Show Me Your ID Card To Get Some Free Stuff
from the odd-incentive-systems dept
Whenever there's talk about the dangers of being online, one of the issues that comes up is how parents can better monitor their kids -- but monitoring isn't a real solution. First of all, you can't monitor your kids all the time. But, more importantly, it simply creates an atmosphere of distrust, rather than helping kids develop and think for themselves. A parent and security expert realized this, but was still worried about his kids instant messaging, so he created a system for sharing digital identification systems for chatters to prove that both sides are actually kids, rather than predators. While the idea sounds fairly well thought out, there are still some concerns that the system could be cheated -- but, to be honest, it looks like the effort to do so probably would keep away most. The system requires certain evidence before they issue a kid an ID, and then sets up a system to allow two individuals who both use the ID system to verify that the other really is in the system. It's a creative solution in a space that needs creative solutions. However, what seemed most odd about it is the idea that each time kids use the system they get points, which they can later exchange for prizes like music downloads or ringtones. While such things are common for other services, it seems a little unexpected to see it for an identity system, where you'd think that the protection it supposedly provides would be incentive enough. In the meantime, though, such a system is effectively useless unless it gets widespread usage -- which may be difficult. The company seems to be facing something of an "empty room" problem, where it just isn't worthwhile for anyone to sign up until lots of have done so as well.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good parents are constantly watching not only their children, but also their own actions and the results they produce to see what is effective and what is more counter-productive. I can't image a parent allowing a small child play near the street without close supervision. The child at that point is just not prepared. The same holds for a 12 year old girl just starting to assert her independence on the internet.
Additionally, not all parents have been the best parents throughout the development of the child, but only really begin to notice the child after problems have started to develop. For these parents, unobtrusive monitoring can be a valuable tool to help determine where the children really are.
Also, to suggest the monitoring is worthless just because you can't do it 100% of the time is ludicrous. You don't need full coverage as long as you have a good representative sample. And even if the child finds a way to disable the sofware you'll know somethings up when the monitor reports zero activity even though the child spent a long time on the computer.
Trust doesn't have to be an issue. I don't want to use the street example again because ideally the child isn't playing near the street in the first place, but I'm sure you can think of good activity in which a young child should be allowed to participate, but only with close supervision. The point is that the child should be used to this supervision, especially if they are exposed to computers and internet at a younger age and the monitor has just 'always been there' as far as the child is concerned. The parent need not even check it that often as long as they do occasionally check it. Of course, sometime trust will become an issue. In those cases, I think it unlikely that monitoring software will be the cause of the issue, but rather merely a flashpoint for deeper problems.
Certainly a trust relationship should develop, and eventually the parent must let go of the child, but even at this age it is still a parent's job to know what their child is up to. Monitoring software can be a valuable tool for the parent, especially as a child first begins to be a content producer on the internet rather than soley a consumer. By that I mean about the time the child may get it's own instant messenger account, start it's own blog, or play an online game more of the caliber of World of Warcraft than something to promote a Saturday morning cartoon show. This is usually about the time children also go through puberty, and we all know the kind of change that can bring to an adolescent. It is extremely important through this stage that parents are able to know what their child thinking and feeling, and increasingly that means monitoring thei child's online activies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
thats what makes this situation a unique one. monitoring won't work. any parent who thinks so may have great intentions, but horrible execution of those intentions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A large part of my argument centered on the idea that monitoring need not be a constant thing to be effective. The majority of the child's activity can be left private and unscrutinized. Any good parent knows who their child's friends are. That doesn't change whether the friend goes to the same school or was met soley over the internet.
The same can be said about where the child goes. There is usually a certain expectation of freedom- perhaps a middle-school age child can go to a friend's house after school without telling a parent, but if they get home after dinner the parent will want to know where else they may have gone. This is even more important on the internet. A child may only be able to physically visit one or two locations in an hour, and a parent would have no trouble with a list that size. A quick kid could read maybe 15 different blogs or other sites in that time. Having to review that list manually with a child with be tedious for both the child and parent.
I have already admitted that playing near the street wasn't the best example. Perhaps a better choice would be the first time you teach them to use a table saw in shop class. Or when first learning to drive. The point is that some activities need close monitoring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congressional Oversight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Problems Everywhere
What about X-Box and Playstation online games? There's no way to institute this type of system there. Sure, maybe not as many 'girls' playing, but plenty of young boys, and plenty of older men. No one seems worried yet, but just you wait, once a few news stories break about kids being picked up off of X-Box Live breaks headlines, THEN people will look for solutions.
Wy are a completely reactive society. We hardly plan ahead for anything. If anyone cared, these types of systems would of been built into the next-gen consoles and most every type of chat software or online PC game. I guess none of these game makers have had thier children taken from them yet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lol
wow that one really flew over your head huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: lol
Actually, no, that doesn't make sense. It's parents who are paying for the program, but kids who get the points. So, I don't think the incentive system helps more people sign up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: lol
I think many tech-savy kids (compared to their parents that only know how to move a mouse and take any advice they can get, most of which is spy on their kids) would disable/whatever the service just because they don't want to be spied on and watched over by their parents at every step for whatever reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: lol
You must not be a parent. Usually parents pay and children get the rewards. I think Joels comments are right on. Well spoken Joel! I will always monitor my children's internet access to some degree. Mine is monitored at work because my boss not only can't trust anyone in every situation but because it helps keep me productive and protects the company. I will protect my family in the same way. As they grow older, i will greatly reduce my monitoring...as long as they prove to me that I can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]