The Internet Is Not Especially Dangerous For Kids -- Which, Tragically, Isn't Newsworthy To Some
from the should-be-common-sense dept
It's repeated so often that it has almost become a cliché: the Internet is a dangerous place for children. We're regularly treated to alarmist stories about the growing problem of child predators on the Internet. But David Pogue has a great post putting the danger in perspective -- fitting well with recent studies showing the danger is overstated. He says he was asked to write a story on the subject, and when he submitted a story arguing that the dangers were over-hyped, his editor pressured him to track down some examples of Internet-based violence. Pogue says that he "could not find a single example of a preteen getting abducted and murdered by an Internet predator."The examples he was able to find were almost comically tame. One mother, for example, leapt to unplug the computer to prevent her child from seeing a pornographic image. While I'm not in favor of showing porn to children, it seems unlikely that seeing a naked women will cause a child permanent damage. Pogue points out a PBS documentary with some striking facts. For example, "the data shows that giving out personal information over the Internet makes absolutely no difference when it comes to a child’s vulnerability to predation." And "all the kids we met, without exception, told us the same thing: They would never dream of meeting someone in person they'd met online," -- again just as studies have shown. The real problem here isn't that the Internet is especially dangerous, but that some parents are absurdly over-protective. The Internet, like every other aspect of life, has some risks. But those risks are, if anything, less serious than the risks children encounter in the real world. If kids use their common sense, they'll be perfectly safe. Unfortunately, that's not the message we tend to get from the media.
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
Filed Under: david pogue, kids, online dangers
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ummm
I have four sisters and between us we have 21 children in their teens. Most are girls with myriad friends. Then there are all my friends with their teen children. I can tell you emphatically that every single one of them will say they'd never go to meet an online acquaintence in person but that every one of them most certainly would and that most have done so.
It's not that they intend to lie or decieve us, because none of them would ever consider meeting someone they didn't know or trust. The problem is that they can easily be made to believe they know and can trust just about anyone with a very little bit of time and information. They don't grasp, or they dismiss, the potential for deception and danger.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A man who admitted abducting and indecently assaulting a teenage girl he met through an internet chat room has been jailed for 18 months.
Police say they believe an Albemarle County man kidnapped and raped a Connecticut girl he met on the Internet. James Gardner Dennis, 34, was arrested Feb. 20 and charged with rape, forcible sodomy, abduction and enticement of a minor through the use of communications systems. Court documents show that investigators believe Dennis met the victim on Facebook, a social networking Web site, and sent her a plane ticket to fly to Charlottesville for a supposed modeling job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ummm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
As much it would no doubt please the anti-science, anti-intellectual bent of some, I do hope that nobody will seriously suggest shutting down our institutions of higher learning.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rotten Disclaimer
http://www.rotten.com/about/obscene.html
Especially the "not a babysitter" statement. Wow, just like that paragon of visual entertainment technology known as "tv."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
porn!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not even close
A classified ad doesn't compare to internet based dialogs. In print media the sender doesn't really control of the distribution of the ad. A classified ad's reach is limited to the physical distribution of the media (Newspaper, magazine, fan publication). You can't target a demographic at level of granularity lower than the general demographic of the publication. A traditional classified ad can't specifically target an age group, gender, interest group, etc. With the internet you target people like a missile at a bunker and you can aim that shot anywhere in the world any time you want.
Further, a classified ad is basically a one-way communication channel. The sender doesn't get instant feedback as to whether their message is reaching someone in which they have an interest. You can't initiate an instant dialog via a classified ad the way you can through internet chat, blogs, and email. It is this instant communication and feedback that creates the risk. Predators a very adept on playing on a child's fears, wants, wishes, etc. They can constantly adapt their dialog based on the feedback loop created by the internet.
ANY communication media has that same potential risks but the internet allows these sickos to spread their infection anywhere, at anytime, and nearly anonymously that was never possible with tradition print media. The issue with the internet is it simply creates greater opportunity for predators to identify and exploit potential victims.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:ummm (and more)
Please go back and read the first line of my post, then read the rest and recontemplate my point. It's obvious, yet it's also obvious that it escaped you.
I will add that one of my nephews has met and got into altercations with several practically unknown (to him) teen boys who've made it onto his girlfriend's myspace friends list. His idiocy and jealocy are to blame of course and this just mirrors, though adds to, the confrontations he gets into otherwise.
Also, I'll note that the PBS documentary quote is at best very misleading and at worst undeniably false. There are weekly reports of teens meeting and running off with strangers/pervs/predators in other states. Many, if not most, of these include histories of calls to the homes and monies being sent for gifts and to support travel. Tell me how much of that would be accomplished without personal details being revealed. Obviously, in those cases where a teen crosses paths with a predator, giving out personal details absolutely and undeniably makes the child more vulnerable.
Still, I note that such threats are small and rare compared to those that teens face daily from friends, family, and community. That doesn't make them unimportant though because they're threats that come in addition to normal threats and not necessarily intead of them. Parents need to educate and supervise their children...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That's not really "murdered."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Really? Oh, thank god. I feel okay now, I mean, if she was just abducted and assaulted, you're right, that's okay.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
...or not.
Also, little Susy can meet a bad guy on the internet even while in her home, a place where these parents once connected "safe" with "completely sheltered and isolated".
I think if parents (of which I am not, luckily for everyone involved) did less isolating and more educating, the internet would easily be far safer than, say, a walk home from school. (do people still walk home from school?) Also, perhaps a lesson or two on computers and the internet could help everyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ...or not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ummm
So, you suspect and therefor assume you're right without any evidence to the contrary. Sounds about right!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: AC
Thankfully the oldest of said pals (that I'm aware of) has been only a few years older than any of the kids. The kids had no garantee of that though, they based their choices to meet on online chats and myspace profiles which, even when legitimate, are rarely accurate.
I will go out on a limb though and state emphatically that, if you don't think most teenagers will meet up personally with net-pals, particularly those the believe to be in their age/interest group then you should start signing your comments as anonymous fool rather than anonymous coward.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not even close
I can answer this as a definite yes. The definition of "ad" is too narrow. Try ad on a broader scale, such as posters/messages on telephone poles or fliers handed out in malls.
One needs to focus on the true issue here and the internet is not the issue. It's the one who wants to break the law.
If a person wants to break the law, there's not much anyone can do about it. We get spam, phishing lure, and a host of other attempts at those trying to capture our personal info. Most criminals are out for the money. Some are out for the children.
In terms of pedophilia, most are "closet" cases (many studies will confirm this) because the DON'T want to be caught. They're not going to lure children into their den, so to speak.
Like most criminals, it's those 2% who feel they can get bolder with their attempts at bigger crimes. Heck, watching any of those cop shows will show this. These people feel the internet is anonymous and quickly realize their mistake when they're caught.
I'm going to have to agree with Tim on this one. The internet has some risks, just like a teen driving to a party after receiving the invite via email.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not even close
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: porn!!!
When I was a kid, you were lucky if you found some porn some other kid had stashed outside.
Things certainly have changed in that regard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]