Group items tagged

Cyberbullying Cyberbullying or online bullying is repeated, unwanted or cruel behavior against someone through computers, cell phones, gaming consoles, or other Internet-based means. The Internet is always “on,” opening the door for 24-hour harassment. Cyberbullies can be anonymous. They never have to confront their victims, they don’t have to be physically stronger and cyberbullies may be virtually invisible to parents and adults.

Look for warning signs your child may be the victim of cyberbullying – depression, lack of interest in school and friends, drop in grades and subtle comments that something may be wrong. If your child is the victim of cyberbullying, take action. By filtering email, instant messages and text messages, you can cut off many of the ways the cyberbullies contact your child. By having your child avoid the sites and groups where the attacks occur, he/she can ignore the bully. If harassment continues, change your child’s email address, user names and Internet account. If these steps do not stop the cyberbullying, contact the parents of the child who is behind the bullying, contact the school, and if the situation is not resolved, involve the police. It’s important to compile copies of harassing emails and postings to have evidence for authorities or the school, so they can take action. Look for signs that your child may be the cyberbully themselves – if they sign onto the Internet under someone else’s name, if they use someone else’s password without their permission, if they posted rude or mean things about someone else online, if they use bad language online, or if they changed their profile or away message designed to embarrass or frighten someone. Talk to your kids about cyberbullying and why it’s wrong and hurtful.

Most agencies manage sensitive citizen data: addresses, Social Security numbers, financial records and medical information. You name it, some state or local office has it, and probably electronically. The problem? Many theorize that the Millennials' penchant for online openness could unintentionally expose private information, leaving it ripe for the picking. Millennials bring innovative ideas about technology's use, but for that same reason, do they also pose new security risks?

Anti-virus vendor Symantec released a study in March 2008 assessing this issue. Symantec commissioned Applied Research-West to execute the study, and 600 participants were surveyed from different verticals, including government. Survey participants included 200 IT decision-makers, 200 Millennial workers and 200 non-Millennial workers born before 1980. The data revealed that Millennials are more likely than workers of other ages to use Web 2.0 applications on company time and equipment. Some interesting figures include: 69 percent of surveyed Millennials will use whatever application, device or technology they want at work, regardless of office IT policies; and only 45 percent of Millennials stick to company-issued devices or software, compared to 70 percent of non-Millennials.

How might young people be workplace assets? Could all that time typing or texting make them speedy typists, able to whip up memos at the drop of a hat? Does familiarity with new and emerging technologies have its benefit? You bet, according to Dustin Lanier, director of the Texas Council on Competitive Government. The council brings state leaders together to shape policy for government departments, including IT. "I think they've built an approach to work that involves a lot of multitasking," Lanier said of the Millennials. "Something will be loading on one screen, you alt-tab to another application and pull up an e-mail, the first process loads, you flip back, start a new process, flip to a forum and pull up a topic. It's frenetic but normal to that group." Lanier doesn't think Millennials present more of an IT threat than their older co-workers. After all, young people don't have a monopoly on being distracted in the office. "I can't tell you how many times I've walked by people's desks of all ages and seen Minesweeper up," he said. He thinks employers should embrace some Web 2.0 applications. Otherwise, Millennials might be discouraged from sticking around. According to Lanier, this younger work force comprises many people who think of themselves as free agents. Government should accommodate some of their habits in order to prevent them from quitting.

Hiring managers like Johnson say an increasing number of job hunters are just too casual when it comes to communicating about career opportunities in cyberspace and on mobile devices. Thank-yous on paper aren't necessary, but some applicants are writing e-mails that contain shorthand language and decorative symbols, while others are sending hasty and poorly thought-out messages to and from mobile devices. Job hunters are also using social-networking sites like Facebook and MySpace to try to befriend less-than-willing interviewers.

Many of the most egregious acts of cyberbullying do not take place during school hours or on school networks, a situation that presents a dilemma for public school administrators: If they punish a student for off-campus behavior, they could get hit with a freedom of speech suit.  If they do nothing, students may continue to suffer and school officials theoretically could get hit with failure to act litigation. For school administrators, it appears to be an unfortunate “catch-22.” For lawyers, it’s a “perfect storm,” pitting freedom of speech advocates against the victims of cyberbullying and schools that try to intervene. There are no easy answers in this arena, few laws, and no well-established precedents that specifically deal with cyberbullying.

“School administrators can intervene in cyberbullying incidents, even if the incidents do not take place on school grounds, if they can demonstrate that the electronic speech resulted in a substantial disruption to the educational environment.”

These cases illustrate not only a lack of precedent on cyberbullying cases, but also a dilemma for school administrators on how to handle cyberbullying.  “There are few laws that address how to handle cyberbullying, and many schools don’t have an internal policy to deal with cyberbullying that takes place off-campus,” offers Deutchman.  “It may take an unfortunate and tragic event on school property to get more schools to consider tackling electronic behavior that originates off campus.  It’s only a matter of time before a cyberbully, or the victim of cyberbullying, uses deadly force during school hours.”

The Governor signed the bill at a library in St. Charles County, not far from the neighborhood where a 13-year-old girl, Megan Meier, hanged herself in 2006 after receiving taunting messages over the Internet.  The law was passed after the national outcry that followed the suicide of Meier

When the full story came to light, and public demand grew for the mother's prosecution, it turned out that what Ms. Drew had done, while clearly malicious, was not against the law as the Missouri Statutes were then written. So the Missouri Legislature and Governor Blunt decided to correct this problem. The new law adds to unlawful harassment electronic means of communication.

The new law penalizes those who knowingly communicate with another person who is, or who purports to be, seventeen years of age or younger and recklessly frightens, intimidates, or causes emotional distress to such other person.  Also, the new law makes it a crime "to engage, without good cause, in any other act with the purpose to frighten, intimidate, or cause emotional distress to another person, cause such person to be frightened, intimidated, or emotionally distressed, and such person's response to the act is one of a person of average sensibilities considering the person's age."

Carrill is part of the Platte County Sheriff’s Office. He also leads the Western Missouri Cyber Crimes Task Force. One of his primary missions is to track down and arrest online predators who trade in child pornography.And all these cameras only make his job more challenging. About 40 percent of the nation’s minors have access to Webcams, Carrill explained, devices for uploading live video to the Internet. About 65 percent of all children have access to cell phone cameras.

erhaps the biggest issue is that fact that kids don’t understand that when a picture is posted online, it’s nearly impossible to remove.“Once that image is taken, it’s out there forever,” Shehan said. “The No. 1 issue that we’ve seen with Webcams is teenagers self-producing pornography.”

All we can tell them is, ‘I’m sorry,’” Carrill said. “The minute the camera clicks, you no longer own that image. It has the potential to harm that person years from now.”A Webcam placed in a child’s bedroom is another bad combination, according to Shehan and Carrill. Sexual predators search for kids who use Webcams in the privacy of their own rooms, then lure or blackmail the child into providing pictures of themselves.“We see cases time after time of children who take pictures, send them to a predator and get a pornographic collage back that the predator uses to blackmail the child into providing more images,” Shehan said.

Its 25,000 research guides respond via text message to questions on just about anything: the square root of 323 or the plot of "The Great Gatsby," Barack Obama's position on education or directions to the nearest pizza shop.

May school officials lawfully “search” the confiscated cell phone to look at stored text messages, photographs, videos, and logs of incoming and outgoing calls? Clearly, the circumstances of the search must satisfy the T.L.O. standard. Not as clear, however, is whether such a search violates federal or Michigan laws regarding stored electronic communications.

[A] search of a student by a teacher or other school officials will be ‘justified at its inception’ when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school. Such a search will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.”

In Klump v Nazareth Area Sch Dist, 425 F Supp 2d 622 (ED Pa, 2006), a federal district court denied the school’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a student whose cell phone was searched.