[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Study Accused of Exaggerating Kids' Online Safety here

[lordmorgul]

Experts say kids are at risk, and experts say kids are not at 'that much' risk.
I suggest that parents do some parenting, be involved with their kids lives, and actually talk to them about what information is reasonable to share on the internet. If parents are not involved and kids are online, it does not matter how much regulation or child safety propaganda goes around the government... they will be at risk irregardless of any measures taken by those too far from the issue... those NOT parenting.

[FeliciaDonovan]

Unfortunately, this study is extremely misleading. We are two recognized Internet investigators with over 25+ years of law enforcement experience and authors of CYBER CRIME FIGHTERS: TALES FROM THE TRENCHES. Recidivism is rampant in child exploitation cases and the Internet has simply made victims more accessible. A study was done at Butner Federal Prison whereby 155 male inmates were studied, all of whom had convictions for possessing or distributing child pornography (the correct term is actually "child sexual assault images"). While 26% were known to have had inappropriate contact with a minor at the time of sentencing, once incarcerated 85% admitted to abusing at least one child. At the beginning of the study, 75 victims had been identified. At the end of the study, 1,777 victims had been tallied.


These are the sobering facts of just how "safe" our kids are online. They really aren't. The people conducting these studies did not investigate these cases, hold the shaking hands of victims, interview predators, nor prosecute cases. Law Enforcement cannot keep up with the number of child predator cases. Computer Forensic units have backlogs of months and months for the examination of computers involved in online solicitations.


To imply in any way that the Internet is not dangerous or even "as dangerous," especially when the study comes from a commercial vendor with a clear interest, is in our professional opinions, irresponsible. Trust us, parents cannot, should not ever, let their guard down. The idea that your child is safe because they're upstairs in their room online rather than roaming the local mall is blatantly ignorant.


Parents MUST stay diligent. Awareness is always the key to safety.


Felicia Donovan & Kristyn Bernier


Authors, CYBER CRIME FIGHTERS: TALES FROM THE TRENCHES

[tobit]

Felicia,
As a counter argument to the "Enhancing Child Safety and Online Technologies" report, you present the following:
"A study was done at Butner Federal Prison whereby 155 male inmates were studied, all of whom had convictions for possessing or distributing child pornography (the correct term is actually "child sexual assault images"). While 26% were known to have had inappropriate contact with a minor at the time of sentencing, once incarcerated 85% admitted to abusing at least one child. At the beginning of the study, 75 victims had been identified. At the end of the study, 1,777 victims had been tallied."
While certainly facts of concern, this information does not address the focus of the study "online security and privacy threats"
Non of the prison study information refutes or even relates to the facts presented in the article.
You then follow your non-counter argument- counter-argument with
"the people conducting these studies did not investigate these cases, hold the shaking hands of victims, interview predators, nor prosecute cases."
Your right; you know why?
Because that wasn't what they were tasked to do; they were tasked to do a broad study of Internet safety and privacy as it relates to children and follow the data where ever it might take them.
Self-righteousness & the objective dispassion of honest scientific inquiry usually don't play well together, and when you follow it with this,
"To imply in any way that the Internet is not dangerous or even "as dangerous," especially when the study comes from a commercial vendor with a clear interest, is in our professional opinions, irresponsible."
well, then you've shut down discussion of the facts all together, and replaced it with a debate on the character of the researchers.
I would suggest you drop the rhetoric of shame and ad hominem attacks as these serve propaganda more then they serve the truth.
Being a father of 3 daughters ages 5 thru 1 , I want to make the best decisions I can to help, guide, and protect them. I may not get it right, but if I can make decisions based on the truth, I'm more likely to get it right.

[FeliciaDonovan]

Tobit: Thank you for your comments. You didn't provide your background or area of expertise, so it's hard to comment on anything. My point was that from a law enforcement perspective, it is inherently dangerous to imply that our children are more safe online than they are when those who are involved in this work know this is not the case. Ask anyone involved in these types of investigations and they will refute the study. You sound like a proud and responsible father who will stay vigilant. Good for you! Parents cannot let their guard down. Parental awareness keeps kids safe!


Felicia Donovan


CYBER CRIME FIGHTERS: TALES FROM THE TRENCHES

[RedBeard]

"In South Carolina, at least, Internet predators "pose a clear and present danger" to children, McMaster wrote. He noted that a task force of 43 state and local law enforcement agencies formed in South Carolina in 2004 has made 147 arrests for online child solicitation thus far. Sixty-six of the arrested individuals have been convicted to date, while the rest are awaiting trial, McMaster said."

Really? 147 people out of 4,321,249. Even when you conssider 24% of that is people under 18(as of 2006) that is such a rediculous number. I have 2 children, one of whom goes online every day. He goes to just the sites that he likes for learning games and race cars. So I am concerned but not to the extent that the media and politicians are. My wife, friends, family, and I are members of most of these social networks. Having at least a dozen family/friends who are under 18 and on these sites everyday, I can say that they have not had any problems. This is big money for politicians, media groups, software makers, and other groups. Common sense and realism have no place among them. Scare tactics worked for centuries and still do today. Oh and Felicia, I was in law enforcement for about 7 years. The biggest concern we have is child porn/abuse. Most often done without the help of the internet.

[cybercop09]

RedBeard -

I am not certain as to when you might have been "in law enforcement", but any current investigator is well aware that the majority of child porn issues in law enforcement are absolutely internet related - to the point that we do not have the resources or personel to handle the cases and computers that are involved. Much of child porn is done digitally now, and we have many active cases with collectors who are also perping and distributing the child sexual assault images they are making. There are not enough hours in my work week to keep up with the cyber crime related reports my agency handles. I have read the study and I was appalled at the minimization. We regularlyconduct search warrants in our area and find these pieces of scum actively downloading hundreds of images when we go through the door. It is common to find hundreds of images categorized on in a suspect's computer.

I have not spoken with an investigator yet who has anything positive to say about this study, and I have to agree with Felicia on this - it is not painting an accurate picture of what my colleagues and I see EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK. To minimize the potential risks on social networking sites, which are used in the manufacturing of child sexual assault images, is irresponsible. It all has to looked at in its entirety - parents need to be aware and to teach their kids responsible internet use. I would love to go to work and not have to investigate another internet related child exploitation case, but I know that won't happen.

Jenna

[cybercop09]

You are absolutely right about parents being involved and simply being aware. Awareness is the key, and if parents are informed and active in monitoring what their kids do, online and offline, this prevents so many problems. Kudos for your post. Stats are stats - nothing more - the reality is that kids are vicitmized online every day, and in my opinion, if we can prevent one child from the trauma, then we have made a difference in law enforcement. Felicia thank you for your book, and I hope that people read it and take the concepts to heart. As a cop and a mom, I know that well informed and active parents are key.

Jenna

[ImaPhake]

Were this topic about something else, I would find it almost hilarious.

Here we have a study produced largely by industry interests being countered by politicians who usually scream about these things the loudest when election time nears and then we have a book seller with their own giant advertisement in each of their posts here.

I can't find a lot of credibility all the way around.

But, as a father of two daughters who are now adults, each of them using computers and the Internet daily I know first-hand where the responsibility belongs.

Not with the government, not with the industry and not with anyone who would jump at the chance to be on Oprah Winfrey (or Dateline) to sell a book.

If I needed a babysitter for my kids you can be sure that "none of the above" would be my choice because all of them are self-serving and totally bereft of any genuine concern for my children.

[odedy]

I would like to bring to your attention some concerns we have which suggest that the Task Force was in fact created (by Facebook) only to serve or protect the interests of the big players on the Web - the social networks, by establishing that there are minimal risks and dangers on the Web for children and that age verification solutions are not necessary for protecting children online. As you know, the report does not propose any concrete age verification solution as it was initially mandated to.

Our company VerificAge (www.verificage.com) was among the 14 companies selected by the Task Force to present its solution during their public meeting held in Boston. We presented our unique Biometric Age Verification solution both to the Task Force's Technical Advisory Board (TAB) and to all attendees of the public hearing.

We received excellent feedback from many of the attendees at the meeting that our solution, which is unique in that it does not rely upon any personal data or databases, is effective and especially that it focuses on protecting children's privacy while online. Our one-time, anonymous, real-time verification process is our core strength.

The Task Force report discusses our solution in its biometrics chapter on page 14 of the report. After reading through the chapter, it is obvious to us that the people who wrote it did not bother to read the materials we submitted to them. The report, paradoxically, dismisses our biometric solution based on reasons which have nothing to do with our solution - the reliance on personal identification data or the need to store personal data, which as explained before, we do not employ at all in our solution.

Our case can provide a strong indication on the direction of the report, to dismiss all age verification technologies which could protect children on the net, so that they would not need to be implemented by the industry. We assumed the Task Force was setup to find a solution for protecting children online, but apparently this wasn't the case

[ImaPhake]

Does your age verfification technology address the concerns expressed at the end of this article and quoted below?


http://www.computerw...rce=rss_topic84


Quoted from that article:


=-=-=
In most cases, the threat to minors visiting such sites comes not from other minors but from adults, he said. And those individuals are likely able to easily circumvent any age verification process a site might impose, he said. An attacker setting up a profile as his own son for instance would easily defeat age verification checks, he said.
=-=-=

[odedy]

VerificAge (www.verificage.com/) online age verification solution adresses very well the concerns expressed at the article :
- It establishes full segregation between adults and children online
- Does not use any kind of data base. Eliminating risks involved in storing and maintaining data.
- It does not identify the user personally but rather his/her age group category; therefore, the user's privacy cannot be jeopardized.
- The system is based on a "one time" biometric measurement that can distinguish a child from an adult .
- It can assert a user's age every time he wishes to access a website, content, or while interacting with others

- It is not posible to circumvent Verificage;s age verification solution

[ImaPhake]

All of that sounds very good, but the reason it was passed over may be due to the need to purchase the additional hardware and software.

That aside, I am wondering about the following statement on your Web site:

"Verificage has developed a proprietary, biometric, mouse-like PC peripheral that performs real-time, online age verification. The Verificage AGR^TM^ system is able to distinguish between a child and an adult and can prevent sexual predators from contacting children under the age of 14 (on average)."

So apparently it's not foolproof based upon the qualifier of "on average."

[lordmorgul]

RE: VericicAge


"The system is based on a "one time" biometric measurement that can distinguish a child from an adult ."





The key piece of important information here is 'one time'. This means it is CIRCUMVENTABLE afterward and provides zero quantifiable certainty of whether the user is adult or not. You cannot protect YOUR children by attempting to check the age of OTHER users on the internet, because you can have no certainty in information provided by the OTHERs about THEMSELVES. This is a key issue here. The only way to protect your children on the internet is through meaningful and intelligent content filtering AND monitoring... i.e. be involved as a parent and use actively updated content filters for your children's computer accounts.

[lordmorgul]

"So apparently it's not foolproof based upon the qualifier of "on average."





I assume that is why they chose the age of 14, because average error on an age of 14 might let a 15 or 16 yr old get mis-identified as 14 but would likely not let a 17 or 18 yr old be mis-identified as 14. If they chose that 'golden age of safety' higher they might have high risk of mis-identifying an 18 yr old as a child.

[waldojim]

lordmorgul said:

Experts say kids are at risk, and experts say kids are not at 'that much' risk.

I suggest that parents do some parenting, be involved with their kids lives, and actually talk to them about what information is reasonable to share on the internet. If parents are not involved and kids are online, it does not matter how much regulation or child safety propaganda goes around the government... they will be at risk irregardless of any measures taken by those too far from the issue... those NOT parenting.

exactly - make parents BE parents. It is time we stop making excuses for those who do not want to RAISE thier children. Making kids is an easy task, raising one, not so much.