Group items tagged

The author puts forward that giving access to computer to children from developing countries is a remarkable opportunity for them but could alsobe a threat as they are not being familiarised with the dangers of the Internet.

The US Federal Trade Commission has release a request for public comment on the  expansion of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)  The initial review was scheduled for 2015 but is being brought forward.  COOPA's goal is to protect the online safety and privacy of children under the age of 13.  They are considering extending this to children under the age of 17. 

The findings of this article definitely portrays an extremist view of the internet. It shows the internet to be extremely dangerous which would add to the already growing nervousness which I think many parents experience in letting their children surf the web. While cybersecurity is an increasingly prominent issue I don't see how producing a bubble of fear around the online world can improve the situation. You generally cannot function without the internet and being fed these alarmist ideas only furthers the notion that people should be fearful and avoid the internet rather than be engaging with it and appreciating it for being an amazing tool to communicate and learn.

Well, Fox News is just unbelievable... guess who they consider their competitor, CNN or Comedy Central.

yayy for fear-mongering....

In the aftermath of the recent death of 18-year-old Nona Belomesoff, following a "Facebook meeting" comes an outcry from parent and teacher groups to prevent teens from accessing Facebook at school. According to Laurel Papworth, banning access is not the answer. Education is.

This article discusses how banning Facebook is not the answer for prevention of tragedies of deaths like Sydney teen who had met a "friend" on Facebook. Though it may seem commonly obvious, I do not believe simply warning and educating children/teenagers about the potential dangers of social networking and strangers is enough; but perhaps going a step further and accepting that meeting "friends" through social networks has become a social norm. Therefore conversations amongst children/teenagers/friends/parents alike must be initiated so that there is some sort of support system to ensure safety. As the online social networks expand the definition of "friends", one must consider the social construction of how people now view the world based on these norms.

Rather than suggesting that social networking sites should be "banned" to protect the safety of children, people should ensure they understand how to be safe online.  This also includes understanding the changes to a sites privacy policies and the impacts these changes can have to your privacy settings.

Looks at a new social networking site for children aged 6-10. It's heavily monitored and controlled by parents for the sake of online safety, but the concern is that young children can just as easily sign up to other social networking sites that aren't so restrictive.

Scroll down and read the discussion forum paper, "Child Protection and Freedom of Expression Online". The report aims to open discussion and reframe the debate surrounding child protection by bringing together, rather than isolating, advocates of online child protection and those of freedom of expression. It rejects the current moral panics that dominate the debate, particularly in the media, which over-represents the likelihood of harm to children online. It highlights the unproductive nature of framing online protection as a moral panic because it obscures and undermines the work of both freedom of expression and child protection advocates. Rather than keeping these two parties as diametrically opposed the discussion laid the first steps in finding common ground between the two. From here they can work together to advance both of their agendas and therefore achieving a more desirable balance between defending the rights of children and maintaining freedom of expression.

This article discusses the topics of educators improving their skills on detecting the various forms of cyberbullying, follow-up prevention, and plans that address cyberbullies. It also notes that perhaps, some cyberbullying is not fully realised by the bullies themselves, as children may be unaware of how impactful their messages are. There is also the discussion of a digital divide between children and their parents with respect to how one conducts themselves online. Though, it is doubtful to claim that children are completely ignorant of their own actions on the Internet.

The digital divide is't expressed only in terms of rural and urbans areas, or developed or not countries, a UK study reveals that children in UK are stille greatly deprived of broadband Internet access.

"One of the big challenges in the debate so far has been combating the myth that the filter is - or ever was - a cyber-safety tool designed to keep kids safe online. It's not. It's designed to "harmonise" censorship laws, not protect children from inappropriate content. It's censorship for its own sake." This is interesting as EFF Australia are running a campaign to educate people not normally involved in debates around the internet - indeed, the campaign targets people who may be inclined to suport the idea of a filter: mums and dads.

The Chinese government is planning to engage mothers in an effort to apparently  "protect" children. A genuine concern or just legitimization of censorship?

It seems to be like by-the-book State mechanisms to legitimize policy. Classic propaganda.

This article discusses the difficulties of ensuring that cyberbullying is prevented, or monitored. It also discusses how the technology appears to supersede the school's governance of the appropriate use of technology with respect to the Internet. The article mentions an analogy to the Lord of the Flies, as children become savages when unsupervised, which contradicts the article "Cyberbullying is focus of conference," which states that children are unaware of their actions. This is a bit ironic, as the book was an actual microcosm of world war 2, and therefore the story is symbolic of war very much induced by adults.

Nick Xenophone wants a new law introduced that  could see people being jailed for up to 5 years if they lie about their age to children.  The idea has come about after the murder of Carly Ryan in 2007. 

They always say, what about the children? When will spending on the internet need to be monitored for the sake of the children, and their parents wallets.

Watch the live debate from Intelligence squared -Governments should not Censor the Internet? Intelligence Squared uniquely provides a forum for debate on crucial issues within Australia. On the Affirmative Antony Loewnstein- freelance journalist, author and blogger Ross LaJeunesse-head of Public Policy and Government Affairs for Google David Marr- reporter for Fairfax, broadcaster ABC On the Negative ELizabeth Handsley- specialist in media law as it affects children Kaiser Kuo- Beijing-based columnist and commentator on tech and politics. Alastair MacGibbon- founder of the Internet Safety Institute and Manageing Partner of internet consultancy the Surete Group.

This is a website that discusses the reasons that the Internet filter should not be pursued. The main reasons are: 1It won't protect children. 2 The whole country will pay for this ineffective solution

If users are to blame, who should provide media literacy programs?

As Facebook is criticised for refusing to allow a child safety button on its network, we look at some of the online dangers kids face and measures being taken to educate kids about those dangers.

The Rudd government's proposal will be completely ineffective as far as keeping children safe goes, it will capture much more material than the government implies - including sites such as this one, euthanasia, abortion, safe drug use and porn sites - and the cost will be borne entirely by the ISP's, who will inevitably pass their costs on to their users.

Following the government's decision to postpone the internet filtering legislation last week what is the future for this legislation? Post election there is the likelihood of even harsher censorship than that currently proposed. Fitzgerald suggests that the election could be turned in part in to a referendum on the issue? But when it comes down to it which party will actually nominate themselves to lead the charge against the filter in parliament- only the Sex Party??- a party founded on the issue of internet censorship.

This article discusses how a private Labor party polling has indicated that some computer-illterate mums and dads wish to have Conroy make the Internet safer for their children.