I have been doing the rounds of TV shows in North America over the past couple days. Everyone from Good Morning America to CNN International to CTV wants to hear about this “groundbreaking” case of a model who was bashed online. The case has been incorrectly described as the “first time a victim of cyberbashing has been able to pierce the cyber-veil of their harasser to be able to gain justice” and the end of “free speech,” combined.

It’s not the first, not even the ten-thousandth time. Thousands of times a week victims of cyberabuse and cybercrimes seek the identify of “anonymous” bloggers, posters and Internet users who have used the Internet as a weapon to hurt them, threaten them or insult them. Luckily for them, we leave a trail of cyber-breadcrumbs behind us wherever we go online. “Anonymous” is rarely anonymous.

The case was also incorrectly described as a lawsuit against Google (who owns and operates blogger.com). It wasn’t a lawsuit against Google. It was a motion in a lawsuit against the unknown blogger who was using a blogger.com account to do her dirty work. They were seeking to compel Google to give them information they need in the case.

Rather than debunk the misunderstandings and false claims of “firsts,” let me explain how these cases work (or should work). The reality versus the hype.

This has nothing to do with “free speech.” Let’s do a quick primer on “free speech.” In the US we equate free speech with our First Amendment. This only covers governmental action – the ability of governmental agencies to make laws, not what people do to each other. Defamation is an exception to permitted “free” speech. So is harassment. And you can’t threaten the life of the President or others. You can’t claim to have a bomb in an airport. Ads and other commercial speech can be regulated.

Free speech usually has nothing to do with people harassing each other in real life or online. (It’s slightly more complicated than this. But you can read more about this at Aftab.com, WiredSafety.org or at CDT.org.)
When someone says mean or hurtful things about you online, what they say falls into one of three categories, in the same way they do in the real world. (The cyberlaws here are not much different from the offline ones.)

• They can be rude, but not actionable. (“I hate you. You’re stupid! No one likes you”, etc.)

• They can be defamatory or harassing, and be civilly actionable (through a lawsuit, instead of through the police, such as “You are a crook, child molester or drunk”, etc. when you are not).

• Or they can be criminal harassment or other similar cybercrimes and actionable through the police. (This typically involves a serious threat of bodily harm or repetitive communications after being asked to stop, such as “I am going to kill you, hurt your children or defraud others using your identity”, etc. or sending you 500 text messages after you let them know you are not interested in getting their texts.)

Assuming that the online attacks arise to the level of defamation or harassment and are actionable in some way you have a case. But you don’t yet know whom to sue. Most cyberlawyers begin by filing a “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” lawsuit, alleging defamation or harassment and laying out the facts, but naming John or Jane Doe as the defendants or one of the defendants. The suit is filed and the cyberlawyer will draft a subpoena (a legal demand) and serve it on the Internet or mobile service provider hosting the blog, posts or other communication tools used in the attacks. They will demand that the service provider turn over all information they have on the person creating the blog or post or sending the communication.

Most service providers have carefully created policies to handle these demands. And their privacy policies should reflect those. (That’s one of the reasons it’s a good idea to read them before using a site.) They may require a formal subpoena or court order, or reserve the right to turn over this information in the event they think it is necessary to protect their users, themselves or the public. They may demand that the subpoena be “docketed” in their jurisdiction, which requires a local lawyer be retained in most cases, or they can accept a faxed subpoena. They have full discretion, as long as they describe it in their privacy policy accurately.

In most cases, the service providers will promptly respond to a criminal subpoena served by law enforcement and not notify their user about whom the information is being sought. But if the subpoena is served civilly by a lawyer in a suit, they often will give their user notice of the request and an opportunity to fight the subpoena and prevent their identity from being disclosed. If the subpoena is fought, a judge has to get involved to decide if the subpoena was warranted or not. The judge doesn’t decide whether or not the plaintiff will win the ultimate lawsuit, just whether or not the subpoena will lead to information that can assist in the suit.

That is the status of the model’s legal action to date. Someone (who turned out to be a female acquaintance) posted nasty statements about her. Whether those statements are defamation or merely rude will have to await a jury’s verdict. But the model’s lawyer was able to convince a judge that Google should turn over the information they have to him so he can name the blogger and serve her with the complaint. The blogger will have her real day in court, but so will the model.

If there was no merit in the case, the judge in all likelihood would have denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel Google to turn over the information about the blogger.

What information does Google have about this blogger? While I don’t know for sure, the information provided to date includes the blogger’s e-mail address and IP information. The IP information (standing for “Internet protocol”) is often recorded by service providers for every post, login and upload using their service. They tie this information to accounts and generally keep it for between 3 and 6 months before deleting it.

Sometimes they tie this IP information entirely to the blog post, profile or account. Unfortunately, if this is the case once the content is deleted (often at the request of the victim) the IP evidence they need to track the poster is lost with it. (That’s why it is crucial to ask the service provider or site to “preserve the data” when they shut down the account or remove the offending content.)

Service providers that charge for their services will have more authenticated information (creditcard numbers, verified addresses, full names, etc.) than providers that permit you to set up an account without even a verified e-mail address. A well-drafted subpoena will take that into consideration. Facebook has authenticated e-mail addresses and IP addresses. So does Google for blogger.com account holders. They know the dates the user last logged in, friends and permitted users, the sources of linked images, videos and content. But that is often more than enough when combined with offline evidence.

So, what does this mean for people who are or feel harassed online? It means they have options. They can ignore the attacks (often the best option if someone is looking to provoke you), ask the site or provider to remove the offensive content, hire a lawyer or call the police. It’s not always easy making that choice.
You should consider:

• How hurtful and how well-spread the bashing is and can become. If they are Parez Hilton it’s one thing. If no one will ever read their blog, it’s another.

• How well known are you? Celebrities and cyber-celebs are used to being bashed and targeted. If you are a local mayor or PTA president, you may be used to attacks and online attacks are no different. The more well-known you are, the more likely your response will generate attention, while their blog alone won’t.

• How can the bashing potentially hurt you -is it personal or is it business? Can it hurt your business? A relationship? Just your feelings? A business owner may be targeted by a competitor posing as a blogger or anonymous poster. That can have serious economic effects. Even if you aren’t particularly well-known, if the post makes it to the front page or second page of Google searches for you, it can have serious impact on your reputation.

• How would you react if this had happened offline? Would you have ignored it? Asked the person to stop? Called the police? Think about if you would have been upset, but then brushed it off offline. The only differences between online and offline bashing is that you often know the identity of your offline basher, while 70% of online harassment takes place anonymously or with stolen identities, and online bashing can live on long after the attack was launched. The Internet has a very long memory. As I always say, “what you post online stays online…forever!” The same holds true with your basher’s posts. Take that into consideration. But remember that a lawsuit make bring even more attention to the bash.

• Can you go the distance? A lawsuit or protracted criminal proceedings can be exhausting, keep you enmeshed with the basher, the negativity and the past. Lawyers are expensive, especially if they understand cyberlaw. (And if they don’t, their inefficiency and mistakes will cost you even more!) Legal fees can run upwards of $200,000 and cases can take years. If you win, most of the time you still have to bear your own legal fees, which can often exceed whatever you recover.

• How much can you win? Even with a good case and lawyer, there is no guarantee that you’ll win. And if you win on the liability part, you still need to prove damages.” Hurt feelings don’t qualify. Can you prove how much you lost in business? Did your spouse leave you or your boss fire you? Can you prove this was a direct result of the bashing? How much can you prove?

• How much can you collect? I know. It’s the principle, not the money. But if it’s costing you thousands in legal fees and experts and years of your time, some cash “principal” can be a helpful combination with your win on “principles” too. Just know that the millions you hope to win may not be collectible. Be realistic. How many wealthy enemies do you have? Unless they have insurance (businesses may), you are at the mercy of their net worth and likelihood of their filing for bankruptcy. So a big win and jury verdict may be worth no money in the end. If you are really in it for the “principle” that might be okay. But the time to consider that is BEFORE you shell out attorneys’ fees and waste years of anguish.

I hope this helps you understand the law, your rights and your options. And for those of you who forget to thinkB4uClick, consider the consequences of acting out online. It may not be worth it.

Parry

When I was growing up, chain letters were a big thing. “Send this to ten of your closest friends and win $1 million.” They usually promised treasures, good luck and love. Sometimes you knew the sender. Sometimes you couldn’t tell who sent them.

In 1997, when I was writing the “Parents Guide to the Internet” I began talking to tweens about their online experiences. One mother and tween shared an experience about a chain e-mail the girl had received. “Send this to ten of your closest friends, or your mother will die!” Clearly the kids had upped- the-ante since I was a tween 45 years ago. They hadn’t just moved online. They had moved from offering good luck and happiness to scare tactics.

This 11 –year-old promptly deleted the email, proud of herself for not falling for the message. Then, at 3am she woke up screaming, fearing she had signed her mother’s death warrant. No matter how hard her mother tried to convince her, the only way to get her to go back to sleep was to retrieve the email from the deleted file and send it to ten others. Her mother added a note to delete the message once the recipients get it.

I did the Today Show with Matt Lauer last Friday on cases of these chain threats moving to text messaging. Several tweens had reported receiving text messages promising dire consequences if the message wasn’t passed along. When I mentioned to Matt that chain letters had been around since I was young (and probably even longer). He called me on it. “They didn’t issue threats,” he replied.

When we look at trends in cybersafety, we tend to classify things into risks from others (predators and cyberbullies and misinformation and hype), risks to technology (viruses, etc.), risks to money (fraud), risks to others (cyberbullying and hacking) and risks to self (posting too much info). Chain text messages that promise dire consequences could be classified as “cyberbullying,” and viewed as a threat. The solutions for cyberbullying involve not answering back, blocking the sender and telling a trusted adult. That fits the preferred response to a chain text message. But the real issue isn’t the threatening aspects of the message. It’s the tween’s reaction to the message.

Chain emails, text messages and instant messages are not personal. Cyberbullying is. A cyberbully wants to hurt you, specifically. The chain text sender wants you to pass along their message. The incentive to do so is to avoid having your mother die. It’s not a threat. It’s designed to be viral.

Why do we care? Bad is bad, isn’t it? We care because the solutions and how we address these issues with our kids depend on our understanding the roots of the risks. Calling the police isn’t the answer (unless it appears to be a credible threat to your child). Teaching your child information literacy is.

We need to help our child deal with the fears they have and avoid being coerced. But we have to address what to believe and what to ignore online at least as much. Nutcases, creeps and kooks reside online as well as offline. (Some may argue that they thrive online better than offline.) Our children will receive urban legends via email promising them riches, vacations with Bill Gates, and conveying scary messages.

1. We can and should use software filters and white-listed sites.

2. We should block unknown senders from being able to send emails, IMs and text messages to our children.

3. But, more than anything else, we should teach them to use the “filter-between-their ears.” They need to be skeptical about what they see and read online. Who’s the source? How credible are they? Anonymous isn’t worth the time. Do others respect the source? Is the information current and does it credit its source?

The chain texts promising bad things to you, your dog or your mom isn’t much different from the pop-ups that promise you, the 1 millionth visitor, an iPod or DSi. It’s misinformation and hype. And whether it is designed to convince you to provide your personal information and credit card numbers, or to forward a text message to ten people, it is risky if you fall for the hype.

Have the talk. Let your children, tweens and even your teens understand that messages and information that appears to be credible may not be. Try some role-playing with them. Ask them about fraudulent pop-ups. (You’ll be amazed to know how much they already understand about those.)

Then, together, set up communication blockers. Consider a family control product, such as McAfee Family Protection which can block inappropriate web sites, monitors and records IM and records conversations on social networking sites. Set up a system where they can come to you if anything scares them. With all the people and information coming at them online every day, teaching them who and what to believe may be one of the best things you can do to keep them safe.

Remember, upload often to the filter between their ears. Your values and advice, not those of cracktops they encounter online, should be the ones that your children turn to in life. Make sure they know them.

Stay safe.

Parry

Over the years, ever since AOL created the first Parental control product 13 years ago and Net Nanny created the first Internet filter for parents 14 years ago, parental controls have been a source of contention within families. Parents didn’t know how to use them, and worried that they would be seen as “spying” on their kids. Kids didn’t want to be “spied” on or have their favorite websites blocked by mindless technology. The free speech advocates got involved as well. Blocking and filtering is tantamount to censorship, the early arguments stated. Parents insisted that the First Amendment did not apply to their home and the fight was on.

Early technologies had biases built into them, blocking the news sites that held negative reviews, or took a stand on gender preferences or religious sites. Some blocked sex education sites, along with the pornography. The charity I run, WiredSafety.org, reviewed the top products out there in 2000, ranking them based on their ability to block bad content for kids and still let the good ones through. Most blocked 97%+ of pornography. But few blocked hate, none blocked child pornography, and most overblocked innocent sites.

Urban legends of kids being able to bypass the filters began. (If your kids are good enough to get around McAfee’s Family Protection, I suspect they can get a job working for the company. They’d have to be that good!)

Most of the time, the kids have just used the password they guessed or had to turn it off. And one father in 1998 sent me an angry e-mail. “You told me to use parental controls!” he said. “But my son guessed my password and turned them off. What kind of help is that!!!” (I frequently get blamed when kids guess their parents passwords, or merely read them from the sticky sheet posted on the monitor so they won’t forget their passwords. ) The solution here can’t be provided by McAfee. You’ll need to choose better passwords, don’t share them and don’t post them on sticky notes on your monitor.

There’s lot of emotion involved here. But there shouldn’t be. Remember – you are the parent! It’s not about spying, it’s about keeping your kids safe. That’s called “parenting.” That said, it all has to start with the “talk.” “Where do you go online? Is it fun? Why? How do you keep yourself safe? Are you ever worried? Would you come to me if you needed help?” Then promise to be trustworthy, not make things worse if they come to you when things go wrong. Ripping the computer out of the wall is not a good reaction. Neither is screaming at the other kids’ parents. Let them know you aren’t sneaking behind their backs. You are there to make sure they are safe.

And get over the feeling that you are reading their diaries. Diaries are tucked in their sock drawer and are only seen by your kids. What they post online stays online forever and can be seen by lots of people (even if they are using privacy settings). If others can see it, so can you. Period.

And times have changed. Free speech advocates worry about filtering use in libraries, not in homes. And parental controls have become “family tools.” Parents and their kids all agreed on one thing – parents don’t want to control their kids (they want to keep them safe and supervise them, which is very different) and kids don’t want to be controlled (but they want their parents’ help in staying safe and feeling secure). That meant the name had to go. (McAfee’s new product is called “McAfee Family Protection.”

They are vastly more sophisticated than they were when the first parental controls were designed by Gordon Ross in 1995. They tend to overblock less and are far more granular.

The new McAfee Family Protection has 32 different categories of problematic content, all customizable by the parents. They can select one or all, depending on their family’s needs. And the selection can be different for each child in the family.

But perhaps more than any other feature that delivers on parent’s needs, it will send them an alert by text message if their kids are doing something they aren’t supposed to be doing. It can be your eyes, when you aren’t there to look over their surfing shoulders because you are out earning a living, picking up the other kids or running a household.

It offers time controls, either limiting the overall time their kids can spend on the Internet, or restricting their access after the family has gone to bed or after school before you get home. Your choice, one or both. (You should note that time limits more than any other single factor can help keep kids and their older siblings out of trouble. Bored kids are risky kids!)

Concerned about what they are posting online, the product will block MySpace if you choose. Or it can monitor what they are doing and saying and give you a report. Its monitoring tool will even pick up their logins and passwords.

When McAfee asked me what parents needed I told them:

• Time controls
• Monitoring of live communications and reports
• Alerts to parents when something was going on at home and they weren’t there
• Granularity of filtering and blocking
• Different settings for different kids
• It had to cover instant messaging, images, games and social networks, not just plain vanilla websites
• It had to be easy
• It had to be customizable so it was the family’s values, not McAfee’s, that drive the software
• It had to empower parents with information and tools they need
• It had to work well with McAfee’s existing security suite products so viruses and popups were covered too
• It had to be flexible
• And it had to help put them in a position to finally be able to say “yes” instead of “no” all the time.

It’s nice to know someone was listening.

Parry

I get emails every single day from people who don’t know where to report things when they go wrong. They fear that they are being scammed on ebay, or have had their creditcard information stolen and misused. They don’t know if they are in a phisher’s database as an easy mark and aren’t sure if they have given away their personal banking details. They worry about where to get help if they fear their child has been communicating with a sexual predator or is being attacked online by a cyberbully.

When I created the cybersafety initiative for the Girl Scouts of the USA, lmk.girlscouts.org, I built in a training module on where and how to report abuses and cybercrimes. And my volunteers at WiredSafety.org and our new cyberarmy of WiredMoms help people by guiding them on where to go when things go wrong and helping them report it.

Now, McAfee does me one better. Its new Cybercrime Response Unit is a public service facility designed to put McAfee’s expertise to important use in helping people who need help online. It will connect you to consumer protection agencies to help you if your financial information is stolen. And the experts manning the lines can even help you figure out how risky you are online by looking at where you go and what you do.

So, even if you don’t believe you are under attack by cybercriminals, you can get your “vulnerability profile” reviewed and find ways to protect yourself better.

Services like this might put me out of the cybersafety business. Wouldn’t that be nice!

Parry

44% of teen boys we polled told us they had seen at least one naked photo of a fellow female classmate. And who are these girls? The slutty fast teens? The ones we would expect to do things like take a nude photo or engage in real or mock sex and share it with the world? No. For the most part they are our daughters. They may be 11 or 12 and seeking the attention of senior boys, acting on a dare at a slumber party, taking pics without the knowledge of others in the locker room, or deeply in love as only a teen can be. They send these pics to their boyfriends as a sign of trust. They send them to boys they don’t know as an introduction. Or they send them to boys they are trying to impress as an invitation and audition.

All the lectures in the world won’t help here. Do any of us really think they don’t know sending naked or sexual pics online to anyone (or even taking them) is acceptable? Do we need t tell them it’s wrong and stupid?

And what about our sons? Do they think we won’t mind if they store underage nude images on their cellphones, Xboxs or computers? They know it’s something they shouldn’t do. But they do it anyway. They act in the moment. And when easy access to high speed devices collides with the raging hormones of a teen, consequences are the last thing on their minds.

But now teens are dying, when they think it’s impossible to live with everyone in their community passing around the images and calling them horrible names. And now teen boys are finding themselves charged with serious sex crimes that require their registration as sex offenders when they serve their time. They won’t be able to live near a school or public park. And for the next twenty or so years will be lumped together with the men who rape children.

71% of teen girls we polled reported using a webcam in their bedrooms, and 22% said they regretted something they did using a webcam.

What’s the answer? I don’t know. I have been doing this for 14 years and rarely am without answers and solutions. The laws here are too hot (sex offender registration and serious jail time) or too cold (a slap on the wrist as a “cyberbully” or harasser). So we need new laws. Do we make the harassment laws tougher? Or do we create a special category of sexual exploitation level that reduces the penalties for possession of images of their friends in the nude if both are underage? Do we mandate financial fines? Require public apologies? Demand counseling?

I don’t know the answer…only the questions.

I would like to hear from my readers.
What do you think we should do to address this problem?
What if this were your son or daughter?

We’re all in this together.

Parry

Pics, pics and pics! Taking, sharing and commenting on pictures and videos online is one of teens’ favorite pastimes. They take them using their cell phones, Xbox 360, pocket video cameras and wifi-capable digital cameras. They store them on their DS and PSP devices, computers, flash drives, media cards and online services. The good thing is that these pics let them share their creativity and lives with family and friends. The bad thing is that it lets them share their personal information, impulsivity and sexuality with everyone online. Sexting (when young people share nude or sexual images of themselves and friends with others using text-messaging on cell phones) and Sexing (when they use any digital technology, including cell phones to do this) is on the rise and far more common than parents know.

Good teens, model students and teen leaders alike are all likely candidates for “girls gone wild” online! They start at about 13 and continue throughout their teens. The younger ones do it to look “mature” and audition for the older boys’ attention. The older teens do it to show how much they “love” their boyfriend or to get even after a bad breakup, showing him how much he is “missing.” They do it from a slumber party for fun, or take the pic of one of the girls they don’t like in the bathroom, locker room or dressing room to use as a weapon to hurt her. And boys do it too. Not as often as girls, but far too often.

And a picture is worth a thousand words! Even the more careful teens will share pictures or videos online that give away far too much personal information about them. Their house may appear in the background, or their car with license plate in plain view. Their Girl Scout uniform can give away their troop, which in turn gives away their location and activities. And even if they are careful about what they post, their friends may not be.

What’s the takeaway? Sit down and ask to see their “pics.” Look through their collections on their cell phones, gaming handhelds and Xbox, on their computers, flash drives and media cards and on Facebook, MySpace, myYearbook and Youtube and at PhotoBucket and Flickr online photo-sharing sites. Look at their friends pics too and follow your teen’s tagged pics. (They will show you what that means.) Be interested, don’t be a snoop. You may have some fun, share in your teen’s life and help them be safer all at once! If you don’t ask…they won’t tell!

Parry

I just returned from shooting a morning TV first – a ½ hour town meeting on sexting for Good Morning America. It will air April 15th at 8 a.m. on ABC. Diane Sawyer and Robin Roberts hosted this event, and I was lucky enough to join them.

Cynthia Logan, Jessie Logan’s mom, Ashley (a fifteen year old from Texas who had been involved in sexting incident) and her mom, Patricia, and a 19 year old who had shared nude images of his former girl friend with everyone she knew, appeared, along with his lawyer. We also had about twenty teens to provide insight and a reality check on what teens do, know and think.

It was an open discussion, opened by what eight parents from New Jersey found on their teen’s computers, online accounts and cell phones. It was also an eye-opener.

While I won’t spoil the show, we discussed the laws (which I say are either too hot or too cold), the responsibility of schools, trust, respect, the secret world of teens online, which age group is sexting the most and why and what we can do about it.

On April 16th, I’ll be back, this time to answer your questions. So, if you have a question about sexting and what teens are doing and why, or what you can do, as parents or industry members, ask it at this link. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=7273339

You can also ask me here at my blog. We’re all in this together and 44% of high school boys told us that they had seen at least one naked picture of a female classmate. Is your daughter’s photo one of those?

Post your questions, ask for help and tune in April 15th.

Parry

Last month I appeared on the Today Show with Matt Lauer and a very special mother, Cynthia Logan, to discuss what lead her daughter (Jessica) to suicide. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29546030/

Jessica was a bright, funny, great teen who lived in Ohio. When she turned 18, she was dating a 19 year old and sent a few nude photos of herself to him using her cell phone. When they broke up, he sent it to at least one 16-year-old girl who sent it to others. (He now claims that the 16-year-old took it from his cell phone without his knowledge.) The image made the rounds of Jessica’s school and the other community schools. What had been a private communication became public humiliation.

The students were cruel. They called her names and made fun of her. They dubbed her the “porn queen” and she became “that girl.” She confided in her mom, but only told her bits and pieces, never the whole scenario of the torment. Cynthia offered to take her out of school and homeschool her until graduation, but Jessica wanted to stick it out.

Jessie had sought help from her school’s school resource officer (the police officer assigned to her school). But he didn’t offer to do anything other than contact the girl who started the harassment and ask her to take down the images and leave Jessica alone. (Cynthia said that the SRO is now claiming that he gave Jessica the choice between his contacting the other girl and pressing charges, but denies that his claim is true.)

“No one would help!” When Jessie’s mom told me that, I had chills. Cynthia’s simple words and her soft tone (muffled by her trying to hold back tears) remind us that “there but for the grace of God” go all of us. Jessica didn’t want her mom to contact the other parents. (Targets of cyberbullying never do.) They didn’t know what to do.

Then Jessie came up with a plan. She would recount her story on TV to try and keep others from doing things they will regret. So, she appeared (in shadow with her voice disguised) on the local NBC affiliate in Cincinnati last year to help educate other teens about the risks of sexting.

While the TV piece was able to reach so many, the ones who mattered the most – Jessica’s harassers – were unmoved. The harassment continued. The teens were relentless. Cynthia knew that Jessica was hurting, but didn’t know how much. The school would send truancy reports home, but failed to share anything about the ongoing harassment. Why? That remains unanswered.

But Jessica stuck it out and graduated with her class. To Cynthia, it looked like things would improve. When a friend of Jessica’s asked her for a ride to the funeral of a fellow student, Mitch, who had killed himself Jessica became more troubled. “Why,” she asked her mother, “would a teen take his own life?” They talked about it. Cynthia said you never know what goes through someone’s mind when they consider something like this. Jessie seemed angry about Mitch’s suicide. But no one could have known that Jessica had ulterior motives when asking why this young man took his own life. She was looking to see if that was a viable choice for her.

The school never offered counseling for the other students after the young man’s suicide. They never offered counseling for Jessie. They said they couldn’t do anything because she was 18 and that students attended school at their own risk. They took the easy way out. And they failed Jessie..
Jessica went to the funeral with her friend, but didn’t come right home. Cynthia had to call her to get her to come home for dinner. She held the memorial information about the young man in her hand when she came through the doors and tossed it at Cynthia. She seemed agitated, angry. But Cynthia was used to this when things troubled Jessica and thought it was to be expected after the memorial service. The table was set as Jessie climbed the stairs to take a shower.

Cynthia was on a call with her brother when she walked down the upstairs hall. She passed Jessie coming out of the shower. She had no sense that anything was especially wrong.

But that was the last time Cynthia saw her daughter alive.

Cynthia walked upstairs and knocked at Jessie’s door. (She had a knock and open the door policy.) When she didn’t get an answer, she opened it to find Jessica’s cell phone in the middle of the room. She scanned the room looking for Jessica and the closet door was open. Her daughter hanging by her neck from the clothing rod.

Her husband bounded up the stairs at Cynthia’s screams, pulling out a pen knife to cut his daughter down. Jessica was already cold and blue. Their attempts to resuscitate her were futile.

Now Cynthia wants answers. What are the laws? How can she hold the school accountable? Can she make the teens responsible for this harassment apologize before their peers? How can she make sure that Jessica did not die in vain?

As soon as I heard her story, I knew this was something that would change the landscape in cybersafety. Like the story of Megan Meier and her suicide following the harassment of a neighborhood mom posing as a cute sixteen-year-old, Jessica’s name will mean something to teens and preteens.

It combines cyberbullying and the damage that teens can do to other teens when armed with embarrassing and private images and information. It makes the risks of sexting and cyberbullying real.

Sexting is a growing and serious problem. It’s when young people take nude pictures or images of them engaging in real or simulated sex acts on their cell phones or webcams and then send them to others by cell phone or webcams. About 20% of the teen girls we polled said they had taken a nude or sexually explicit cell phone picture or webcam shot of themselves and shared it with others (most often their boyfriends). 14% of the boys share these “private” images with others when they break up with their girlfriends. And 44% of the boys polled admitted to having seen at least one of these sexual images of a classmate.

22% of the girls polled said that they regretted whatever they had recorded on their webcam and 71% use them in their bedroom. And older teens and young adults are even more at risk, with almost 40% of the teens over 18 and college students we polled said they had shared a nude or sexual image with their boyfriend or girlfriend online or by cell phone.

Your daughter could be next.

Beginning immediately, I will be working with Cynthia and her husband Burt to spread awareness about Jessie and the consequences of cyberbullying and the risks of texting. We will be working with Jessie’s friends and my Teenangels to develop a campaign to reach teens and change behavior.

The new StopCyberbullying Coalition will bring individuals, companies, policymakers, educators, healthcare and mental health professionals and media together to address these issues. It will explore all aspects of cyberbullying and how sexting increases the risks of harassment and personal humiliation.

McAfee is one of the first industry leaders committed to helping and will be part of the StopCyberbullying Coalition.

Interested in helping this become the last cyberbullying-related suicide? Want to help us spread the word about sexting and risks to young people online? Join us at WiredSafety.org. We need your help. Help us make sure your child won’t be next.

Parry

It’s time to talk with your kids about game safety. No, I don’t mean checking before swinging a bat or wearing protecting gear in a football scrimmage. All handheld gaming devices and desktop gaming devices have Internet capability too. Some require a paid subscription. Others require additional accessories. But all can connect to wifi routers. And the same risks apply to them as to the Internet as a whole.

Because parents generally don’t understand that Internet features exist on these devices, they are not supervising their use (other than for choice of game content for sex or violence). They are often shocked to learn that their kids are using voice-over-Internet phone technologies (VoIP) to scream at or chat with anyone else playing the game.

Even when strong parental controls exist, such as with Xbox 360 or Wii, parents don’t think about setting them and rarely know they are available.

When I blogged previously about the 3Cs – content, contact and cost features on devices we buy our kids, this is what I meant. Unless we ask the questions, we won’t know what rules to set, what risks to manage and how to keep our kids safe online, on cell phones and on gaming devices.

Ask the salesperson, your kids or me the following questions.

1. Can this device allow my kids to view content? If so how?

2. And what can I do to control or screen what they see?

3. Can they share personal information? If so how? And what can I do to control or screen what they share?

4. Can they communicate with others using this device? If so, how and what can I do to shut down that feature or control who they can communicate with?

5. And can they do anything that might cost me money, get me sued or damage files, our computer or the devices? If so, how can I avoid that?

If the salesperson doesn’t know and your kids can’t explain it all in boring detail, save your money or shop somewhere else.

I have included a quick chart, laying out the features of each of the most popular game devices, from DS to Xbox 360. By far, the most popular now among all preteens and teens is the Wii, with Xbox in second place. (One of my Teenangels pulled this chart together for our upcoming WiredKids Summit, February 25th in Washington DC held entirely by these expert teens and tweens for the industry leaders and policymakers. Xbox has confirmed its accuracy on features. Neither Sony nor Nintendo has confirmed the accuracy of their information yet.)

My next blog post will discuss the game safety issues and parental controls. In the meantime, go over the list and identify the devices your kids are using. How many knew that the devices had Internet access? (Be honest!) Now that you know, do you intend to have a discussion with your kids about how they are using them and staying safe?

Together we can stay safe and keep our kids safe. But it means we have to take a few minutes and “have the talk!” Instead of the birds and the bees this time (your kids and you will be sooo relieved to hear that!) have the ThinkB4uClick talk instead. Make sure it’s a discussion, runs two ways and isn’t a lecture.

It’s a good way to start. And heck, you may win some prizes and have some fun playing online and device games!

Be safe.

Parry 

Copyright 2009 WiredSafety.org, used by McAfee with permission.

All parents’ greatest concern is sexual predators. A few years ago we thought we understood which children were at risk more than others. But since then we have learned that there are several profiles of children and teens who are at risk. We have now concluded that all children and teens are potentially at risk and here are some of the things you need to look for:

• Does your child spend an inordinate amount of time online every day? (In 1999 I conducted a study with professors at a university in Florida. We learned then that more than 1-1/2 hours a day of “fun” (not homework) time online is the dividing line between children who tend to engage in high risk online activities, such as meeting strangers offline, engaging in cybersex, sharing personal information online and sending photos of themselves to strangers online. This study has not been replicated in the last ten years to know how much is too much.)

• Do they have lots of offline friends, or are they loners? (Traditionally children who have been lured by sexual predators online were loners and don’t have a large circle of offline friends.)

• Are they super-achiever risk takers and do they come from a troubled background or a broken home? (Recently, we have learned that the children who fit this profile, rather than the loner profile, don’t report sexual exploitation when they are victimized. We only learn about these cases when the child is kidnapped or killed, which is why we had thought the loners constituted the sole victim profile group.)

• Are they between the ages of 11 and 15 years of age? (The exact age these risks begin is determined by when they are permitted to go places without accounting precisely for their time. This may include going to the mall, the park or an amusement park unattended. Usually by the time they are 16 years old, they aren’t as susceptible to being lured.)

• Are they sheltered, or particularly risky in their behavior? (The typical victim tends to fall into the extremes of this range of behavior. Either they are very sheltered and easy to con, when the predator will promise marriage and love ever after, generally in the guise of a cute teenage boy or girl, or they will use the Internet to act out their risky behavior, such as was the case with the first confirmed murder victim by an Internet sexual predator in the United States – Christina Long in 2003.)

• Do they have a relatively balanced life, with lots of activities offline, including sports, music, reading, etc.? (Although not always the case, most children who keep the Internet in perspective and have other activities are less likely to be lured by an Internet predator or act out sexually online.)

• Are they secretive about their Internet activities? Do you find that the screen goes blank when you walk by? If so, it’s not a technical problem with your computer monitor, your child doesn’t want you seeing what they are doing. That’s a good time to stop and ask them what they are doing. Where do they surf? Do they have an instant messaging account (most do) and if so, who is on their buddy or notify list that they send instant messages to? Have they set up any privacy or security settings to block strangers from instant messaging them or e-mailing them? What about text-messaging on their cell phones or away messages that list their cell numbers? 

• If they have a buddy list or notify list or other similar frequent address list, where did they get the names from? Do they know the person offline? Do they include friends of friends they know offline? (This is how many predators make it onto their list. They think it’s safe since a friend knows the person, but the friend may not be as careful in selecting “buddies” online.) Walk through the list with your child. Have them tell you the real name of everyone on the list and how they know them. Do the same with text-messaging devices and cell phones.

• Do they have a Web site, homepage, social networking site profile, blog or personal online profile? Look them over, if they do. See what your child shares about themselves with third parties online. Do they show another side? Do they make suggestive remarks at their site or on their profile? Do they refer to a “love” or someone special you don’t recognize? Are they posting photos? Are they provocative? Do they password-protect their information and images on their pages, profiles or blogs?

• Additionally, although the fear of sexual predators stalking your teen from information they find online to your home or their school is vastly overblown. But to be safe they should not include personally identifiable information, such as real full name, addresses, phone numbers, photos, descriptive information from which this information could easily be found (like a picture of them in front of their school, with the name of the school displayed on the building, referring to their sports team at school by name or by wearing something with identifying information in a photo, such as your school name, team name or something else that would give away information) or permit anyone to send them an e-mail, instant message or otherwise contact them at their real accounts. (If you have any reason to believe that your child wouldn’t tell you the truth, refer to my “Google Yourself” section on how to search for it yourself, and consider using a monitoring software.)

• Are they making or receiving calls (home or cellphone) that you don’t recognize? Are their phone calls you don’t recognize on your phone bills? (Make sure that you include reviewing text-messages too.) Does your child run to answer the phone, when you don’t know the person they are talking to? Don’t be lulled into thinking you would recognize that the person who called for your child is an adult. Many thoughtful and caring parents have been fooled. A 37-year-old can sound a lot alike a 15 year old if they want to. (If you find them sitting at their computers with a headphone and a mike attached, check for voice over Internet technologies, many of which (like Skype.com) are free, and let them talk on the Internet phone.

• Has your child received packages or gifts from someone you don’t know? Many predators will send a disposable or digital camera to your child, seeking sexually-explicit photos of your child. They also “groom” you child by sending small gifts, flowers, CD’s, jewelry, etc. If your child is rushing home to access the mail before you, your antenna should be up. (Some children do this when ordering illegal or harmful products as well, such as guns or other weapons or drugs.)

• Does your child have a wireless device, such as a text-messaging cell phone or device? The newer handheld devices have Internet capability or Bluetooth technologies. Whom do they write to? Do they have a Sony PlayStation 3, PSP or X-Box360 device? With whom do they communicate using those gaming devices? What do they talk about?

• Is your child distracted? Has their behavior changed suddenly? Have they become more secretive? (I know, it’s hard telling this from normal teenager behavior  ) What about their friends? Have they pulled away from them recently? Have they changed friends recently?

• Has something changed that you can’t put your finger on? Trust your gut! It may not be drugs. It might be the Internet.