sites and play games like “Naughty Classroom” or “Perry the Perv” too.

I’m not sure of the stats regarding identity theft, but I do know kids provide way too much information online.

Now, that being said, I’m not a fear monger. I believe less with the i-safe approach and more with the appropriate use. Let’s teach kids proactively how to do it correctly – like driver’s ed.

[Denise M. Carter]

I didn’t say there "aren’t a lot of nasty and unwholesome things going on online". This misquote makes me sound like I have no concept of the problems that children and young people face in cyberspace.

On the contrary, I did say: “My point here is not that there aren’t a lot of nasty and unwholesome things going on online, but that we are often given a particular view that means the Internet has become the ‘moral panic’ of our age. As a result our responses and strategies are often reactive rather than proactive.”

My post did in fact have two strands or ideas running through it:

1. First illustrating how wrong the press often get things because of their sensationalism and (this is true of most press reports around any issue you choose but this is a separate discussion and a lengthy one!) – believe me I have dealt with a lot of frightened children, parents, teachers, governors and ministers etc who believe every word they read.

To explain: the notion of ‘moral panic’ comes from Cohen’s study of deviant groups, and their perceived threat to social order. Throughout history, the mass media industry has been utilised as a tool to appeal to the public at large, particularly in the field of politics, where people in a position of power can tempt society into believing what they want them to believe.

Cohen goes further; the media creates a moral panic; ‘a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests.’ These ‘folk devils’ constitute a threat to the prevailing social order, and here are two examples:

If we do not take steps to preserve the purity of blood, the Jew will destroy civilisation by poisoning us all. (Hitler, 1938)

Surely if the human race is under threat, it is entirely reasonable to segregate AIDS victims, otherwise the whole of mankind could be engulfed. (The Daily Star, 2 December 1988)

I would argue (as I did in my first post) that our understanding of the Internet and Internet Safety has had similar treatment: that the distorted media reporting of the internet, the ensuing panic and the amplification of the phenomenon itself provides a ‘script’ to perform in terms of Internet Safety. This results in ‘ticking the box’, rather than solving the problem.

2. Second, I was suggesting that we be more proactive rather than reactive when looking at the risks and opportunities that internet and digital communications technologies offer children and young people. More importantly I am seeking solutions.

As a social anthropologist I deal in narratives, in personal experiences and perceptions, in layers of meaning and understandings. As an internet safety ‘expert’ I want to know how we can be more proactive. I want to know how we can protect children and young people, all of them, everywhere, all of the time.

The Broadband Act, CIPA, and COPPA etc are important steps in that direction. CEOP, iSafe, InSafe, SimSafety etc are all steps in the right direction – but – they are all reactive. One sentence in this post should give everyone a clue: I said ‘risks and opportunities’; nobody says ‘opportunities and risks’.

So I ask again - what is the solution?

[Curtis J Neeley Jr., MFA]

The solution is creation of a opt-in requirement for search engine or other republication robots.  Every disclosure form MUST have a robots Exclusion Protocol field to prevent re-disclosure by Google Inc et al.

Computers someone rents space on that are attached to the Internet should be regarded as indexable by search engines ONLY if desired instead of the current predisposition that all is fair to use to sell ads and violate privacy if accessible by wire communications.

The end of the open internet is about to be required worldwide.