Ways of Protecting Children from Being Abused on the Internet - Research Paper Example

TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE NUMBER Terms Acronyms and Parent Educational Sites i Aims and Purpose of Research 1 Research Questions 2 Reasons for choosing this subject 3 Review of Background Literature 6 Research Method and Approach 10 Research Design and Methods 11 Data Analysis 13 Bibliography Appendix “A” i TERMS , ACRONYMS AND PARENT EDUCATIONAL SITES A/S/L = Age, Sex, and Location BRB = Be Right Back CTN = Can’t Talk Now IMO = In My Opinion LOL = Laughing out Loud LMIRL = Lets Meet In Real Time POS = Parent Over Shoulder SA = Sibling Alert/ Sibling Nearby TA = Teacher Alert P911 = Parents Entering Room GROOMING = Having spoken to a child more than once on the internet (chatrooms, instant messaging etc.), prepping the child for a face to face meeting. CHATROOM = on line group conversations INSTANT MESSAGING (IM) = one-on-one on-line conversation COPPA = Child on-line Privacy Protection Act FBI = Federal Bureau of Investigation PREFERENTIAL CHILD MOLESTERS = Their primary thrust is sex with children PHYSICAL ABUSE = has to do with physical acts which could have a tendency to impair the child in some way. SEXUAL ABUSE = The participation of the child in sexual activity which will serve to provide sexual gratification or monetary gains for the pervert. This would include, but not ii be limited too pornography, sexual intercourse, or prostitution. EMOTIONAL ABUSE = Can be loosely defined as acts or the absence of certain reinforcements which have either caused or contributed to negative behavior, cognitive disorders or various other types of mental illnesses. This type of behavior has been found to manifest itself in some children who have been physically or sexually abused. PHYSICAL NEGLECT = This would involve those children who have been put out of their homes by parents or caretakers, and others who have been abandoned. THE PARENTS INFORMATION NETWORK GET NET WISE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SKILLS (UK) CHILDNET INTERNATIONAL FOR KIDS BY KIDS ON LINE NATIONAL CHILD’S CHARITY INTERNET WATCH FOUNDATION CHILDLINE COMMON SENSE MEDIA COMMISSION ON ON-LINE CHILD PROTECTION INFORMATION SOCIETY WEBSITE CHILDREN’S INTERNET PROTECTION ACT ABOUT FAMILY INFORMATION GOOGLE SEARCH; CONTROLLING ACCESS TO THE INTERNET GOOGLE SEARCH; INTERNET FILTERING SOFTWARE 1 Examine ways of protecting children from being abused on the internet Aims and Purpose of Research The World Wide Web is a gigantic technological breakthrough, and its presence extols magnanamous benefits to all of society. Especially to our children and young people , it presents new vistas in educational opportunities and a plethora of entertainment possibilities. Given the vast scope and breadth of the internet and its positive benefits for everyone who uses it, the other unfortunate side of the reality, is that the internet presents a new set of problems, which seems to be expanding with time. Some of the accompanying problems have presented some potential dangers which are geared specifically at children. The reality of the internet’s harmful affects has prompted parents, caretakers, social service agencies and law enforcement, to become concerned and alerted to those hazards which an unsuspecting child might encounter while on line. Unfortunately, the internet presents a clear and apparent danger to a child’s vulnerability to child abuse. This research will explore the multiple areas of child susceptibility to potential predatory activity. Also, it will identify those who are most vulnerable, and offer alternatives which have been tested to be effective in either mitigating the effectiveness of predators or eradicating the predators ability to victimize the child who has been educated on the techniques. Unfortunately, there is no tried and true panacea, and because there is not, and given a child’s natural curiosity, all of the concerned and affected adults must commit to continued education and monitoring themselves and their children, to becoming more knowledgeable as well as remaining vigilant. 2 This research will directly approach the avenues of knowledge and monitoring which must be adhered too. It is estimated that more than 46 per cent of the households with children present, have at least one computer, which is connected to the internet. The research will explore whether the tools for prevention and eradication are present and practiced. It will also point out who must be the participants for furthering the safety and well- being of children who frequently or even occasionally use the internet and its many chat rooms. Research Question “The internet started in the 1960’s. Initially it was a means of exchanging information between researchers, mainly employed in the US Defense industries and the military. Public awareness of the internet started to take off in the early to mid 1990’s, following the development of the World Wide Webb by Englishman Tim Berners-Lee”(NCH) In the process of developing the question for this research our curiosity was sparked by the revelation that there appears to be a considerable amount of under reporting of crimes against juveniles, so naturally the first question which comes to mind is, has the incidence of child abuse increased, decreased or declined, since the advent of the internet. In all fairness, we will address this issue very briefly. However, the question which we will deal with in depth is, Are the safeguards which have been set into motion to protect children on the internet, are they being effectively communicated, by whom, What are they, and who must be educated and vigilant for the safeguards to have an appreciable impact? In the pursuit of addressing our selected question, it is the authors intent to highlight the areas which must be pursued to shore up the inherent weaknesses or shortcomings which preclude or hinder the development of a panacea. 3 As we might all agree that adequate or sufficient safeguards are developing over time, and it sometimes takes another ugly incident, to spark the awareness that gaps in child safety are present, the prevailing attitude must be, that even if it is only one child, who is victimized, then this is one child too many. The research question of course begs the issue of whether or not, we are doing anything at all, and whether what we are doing is adequate to address the overall safety of children on the internet. Whether these children are in school, the library, at home or at a friends house. Additionally, in addressing the question at hand, we must also explore and expose the perpetrators who seek too, or are successful in abusing children. “Preferential child molesters often engage in activities which bring them in contact with children, such as sporting clubs, youth groups, through their employment, community/church groups, loitering where children congregate, and internet chat rooms”(Child Protection) Reason for choosing this subject There are innumerable issues which are shared by discerning and concerned parents, and adults in law enforcement and authority type positions, on the overall well-being of our children, and the dangers which they face as they navigate on the information highway. These adults are concerned as to whether they should either allow or restrict their childrens use of the internet. Because the internet is such a valuable tool, particularly for the retrieval of information, parents are particularly apprehensive about restricting or banning their child’s access. The paradoxical existence of the internet compels the adult to find ways to further ensure that the time a child spends on this invaluable resource, is done safely and intelligently as it is 4 with life in real time, they must be educated on how to avoid the advances of undesirable or suspicious persons, and be educated on places which are not safe places for them to visit. Parents are also in a quandary as to whether they can find out where their children have been on the internet, who are they communicating with and what is being said. They (parents) wonder about what the tell tale signs which might manifest themselves which presents proof that their child has been or is being molested on line. “There are warning signs that your child has been targeted by an on line predator. The child may be spending long hours on line, especially at night. If there are phone calls from people, whom the parent does not know, or unsolicited gifts arriving in the mail, it is a good idea to ask the child about internet contacts”(Dowshen & Izenberg 2005). Parents and authorities are also concerned about the level of safety in chat rooms. And there is an abiding concern about what can be done to prevent children from visiting inappropriate web sites. Dowshen and Izenberg believe that by, “taking an active role in a child’s internet activities, this will assure that he/she will benefit from the wealth of valuable information the internet has to offer, without being exposed to any potential dangers”(Dowshen et al) It is because of the concerns listed above, accompanied by a wide array of others, that this title has been chosen. These concerns express the uncertainty and even apprehensions which some parents and law enforcement authorities harbor, and are striving to find answers and solutions too. It is these types of concerns which foster discussion, and empowers parents authorities, teachers, and organizations to form meaningful alliances. In the most recent numbers provided by the US Child Protective Service (2003), the 5 services investigated more than “2.9 million suspected cases of child maltreatment, and 26 per cent of those reported were substantiated”(Juveniles as Victims). These numbers translated into 906,000 victims, enabling a victimization rate of 12.4 per cent. Astonishingly, the highest incidence of victimization was among toddlers ( 0-3) years of age. The incidence among those 4 to 7 was 24 per cent. The older the age group, the lower the incidence. Ostensibly, those who were less able to defend themselves, suffered at a higher rate. This is what we see on the surface when viewing the statistics, however Finkelhor and Ormrod 1999 assert ; “Crimes involving juvenile victims appear to be under reported in absolute terms and in comparison with adults. For violent crime, under reporting is not explained by the victimization of juveniles being less serious, as measured by such standards as injury or weapon usage. Nor is it explained by the tendency of juveniles to report crimes to school authorities rather than the police: In a multivariate analysis, even when controlling for juvenile offenders, juvenile victims were still associated with under reporting”(Finkelhor et al 1999). As a consequence, when we view the available numbers, we can merely receive a perception of the enormity of the problem of abuse. The actual scope has yet to be accurately gauged. From what we do know, given the numbers which are available, the abuse is highest among females (52 per cent), versus (48 per cent) among males. The occurrence affects every ethnic group comprising the American melting pot, however, the incidence distribution is disproportionately distributed with whites (54 per cent), garnering a lions share, among all ethnic groups and races. Martin Herrema cautions that, “around 40 per cent of the children using the internet have 6 never been warned about the dangers or informed about safe use of the internet”(Herrema). “In a recent survey of 2,300 11 – 18 years olds by Willshire Police, suggest that 1 in 10 11 – 18 year olds have felt uncomfortable in chat rooms and suspected they were speaking to an adult rather than a child – and 7 per cent had agreed to meet someone they had communicated with on line”(Herrema). The United states Justice Department via the Federal Bureau of Investigation advances a heady caution to parents, concerning the victimization of their children on the internet, and makes an appeal too exercise reasoned precautions, in seeking to extract information, concerning activity; “Understand even if your child was a willing participant in any form of sexual exploitation, that he/she is at fault and is the victim. The offender always bears complete responsibility for his or her actions”(FBI). Review of Background Literature “The internet predator may expose youngsters to messages or images with adult content and may convince them to share intimate images of themselves; he truly becomes dangerous if (1) he succeeds in learning a child’s name, address, or other personal information or (2) he manages to arrange a private in-person meeting with the youngster. Kids who have agreed to such meetings have been robbed, beaten, raped and worse”(Parent Guide) One of the ways in which a parent or other adult can become interactive with a child concerning their internet usage is by forming a contractural bond. This can be achieved by agreeing to the terms of the family on line service pack (Appendix “A”) “People may pose as children or teenagers, strike up a friendship and try to meet a child in an 7 unsafe environment. Even if the adult is honest about their age, this does not imply that their intentions are good. In the UK the Sexual Offenders Act 2003, makes it an offence for a person to meet or travel to meet a child with the intention of committing a sexual offence. If he has communicated with the child on at least two previous occasions, this is often known as “grooming”(Chat Rooms) It is incumbent upon parents, teachers and care takers to stress the importance to children of being open and transparent concerning all contacts which they encounter on the internet which they feel may be threatening, such as inappropriate e-mail, images or websites. “Most search engines have an adult filter that will attempt to filter out adult or pornographic images, but these can not be relied upon to work. Rather than use a search engine which is designed for adult use, instead use a search engine which is designed for children. A good listing of appropriate search engines can be found from the search engine watch site. Other children friendly sites include; killer info kids search engine and Fagan finder”(Phlib) Either the child or the adult should report all inappropriateness to www.cybertipline.com. Adults should warn children, “not to send digital or scanned photographs or other images of themselves to on line friends”(PG) “Computer sex offenders will work very hard at driving a wedge between a child and their family or at exploiting their relationship. They will accentuate any minor problems at home that the child might have. Children may also become withdrawn after sexual victimization”(FBI). “You can ask your internet service provider if they provide moderated chat services, and if they do, ask about policies enforced in the chatroom, and about the training given to and 8 checking done on the backgrounds of the people who are employed by them as moderators”(Carr) “Parents should situate computers in high visibility areas of the home – the kitchen or the family room – and view the screen at regular intervals”(PG). It is imperative that all adults who have made a computer available to children, become familiar with the acronyms and jargon, which they use on line. “The Children On Line Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) requires web sites to explain their privacy policies on the site and get parents’ consent before collecting or using a child’s personal information. The law prohibits the site from requiring a child to provide more personal information than necessary to play a game or contest”(Children’s Health News) “Advocates for child victims, in particular, sometimes argue that the justice system is to lenient on victimizers of children. Cases involving light sentences for child murderers and sex offenders have received substantial news coverage”(Kirk,1997; Wolfe,1998), and prompted some states to draft new legislation, such as homicide by child abuse laws, laws that allow prosecutors to charge offenders against children with more serious crimes”(Phipps, 1999) “In 1977, offenders against juveniles made up 22 percent of prisoner’s incarcerated in state prisons for violent crimes. The victims of these offenders were evenly divided between children age 12 or younger (11 per cent of the offenders) and teens 13 – 17 (11 per cent of offenders). The distribution of the offenders against juveniles accounted for a large majority of the incarcerated offenders (71 per cent”(Federal Bureau of Prisons) “Most incarcerated offenders against children (72 per cent) and most incarcerated offenders against teens (58 per cent) were in prison for committing sex crimes”(FBP) 9 “The violent victimization of juveniles is greater between 3 PM and 4PM; fell to a lower level in the early evening, and declined steadily after 9PM”(FBI) Clearly, the problem of children being abused is not a virtual matter. While all of the offenders who are incarcerated for sexual abuse, did not have contact with their victims on line, one must readily admit that predators exist, and the internet provide yet another venue for recruitment of children. “You should know who they are sending e-mail to and who they are receiving e-mail from. You should know if they visit chat rooms or subscribe to newsgroups and you should understand what they do when they visit these places”(Carr) “It is possible when typing an address in the web browser, or when using search engines, to mistype a word or try to guess an address. You can then end up in a site or in a place you never intended to be. It is advisable for you to stress the importance or correctly typing in addresses and to discuss and agree to rules about the sort of sites and materials it is acceptable for your child to access”(Carr) “When you visit a chatroom, it is a good idea to sign on using a nick name, and when you are chatting do not give out your real name, your e-mail address, your age, your phone number, where you live, your school, whether you are a boy or girl, and don’t publish or send pictures or images of yourself”(Netsmart) “Parental control software is highly recommended. It can control where your child sends e- mails to or receive them from and also block access to all or some chat rooms. The internet Content Rating Association includes info on parental control software”(Carr) 10 Research Method and Approach The author has decided to use a stratified sampling method in the approach to acquiring the data needed for this study. “Stratification will achieve greater precision provided the stratum has been chosen so that the members of the same stratum are as similar as possible in respect of the characteristic of interest. The bigger the differences between the strata, the greater the gain in precision”(Hunt & Tyrrell 2004) The sample will consist of the multi sub-groups and individuals who participate in the process and those who monitor, oversee, and dictate usage. It s important to have the feed back and perceptions of the child user, the parent who has a particularly important interest in the child’s ability to access the internet, and the overall safety of the medium. The teacher, and the librarian who are vested with the trust and responsibility of assuring that those within their care and purview are being safely attended too, representatives from Child Protective service agencies, whose purview and mission is one of caring for and monitoring the maltreatment of children, and of course law enforcement. The author submits that due to the scope of information which will be sought from the different types of respondents, that is while each of the entities that have been identified all possess a vested interest (child safety), they will each have a different role to play in attempting to achieve this objective. As a result, they will each bring a different perspective, (or at least a different approach), to the table. The inherent plus here is that through stratification, each of the respective sub-groups will have been identified and will be stratified according to their interest and occupation. It is largely due to the variances which the sub-groups possess, which makes it essential to 11 extract a sample from each sub-group independently. The placing of these sub-groups into homogenous sub-groups will promote candor and foster efficiency. The author further submits that the selection of the various sub-groups totally represent a comprehensive list of the spectrum of the actors, who are involved in the perpetual promotion and administration of safety for the child on the internet. Obviously, the most prevalent disadvantages inherent of the sampling process we have chosen is, the presence or the introduction of a bias. When referring to bias, one is simply stating how far the average statistic lies from the perimeter it is estimating. In other words, the error which comes into play when we attempt to estimate a quantity. We accept the bias because errors which present themselves due to chance will in all probability cancel each other out in the long run, the errors from the bias will not. We will be looking at specific segments of the population, which includes the 46 per cent of the households with children, where a computer is present. Obviously, it will not be necessary to include any household in this sample where there is not a computer present. To state the obvious, of course there may be occurrences within the stratum of other sub-groups where a computer may not be present in the home, however, the participation of individuals from those sub-groups will be predicated on the basis of their occupational or professional standing. The ownership of a computer or a child in the home will fit prominently as a prerequisite for their participation. Research Design and Methods It is considered to be imperative and cost effective, in this instance to design a questionnaires which will be specifically appropriate for each of the sub-groups. To answer our 12 research question; Are there safeguards which have been set into motion to protect children on the internet? Are they being effectively communicated, by whom, what are they, and who must be educated and vigilant for the safeguards to have an appreciable impact? The prospective respondents will be divided into nonoverlapping strata, and samples will be selected from each stratum independently. This process will be facilitated through the utilization of a focus group(s). With each sub-group, forming a single group. The list of prospective respondents will be stratified according to the respective roles (proximity to child), they play in the process. The size of each sample group will be determined by the percentage which each represents within the spectrum being observed. In other words, when we view the group (children), being studied, we came across two very important sets of numbers; 46 percent of households with children present, have computers. And 40 per cent of those with computers present, have not been educated on proper safety measures which should be adhered too, while on the internet. Clearly, there are two distinct groups within one of our targeted prospective respondents. Both of which are deserving of being sampled independently. While our actual sample size within this sub-group represents 46 per cent of households, only six percent of those households (children and parents), would qualify to be participants in the stratum which addresses, those who have computers at home, and have been briefed on the safe operation procedures, which prevent or inhibit victimization. This enormous gap of course takes us back to why this avenue of inquiry was pursued in the first place. The negative perpetrators have a vastly broad spectrum of potential victims, who have either not been alerted of their presence, and are not knowledgeable of their deviant techniques. 13 The density within this strata could be affected downward if we choose to gear our overall sample size to a standard general percentage within each stratum. Additionally, when 40 per cent of child users who have not been briefed on safety procedures, using the standard general percentage would produce a larger sample among this sub-group, which would produce a larger sampling variability. Therefore, percentages will be adjusted to accommodate the known variance in the size of the sample, in the effort to keep the density within each stratum constant. Of course, this also applies to the stratum of parents who will be grouped into these two sub-groups. The adjustment of the sample percentages among children and parents, also dictates the sample sizes for the remaining sub-groups, be adjusted accordingly. In that we have chosen to use stratified sampling, we accept the reality that the proportion of each sub-group in our sample will be the same as in our population. Data analysis We will use the statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) to perform our statistical data analysis. We will use the SPSS complex samples, which will make the necessary adjustments for stratification, clustering and all other sample selection biases. Additionally, we will also attempt to use the SPSS Exact Tests, which allows statistical testing on small samples. These will be facilitated on the computer and we will use the windows graphic interface. SPSS has been chosen because it is the standard preference of most social scientists, and students like the author, who is on a learning curve. 14 ANTICIPATED PROPOSED TIME LINE ACTIVITY DEC JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV CONSULTATION WITH SUPERVISOR XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX XX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX PROPOSAL PREPARATION XXXXXXXXXXXX IDENTIFICATION & NAMING OF SUB-GRPS XXXXXXXXXXXXX SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION & SUB-GROUP DENSITY XXXXXXXXXXXXXX CONTACT, LOCATION INFORMATION OF SUB GROUPS XXXXXXXXX IDENTIFICATION OF VENUE FOR FOCUS GROUP CONDUCT XXXXXXXXX DEVELOPMENT OF SUB GROUP QUESTIONNAIRES XXXXXXXXX FINALIZATION OF FOCUS GROUP VENUE XXXXX INVITATIONS AND SCHEDULING OF FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS RSVP XXXXXXXXXXXXX SUB GROUP ACCEPTANCE, FOLLOW UP CONFIRMATION, VENUE, DATE, TIME XXXXXXXXX CONDUCT OF INTERVIEWS XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ANALYSIS OF DATA XXXXXXXXXXXX PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS XXXXXXXXX SEPT OCT NOV XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX Bibliography Carr, John National Childrens Health, Retrieved on line on December 31, 2007 from www.nch.org.uk Chat rooms, retrieved on line on December 31, 2007, from www.philb.com Child Protection, Identifying Child Molesters, Retrieved on line on December 30, 2007, from www.police.wa.gov.au Children Internet Protection Act, retrieved on line on December 29, 2007, from www.nch.org.uk Commission on on line Child Protection, Retrieved on line on December 29, 2007, from www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org Dowshen, Stephen, and Izenberg, Neil, (2005), Warnings that your child maybe a victim, April 2005, retrieved on line on December 29, 2007, from www.kidshealth.com Family guide on line safe pack, Retrieved on line on December 29, 2007, from www.safenet.com Herrema, Martin: Child safety and the internet; police and crime stoppers work in schools to be evaluated, retrieved on line on December 30, 2007, from www.uwn.ac.uk Hunt, Neville, and Tyrrell, Sydney, (2004) Sampling Methods, January 7, 2004, Retrieved on line on December 30, 2007, from www.coventry.ac.uk Inverstigation cyber division, federal Bureau of Investigation, Retrieved on line on December 30, 2007, from www.usjusticedept.org www.cybertipline.org Appendix “A” FAMILY ONLINE SAFETY PACT 1. I UNDERSTAND there is some danger online. Criminals roam the Internet just as they roam the streets. 2. I UNDERSTAND that some people online pretend to be someone they are not. They can be dishonest about their age, gender, interests, personality, job, or anything else. 3. I UNDERSTAND that some criminals try to befriend kids online, especially kids who are adventurous, lonely, or aren't getting along with their parents. 4. I UNDERSTAND that private and family matters should not be discussed online. I should talk about them with a trusted adult instead. 5. I UNDERSTAND that my parents need to know where and with whom I spend my time online, because they love me and want to ensure my safety. 6. I WILL NOT give out personal information online, including my full name, address, phone number, or name and location of my school or job. 7. I WILL get permission from my parents first if I want to provide personal information to enter a contest, register on a website, or buy something online. 8. I WILL NOT send threatening, unkind or disrespectful e-mail, IM’s, or text messages, nor post them on websites, blogs, bulletin boards, or any other public forum. 9. I WILL NOT send photographs, video clips, or other images of myself to online friends. 10. I WILL NOT respond to violent or X-rated e-mail or text messages. I WILL report them to my parents, www.cybertipline.com, and/or the phone company. 11. I WILL NOT go alone to meet in-person someone I know only from online. Knowing it could be dangerous, if I really want to meet an online acquaintance, I WILL: Only go with my parent(s) or another trusted adult. Meet the person in a public place. 12. I WILL tell my parents whenever I make a new online friend. Child's Signature Date Parent's Signature Date Read More