Safe and Secure

The first things you need to know about cyberbullying are that it's not an epidemic and it's not killing our children. Yes, it's probably one of the more widespread youth risks on the Internet and yes there are some well publicized cases of cyberbullying victims who have committed suicide, but let's look at this in context.

Bullying has always been a problem among adolescents and, sadly, so has suicide. In the few known cases of suicide after cyberbullying, there are other contributing factors. That's not to diminish the tragedy or suggest that the cyberbullying didn't play a role but--as with all online youth risk, we need to look at what else was going on in the child's life. Even when a suicide or other tragic event doesn't occur, cyberbullying is often accompanied by a pattern of offline bullying and sometimes there are other issues including long-term depression, problems at home, and self-esteem issues. And the most famous case of "cyberbullying"--the tragic suicide of 13-year-old Megan Meier--was far from typical. Cyberbullying is almost always peer to peer, but this was a case of an adult (the mom of one of Megan's peers) being accused of seeking revenge on a child who had allegedly bullied her own child.

And, as per "epidemic," it depends on how you define cyberbullying.

The most commonly recognized definition of bullying includes repeated, unwanted aggressive behavior over a period of time with an imbalance of power between the bully and the victim. In theory, that also covers cyberbullying, but some have taken a broader approach to cyberbullying to also include single or occasional episodes of a person insulting another person online. Indeed, because of the possibility of it being forwarded, a single episode of online harassment can have long-term consequences. "'Power' and 'repetition' may be manifested a bit differently online than in traditional bullying, Susan Limber, professor of psychology at Clemson University, said in an interview that appeared in a publication of the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. She added, "a student willing to abuse technology can easily wield great power over his or her target just by having the ability to reach a large audience, and often by hiding his or her identity."

Manifestations of cyberbullying include name calling, sending embarrassing pictures, sharing personal information or secrets without permission, and spreading rumors. It can also include trickery, exclusion, and impersonation.

Fuzzy numbers
Partly because there is no single accepted definition of cyberbullying, the extent of the problem is all over the map. I've seen some reports claim that up to 80 percent of online youth have experienced cyberbullying, while two national studies have put the percentage closer to one-third. A UCLA study conducted in 2008 found that 41 percent of teens surveyed reported between one and three online bullying incidents over the course of a year.

A recent study by Cox Communications came up with lower numbers, finding that approximately 19 percent of teens say they've been cyberbullied online or via text message and 10 percent say they've cyberbullied someone else.

One thing we know about cyberbullying is that it's often associated with real-world bullying. The UCLA study found that 85 percent of those bullied online were also bullied at school.

Signs of cyberbullying
It's not always obvious if a child is a victim of cyberbullying, but some possible signs include: suddenly being reluctant to go online or use a cell phone; avoiding a discussion about what they're doing online; depression, mood swings, change in eating habits; and aloofness or a general disinterest in school and activities. A child closing the browser or turning off the cell phone when a parent walks in the room can be a sign of cyberbullying, though it can also be a sign of other issues including an inappropriate relationship or just insistence on privacy.

Preventing and stopping cyberbullying
After struggling with a school-wide bullying problem, Aaron Hansen, principal of White Pine Middle School in Ely, Nev., told Fox News that he asked the kids to fill out a survey indicating when the bullying took place and who the bullies were. He then invited the alleged offenders into his office to tell them "your peers feel that like you're not very nice to people at times and they feel like sometimes you're a bully." Based on working with those kids and working with their needs--including problems at home--the school was able to reduce the problem.

Not every situation will resolve itself quite so easily, but identifying the reasons kids are acting as bullies can go a long way toward preventing it as can educational programs that stress ethics and cyber citizenship ("netiquette"). It also helps kids to know what to do if they are victims of bullying. At ConnectSafely.org (a site I help operate) we came up with a number of tips including: don't respond, don't retaliate; talk to a trusted adult; and save the evidence. We also advise young people to be civil toward others and not to be bullies themselves. Finally, "be a friend, not a bystander." Don't forward mean messages and let bullies know that their actions are not cool.

If your child is a victim of cyberbullying, don't start by taking away his or her Internet privileges. That's one reason kids often don't talk about Net-related problems with parents. Instead, try to get your child to calmly explain what has happened. If possible, talk with the parents of the other kids involved and, if necessary, involve school authorities. If the impact of the bullying spills over to school (as it usually does), the school has a right to intervene.

Be careful what we legislate
There are lots of state laws that focus on cyberbullying, some requiring schools to provide educational resources. While I'm all for education, I think we need to be careful about any legislation that outlaws cyberbullying. U.S. Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) has proposed H.R. 1966, well meaning legislation that could imprison for up to two years, "whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior." On the surface, it seems fine but as UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has pointed out, it could also be used to punish political and other forms of speech. "I try to coerce a politician into voting a particular way, by repeatedly blogging (using a hostile tone)," he writes, "I am transmitting in interstate commerce a communication with the intent to coerce using electronic means (a blog) "to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior." Professor Volokh said that if the law is passed, he expects it to be "struck down as facially overbroad."

This post originally appeared on SafeKids.com

An Internet safety study (PDF) just released by Cox Communications shows that teens may be a bit more safety conscious than previously thought.

The survey, which was done by Harris Interactive, asked 655 13- to 18-year-olds about their online and cell phone behavior, specifically addressing issues of cyberbullying and sexting. The study was in partnership with the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and "America's Most Wanted Host" John Walsh.

For the purposes of the study, cyberbullying was defined as "harassment, embarrassment, or threats online or by text message," while sexting referred to "sending sexually suggestive text or e-mails with nude or nearly-nude photos."

Not surprisingly, the vast majority of teens (72 percent) have a social-networking profile, while 73 percent use cell phones and 91 percent have an e-mail address.

What they know vs. what they do
The study raises an interesting contradiction. 59 percent of the teens say that posting personal information or photos on public blogs or social-networking sites is either "somewhat unsafe" or "very unsafe." Only 7 percent say it's "very safe," while 34 percent say it's "somewhat safe." Yet, when asked about their own behavior, 62 percent of the kids post photos of themselves, 50 percent share their real age, 45 percent the name of their school, and 41 percent the city where they live. When it comes to more private information, only 4 percent post their address, 9 percent "places where you typically go," and 14 percent post their cell phone number.

The study's executive summary explains, "Though they are aware of the risks, many teens expose personal information about themselves online anyway."

That revelation appears alarming but after looking at other research about teen online risk, I actually find it reassuring.

What kids say they know about online risks appears to be what adults have been telling them for years. But when you look at the real risk factors, their behavior isn't nearly as dangerous as even teens say they think it is.

An in-depth and academically rigorous 2005 study from the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center found that posting personal information online does not, by itself, correlate with risk. As all of the studies show, millions of kids engage in this practice and very few encounter any serious problem as a result. Let's face it, the whole premise behind sites like Facebook and MySpace is to share that type of information and despite some of the hysteria, there have been very few reported problems of young people being victimized as a result of them putting this type of information online.

Of course, nothing--including attending school--is 100 percent safe, but the 34 percent who said that posting personal information online is "somewhat safe" are getting it right.

Cyberbullying and sexting numbers not as bad as thought
The cyberbullying numbers are also quite reassuring, especially when you compare them to some earlier studies.

The summary points out that "Cyberbullying is widespread among today's teens, with over one-third having experienced it, engaged in it, or known of friends who have who have done either." But that one-third is cumulative of bullies, people who have been bullied and even people who know someone who's been bullied.

The survey found that approximately 19 percent of teens say they've been cyberbullied online or via text message and that 10 percent say they've cyberbullied someone else. The largest group, 27 percent, say they have "seen or heard of a friend who was bullied" online, with 16 percent saying they've "seen or heard of a friend who's bullied others online or by cell phone.

Of course any amount of bullying is unacceptable but the numbers from this survey are lower than several previous studies.

There is also good news about sexting. The most widely quoted study on sexting from the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy reported (PDF) that 20 percent of teens "say they have sent/posted nude or semi-nude pictures or video of themselves." But the data from the Cox survey showed that while 20 percent of teens "have engaged in sexting," that number, too, is cumulative. Only 9 percent "sent a sext," while 17 percent received one, and 3 percent forwarded a "sext." Again, that 9 percent number is too high but it's less than half the 20 percent figure commonly used. And 90 percent of the kids who sent sexts said that nothing bad happened, even though 74 percent of the kids agreed that sexting is "wrong." Twenty-three percent felt that it's OK if both parties are OK with it and only 3 percent said "there is nothing wrong with it."

This survey, said Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use Executive Director Nancy Willard, "clearly demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of young people have not engaged in risk-taking online behavior or been harmed online. Also, it appears that teens are sensitive to the potentially damaging implications of the material they post online."

While the news from this survey is mostly good, there is still a significant minority of teens who are harming others, being victimized by other teens, or putting themselves at risk. That's why it's important for parents to talk with their teens about appropriate use of the Internet. Don't scare them or shut down their use, but do remind them to mind their manners, think before they post, and seek help if someone is bullying or harassing them.

The results of a survey showing that 35 percent of middle school and high school students with cell phones have used them to cheat at school is indeed alarming. And perhaps more alarming is the finding that nearly a quarter of the students don't even think it's cheating.

Cheating is cheating regardless of whether you use technology or old-fashioned paper notes. I'm appalled that kids may be using technology to cheat in school, but I'm just as appalled at how schools are cheating kids when it comes to technology.

But in addition to admonishing kids about why it's wrong to cheat, perhaps it's also time to rethink what it means to evaluate students in the age of the Internet and omnipresent mobile devices.

The survey, which was conducted by Benenson Strategy Group for Common Sense Media, found that "41 percent (of seventh- to 12th-graders) say that storing notes on a cell phone to access during tests is cheating and a serious offense, while 23 percent don't think it's cheating at all." Similarly, 45 percent say "texting friends about answers during a test" is cheating, while 20 percent do not consider it cheating. More than a third (36 percent) said that downloading a paper from the Internet to turn in was not a serious cheating offense and nearly one-fifth didn't consider it to be cheating at all. Just more than half the kids admitted to using the Internet for some form of cheating,

As a parent and former educator, I am strongly opposed to any type of cheating. And there is no way that anyone--not just students--should get away with claiming authorship on a paper they didn't write. But this survey might also present an opportunity for educators to re-evaluate the type of tests they're giving. I think there is a role for tests that measure a student's ability to quickly acquire and interpret information through mobile devices, even if they know nothing about the subject prior to sitting down for the test.

I'm not making a universal declaration that every kid should be issued a smart phone or iPod Touch to help them with every test they take. But I do think that the emergence of cheap mobile technology and--eventually--omnipresent connectivity offer educators an opportunity to incorporate the technology into their classrooms and even testing.

As Peggy Sheehy, a library media specialist from Suffern, N.Y., put it: "We can't teach 21st century literacy and assess with 19th century methodology. We have to look at what we really need students to be able to do when they leave us" and we must ask, "what is my student learning outside of school and how can I get them just as engaged?"

Right now, it's a valid point to say that letting kids access mobile devices may discriminate against those who can't afford the phones or the service. Yet that will change, just as it did with electronic calculators, as these devices become even more affordable, especially if students can access free wireless networks at school.

In the work force, what's important in most situations is not so much the facts you can pull out of your head but your ability to acquire information when you need it and--most importantly--your ability to make sense of it.

I'm not saying being able to recall facts from memory is never important. I have to do that nearly every day when I go on live radio. And I often use the Internet to acquire facts only moments before the broadcast and have occasionally had to look up a fact while taking on live radio. What's most important is not my regurgitation of the facts but my interpretation. The ability to put things into context is hard to measure with the types of multiple choice tests that are commonly used in schools.

Of course, the ability to use a search engine is no substitute for kids learning how to critically evaluate the information they do acquire. Knowing how to judge the authority of a source and being able to interpret the meaning of information--in the long run--is more important than the ability to remember it.

A few years ago I participated in a conference with educators from the U.S. and Japan. Both groups had their gripes about their country's educational system, but what I heard from several of my Japanese colleagues was the concern that their system concentrated too much on rote memory and not enough on creativity and critical thinking.

David Ricky Matsumoto, author of "The New Japan," said the same thing those educators told me: "In my experience," he wrote in the book, "the typical Japanese student excels at learning facts and figures. "...what many Japanese students lack is the ability to think about problems creatively, critically, and autonomously."

So, while we should continue to discourage cheating of any kind, we should also encourage schools to find creative ways to use technology, including cell phones, in the learning process and in the testing process. It's called adaptation. And besides, progress should always be a part of a progressive educational system.

This post is adapted from a column that appeared in the San Jose Mercury News.

In 1994, when I wrote Child Safety on the Information Highway, the first widely disseminated Internet safety publication, I advised parents not to let kids put personal information or photos online and--because of what turned out to be an exaggerated fear of predators--I urged them to avoid online conversations with strangers. Back then, along with trying to keep kids away from porn, Internet safety was mostly about protecting children from dangerous adults.

But starting around 2005, a new phase of the Web--often referred to as "Web 2.0"--prompted some Internet safety advocates to focus on ways kids could get in trouble for what they post on social-networking sites like MySpace and Facebook. It was in that year that Anne Collier and I founded BlogSafety.org (later renamed ConnnectSafely.org) so we could provide a forum for discussing safety issues on the interactive Web. It was also around that time that politicians and the media, especially the TV show "To Catch a Predator," started whipping up fears of predators trolling the Web for vulnerable children.

But statistics show that the likelihood of a young person being harmed by an online stranger is quite rare, and sexual solicitations and harassment are most often from peers. And to the extent it has occurred, it affects teens, not young children. Based on studies by the Crimes Against Children Research Center, the overwhelming majority of crimes against youths continue to take place in the "real world," mostly by adults known to the child.

Teens interact with 'real world' friends
That doesn't mean that the Internet is a risk-free zone. It's just that young people are far more likely to be harmed by other youth or the consequences of their own online behavior than by adult criminals.

Their interactions are largely with people they know from the real world. As danah boyd (she prefers a lower case d & b) observed in her doctoral dissertation, Taken Out of Context: American Teen Sociality in Networked Publics (PDF), "teen participation in social network sites is driven by their desire to socialize with peers. Their participation online is rarely divorced from offline peer culture; teens craft digital self-expressions for known audiences and they socialize almost exclusively with people they know."

This understanding of youth risk led to a whole new phase of Internet safety education focusing on such things as cyberbullying and urging youth to avoid posting material that could be embarrassing or get them into trouble with authorities and potential future employers. Recently, the focus has turned to the emotional and legal consequences of "sexting,"--kids sending nude pictures of themselves via cell phones or the Web. But as Collier observed in NetFamilyNews.org, we run the risk of "technopanics" over sexting and bullying.

What we've learned from observing how kids use the Net, mobile phones, gaming devices, and other interactive technology is that there is really no distinction between online and offline behaviors. Technology is woven into their lives. They don't go online, they ARE online. So it's really about youth safety--not Internet safety.

It's about helping young people make wise choices not just in how they use technology, but in how they live their lives. Internet safety is more than just the absence of danger. It also includes finding ways to use technology for learning, collaboration, community building, political activism, self-help, and reaching out to others.

These are not just philosophical arguments. They're pragmatic because preaching about safety or trying to lock down the Internet doesn't protect kids. Trying to instill fear--especially based on myths--actually increases danger because it causes kids to tune out good advice.

Filters as fences
Sure, there are technologies that can keep kids from using social-networking services or visiting inappropriate Web sites. But, like fences around swimming pools, the use of filters at home and school can't protect them forever. That's why we teach kids to swim. Not only does knowing how to swim help prevent drowning, it empowers them to thrive in the water instead of fearing it. The same is true with technology. Filters and other parental control tools often make sense for young children, but as kids mature into teens, we must pull back on the technological controls in favor of self-control.

In an e-mail interview, Larry Rosen, professor of psychology at California State University, Dominguez Hills, and author of Me, MySpace and I: Parenting the Net Generation observed, "sadly, too many parents think that using technology to track their children's keystrokes or restrict access to certain Web sites is sufficient parenting. It is not. Parents must be involved with their children's virtual lifestyles developing trust, being aware of any potential problems, learning about the technologies they use, and communicating often."

This post is adapted from an article that first appeared in the Palo Alto Daily News.