TSA Gropes 6-Year Old Girl: Says It's Okay Since It Followed Standard Operating Procedure

from the only-the-tsa-can-touch-you-this-way dept

There have been plenty of concerns about the new TSA groping procedures, especially when it comes to little children, who are properly taught from a young age that it's inappropriate for people to touch them in certain ways. Many people were quite reasonably horrified when the TSA suggested that agents tell kids that the patdown was just a game -- as that's the type of language used by child sex offenders.

Apparently, the TSA remains completely tone deaf on this issue. Jonathan Adler notes "only the TSA can touch you this way," in referencing the anger felt by the parents of a 6-year old girl who broke down crying after going through the patdown process. The girl's mother, Selena Drexel, pointed out:

"We struggle to teach our kids to protect themselves, to say 'no, it's not ok to touch me in this way in this area. Yet here we are saying it's ok for these people."

The family videotaped the incident, as you can see here: At the end of this post, we also have a clip of the parents appearing on TV discussing the incident, their daughter's reaction and how they feel about the whole thing.

Given the attention this story is getting, the TSA published a blog post, and in true tone deaf fashion, defended the patdown as being "standard operating procedures":

A video taken of one of our officers patting down a six year-old has attracted quite a bit of attention. Some folks are asking if the proper procedures were followed. Yes. TSA has reviewed the incident and the security officer in the video followed the current standard operating procedures.

The TSA does not respond to the rather serious issues of how do you teach children that they shouldn't be touched in this manner... but it's okay if a stranger in an airport does it. Does the TSA truly believe that groping a 6-year-old girl and reaching into the waistband of her pants is making us safer?

Filed Under: children, patdowns, tsa

Using Technology To Bring Out Creativity In Children

from the best-practices dept

A few weeks ago, we mentioned an experiment that we were doing, to try to create more useful and engaging ad products, specifically with a "conversational" ad unit on the front page of the site. The initial ad centered on a discussion of ways in which kids could use tablet computers (the ad and post were sponsored by ASUS and Microsoft). We're running another experiment now. On the article page for this post, or on the front page of Techdirt right after the first post (if you don't run an ad blocker), we have an ad unit that asks for your input on the question of what kinds of computing activities might best develop kids creativity. It shows my answer and asks you to "vote" for one of four activities and then allows to type in a more complete answer -- all from within the unit (so it's not taking you to some other page). This is very much an experiment, and we already learned some things from the first pass at this (some stuff worked, some didn't), and we'll be doing some more as well. In order to keep the feedback in that ad unit, I've disabled comments on this post.

This post should also be considered sponsored by ASUS Windows Slate, in partnership with Microsoft and SAYMedia.

Filed Under: advertising, children, creativity, engagement, tablets

'My Works Are Like My Children'

from the maximalist-maxims dept

This week Mimi & Eunice address two popular copyright maxims:

The works-are-like-children metaphor is very apt for art, but it's an absurd argument for copyright.

And here we are "depriving the owner of potential income." Mimi & Eunice comics are Free/libre/open source, so if anyone wants to make a Copyright Maximalist bingo/drinking game out of them, feel free.

 

Filed Under: children, copyright, culture

Some Discussion Around Children And Tablet Computing

from the good,-bad-or-in-how-you-use-it? dept

This post is Sponsored by ASUS Windows Slate, in partnership with Microsoft and SAYMedia -- as is fully explained in the post -- but the content and views are entirely my own.

David Pogue, over at the NY Times, had a fascinating post last week about the debate that goes through his head concerning children using iPads and other tablet/smartphone devices. He worries that his son is too engrossed in using it, but the more he works through the issue, he begins to realize that maybe it's not as big a problem as he originally thought, and it's not necessarily the same thing as plopping a kid in front of a TV -- which many people agree is probably not the best idea:

What makes my feelings on this subject even more complicated is that, in general, my 6-year-old isn't playing mindless video games. He's not allowed to play shoot-'em-ups or violent games at all. Instead, he's encouraged to play creative apps -- and most of the time, he does.

[...] Come on, how can apps like that be bad for a kid? Is it really that much different from playing with paper cutouts? Or blocks? Or a toy drum set?

When he does play games, he favors thinking games like Cut the Rope (a clever physics-based puzzle game) or Rush Hour (strategy puzzles). Heck, even Angry Birds involves some thinking. You have to plan ahead and calculate and use resources wisely.

In the old days, we used to tut-tut about how much TV kids watched -- but parents usually made an exception for educational shows like "Sesame Street" and "Between the Lions." How is this any different? Shouldn't we make exceptions for creative and problem-solving apps?

He goes on to note that we shouldn't just assume that something is "bad" for kids because it's electronic, and that perhaps use in moderation makes plenty of sense. This is something I've been thinking about a lot as well, as a father, in trying to figure out what's appropriate technology-wise for my kid to use.

So, with that, it seemed like a perfect opportunity when SAYMedia, along with Microsoft, approached us about participating in a new "conversational" campaign they're running, getting people discussing what are the best ways for parents to use tablets with kids. As you may see on the website directly, we have a unit between the first and second story, which is a "conversational" unit, that lets you input your own thoughts on the topic, in order to get some wider ideas. Beyond the general interest in the topic, we were interested in experimenting with this type of campaign, because (as we've stated for years), we like to see what happens when you build "marketing" or "ad" campaigns that aren't one-directional, but which really involve communities, and really involve getting their thoughts on things. We hope some of you will also find it worthwhile to participate in this discussion -- and let us know your own thoughts on the role of such technology in the lives of kids. Thanks for participating.

Filed Under: children, computers

Police Chief Tells Parents To Hack Kids' Facebook Accounts

from the trust-is-so-last-century dept

Chrys Matyszcyk points us to a report about how a police chief in New Jersey is running seminars for parents on how to hack their kids' Facebook accounts and install spyware and keyloggers to spy on everything they do. There's so much wrong with the claims by Mahwah Police Chief James Batelli, it's difficult to know where to start.

"Trust sounds good. It's a good cliche," says Batelli. "[But] to stick your head in the sand and think that, in 9th, 10th, 8th grade, your child is not going to be exposed to alcohol, is not going to be exposed to drugs is kind of a naïve way to go about it."

First of all, what's "cliche" about trust? Does he even know what the word means? But, really, the following sentence suggests he doesn't understand what trust means. It doesn't mean kids won't be exposed to such things, but that you trust them to know how to deal with it when they are. And the best way to do that is not to set up a relationship built on distrust, spying and lies, but to treat them with a modicum of respect, admitting that they'll almost certainly come across these kinds of situations, and helping them understand what it means, and how to deal with it on their own.

"If you sugar-coat it, parents just don't get it. Read the paper any day of the week and you'll see an abduction [or] a sexual assault that's the result of an Internet interaction or a Facebook comment."

Really? Prove it. I read an awful lot of news about things happening on social networks, and I can't recall any such story, let alone "any day of the week." That doesn't mean it hasn't happened -- I'm sure there are some cases here or there, but the fear mongering about kids being abducted over Facebook are blown way out of proportion. And, again, this is something that can be dealt with by education, teaching kids to be aware of what they're doing online and teaching them about self-respect -- which is a bit more difficult to do when their parents are spying on them.

Amusingly, the article also quotes a parent, Carolyn Blake, who secretly installed a keylogger and spies on her kids. Later in the article, she mentions that she thinks her teenager figured out there's a keylogger there. Well, if he hasn't yet, I would imagine that having her tell the story, with her real name, in a major media publication probably is going to get back to him.

The real issue here is that so many people seem to think that there are two and only two options when it comes to parenting in such situations: let kids be free to wander into dangerous predator-filled waters totally unprepared, or to spy on them. Of course, that's not true. There are a range of ways to deal with these issues, and it all starts with actually educating kids about what sorts of things and challenges they're likely to come across as they grow up (both online and offline) and preparing them for when they inevitably face those scenarios. The kids won't always respond as the parent wants (what kids do?), but it's a part of growing up. Spying on their every move doesn't prepare them for anything.

Filed Under: children, hacking, social networks, trust
Companies: facebook

FCC Asked To Block New Cartoon Series... For The Children

from the gi-joe? dept

Benny6Toes alerts us to the news that a children's advocacy group is demanding that the FCC block a new cartoon show that uses a character from shoe company Skechers' advertisements as a part of the series, claiming that it would be the equivalent of a 30-minute commercial, which is against the requirements of the Children's Television Act. The group claims: "the show could pave the way for Ronald McDonald, Tony the Tiger and other iconic cartoon pitchmen to become stars of their own series."

Indeed, but as Benny notes: "After all, what are cartoons for Transformers, G.I. Joe (does that show my age?), Pokemon, or dozens of other kids shows for if not to sell related merchandise?" Saturday morning cartoons have been filled with half-hour long "advertisements" for merchandise for years. More to the point, Benny points out that isn't this really something for parents to decide, rather than the FCC:

But here's a better question: even if it is a 30 minute advertisement, should the FCC (or any government agency) be able to stop a show for that reason? Soap operas, though not targeted at children, were sponsored in whole by specific companies when they originally debuted on radio. That's why they're called, "soap operas."

Shouldn't the parents be able to say, "no," to their children?

Yes, people get annoyed at how commercial children's programming has become, but is that really the FCC's job to deal with it?

Filed Under: advertising, cartoons, children
Companies: fcc, skechers

Will Kids Change Their Names As They Become Adults To Hide From Their Google Permanent Record?

from the modern-problems dept

Nearly five years ago, we wondered what would happen when the generation that grew up with the internet and social media started running for office. The idea was that when you're kids, you often do silly things that you regret later in life. In the past, those things fade away as memories. However, these days, many of them are now recorded for posterity and easily findable on a search engine. We've wondered if this will lead more people to brush off youthful indiscretions, but there's another possibility as well. Perhaps it will become more standard for kids to change their names as they reach adulthood. That, at least, is the suggestion made by Eric Schmidt in discussing how society hasn't yet come to grips with a world in which so much data is recorded and available. Of course, it's a pretty simple database mapping to link one to the other, so I do wonder whether or not that really makes a difference for other than the most basic of searches.

Still, I often find these discussions by adults to be a bit condescending towards kids. Yes, kids do all sorts of silly things, some of which they may regret later, it's not as if everything they do is regrettable. On top of that, I tend to believe kids are a lot smarter than many adults make them out to be. While there may be many things that make adults cringe, I would bet a lot more kids understand what they should avoid doing online than adults give them credit for.

Filed Under: children, eric schmidt, names, privacy
Companies: google

Police Blame Video Games For 2-Year-Old Stabbing 5-Month-Old

from the evidence? dept

It seems that whenever there's any kind of violence involving kids, someone rushes to blame video games. Steve L points us to the latest such case, where it's taken to something of an extreme. Apparently a 2-year-old boy stabbed his 5-month-old brother with a knife. It sounds like he didn't do much damage, but police immediately claimed that violent video games owned by a much older teenaged brother "may have played a role." The only problem? The 2-year-old neither plays the games nor watches his older brother playing them. But, why not blame the video games?

Filed Under: blame, children, stabbing, video games

Bad Idea: UK Launches Database Of Info On Every Child

from the who-thought-this-was-a-good-idea? dept

Apparently, some folks in the UK haven't yet realized that no database is fully secure, and any large database of info will almost certainly be abused at some point. In what appears to be a stunningly bad idea, the UK has put together a giant database including info on every child in the UK. The goal is for it to be used by childcare professionals, but you can bet it will be misused quite soon. As internet law expert Michael Scott notes: "Who thought this was a good idea? And why?"

Filed Under: children, database, uk

New Jersey The Latest To Try To Regulate Social Networks... For The Children

from the please-make-it-stop dept

We've seen a number of attempts by politicians to use the latest "moral panic" around social networks to pass regulations against them. A popular one at the federal level which still (thankfully) has gone nowhere is DOPA, which would require schools and libraries to block social networks. However, state politicians want to get in on the grandstanding as well. Politicians in New Jersey are pushing a law that would require social networks to include a "report abuse" button on web pages and then would make those social networks responsible to investigate each reported "abuse" or face liability.

The unintended consequences of such a law would be awful. Basically, to protect liability, many "social networks" (and the term may be broadly applied to an awful lot of websites out there today) would most likely just shut down the accounts of those accused of "abuse." From a simple liability standpoint that makes sense. Leaving the account up just opens you up to a lawsuit. Furthermore, the button would likely be abused itself. Don't like someone? Click the "report abuse" button! And, no matter what, it makes no sense to put the burden of investigating things on the sites themselves. Hopefully this law goes nowhere, but don't be surprised to see similar proposals pop up elsewhere as well.

Filed Under: children, new jersey, regulations, social networks, unintended consequences