Digital Safety

Narratives

Chung-Hee Kim, C-H to his friends, likes to think of himself as a “normal” American teenager. He lives in a modest town in a suburb of a large midwestern city. He’s a freshman at the local high school.

His parents are nice, quiet, but a bit square. They don’t “get” him, and they really don’t get the whole online thing, but they’re OK. More important, they don’t get in the way, especially when it comes to using the computer in his bedroom.

When he’s not in school or hanging out with his friends, C-H spends most of his free time online. He’s got a MySpace page that he keeps up to date with the latest features: his favorite music plays when a visitor hits the page, they’re met with pictures of his favorite movie actresses, and his friends have posted a long list of comments every time he makes a move. He’s got a Facebook account, but fewer of his friends are on there, so he goes back only once or twice a week to look something up or check out the Wall on his page. He tries out every new service that’s hot before most of his friends do.

Mostly, Chung-Hee is into Second Life. He’s got an avatar he calls “VirtualC-H” – a young, dashing, twenty-first-century knight, who zips around in a partial suit of body armor. When he was visiting his cousins in South Korea last summer, he played around on CyWorld, and he’s had an account on There.com. Most of his friends are into World of Warcraft. But Second Life is where it’s at for C-H.

For hours every afternoon, he dives into a parallel life. His friends from school are not into Second Life as much, so he mostly chats with people he comes across in public spaces he doesn’t otherwise know. Since C-H thinks he’d like to become an architect, he hangs around with other Second Life users who build things. In Second Life, he’s constructed a post-modern home for his avatar that’s earned him a reputation as a budding talent. He’s participated in group efforts to design and build edgy-looking bridges, roads, and towers.

Problems

Cyber Bullying

[from Erin Mishkin's unpublished paper on cyber bullying (2005)] Keeping in mind the prevalence of the Internet and cell phones in teens’ lives and their dependence on digital media to maintain social ties, cyber bullying is a particularly effective means of psychological harassment. An official definition of bullying given by the National Mental Health Information Center states that bullying behavior must have the following three characteristics: 1) it must have a negative intent; 2) it must occur repeatedly over time; and 3) there must exist an imbalance of power, “with a more powerful person or group attacking a less powerful one” (National Mental Health Information Center, 2005). This “imbalance of power” is a key element of bullying, which distinguishes this behavior from other types of aggression.

As a form of bullying, cyber bullying retains all three of these characteristics of traditional bullying, but with some significant twists. First, the Internet and other digital media allow for the bully to remain anonymous to his or her victim, which, among other things, establishes an imbalance of power, with substantial power given to the perpetrator. In addition, though studies have shown that users have lauded this trait of the Internet, citing the ability to remain anonymous as enabling them to truly express themselves (Stern, 2002), Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) noted potentially dangerous implications associated with anonymity, one being “…heightened aggression and inappropriate behaviour.” They continued, “Thus the Internet may be conducive to Internet aggression for some who feel constrained by social expectations in traditional communication, but freed from these constraints in online conversations where the user cannot be seen nor the impact of his or her words on the other person be experienced” (p. 320). Because of this inability to see the implications of his or her behavior, the bully is unlikely to experience feelings of remorse or compassion toward his or her victim (Schneier as cited by Strom & Strom, 2005). In addition, some suggest that this distancing between the bully and his or her victim leads to an “unprecedented degree of brutality, especially when combined with a typical adolescent’s lack of impulse control and underdeveloped empathy skills” (Harmon, 2004). Parry Aftab, founder of WiredSafety.org explained that teens are “exploring who they are—and they role-play by being mean, horrible and hateful in ways they would never be off-line” (Chu, 2005, p. 52). He went on to recount a time when he met a clean-cut preppy 13-year old who revealed that he would regularly gather information in chat rooms and websites and use that as a means to harass the strangers as if he were an acquaintance or friend. Aftab said, “He said to me, ‘I would never do anything in real life. I’m a good kid. But I can do it online because it doesn’t matter’” (Chu, 2005, p. 52).

Another way that cyber bullying is different from traditional bullying is the manner and speed with which digital media can distribute messages. No longer must bullies rely on the slow turn of the rumor mill to berate and torment their victims. With a click of a mouse, harmful messages can be sent to a large number of people instantaneously (via list servs, group text messages, group chats, websites, etc.). And, as emphasized earlier, the anonymity that digital media provide makes behavior that publicly humiliates on such a large scale easier to engage in.

Finally, this form of bullying does not allow the victim to easily escape from the harassment because—as long as one has a cell phone or access to a computer—there are no distinct boundaries to the maltreatment. (But it should be noted that even if one “disconnects” entirely, which is not recommended, it is difficult to escape from harassment since cyber bullying and the real world almost always overlap.) Though bullying via cell phone has been a popular form of harassment among teens in England and Japan for years, it is just starting to take hold in the United States (and camera phones enable bullies to take compromising pictures or videos of their victims unbeknownst to them and then send them to a large distribution list) (Paulson, 2003). Take the experience of eighth-grader Amanda Marcuson for example. One day Amanda had had a minor disagreement at school about a stolen pencil case and when she got home, she was barraged with instant messages touting her as a tattletale, a liar, and a “stuck-up bitch” (Harmon, 2004). As a means of escape, Amanda went to a basketball game with her family, but because she had her email automatically forwarded to her cell phone, the harassment extended to the stands of the auditorium—with Amanda receiving 50 hateful emails in just the short amount of time she was at the game. Consistent with cyber bullying traits, Amanda told reporters at the New York Times that while the harassment continued online, the girls inflicting the bullying never again spoke to her in person (Harmon, 2004).

Cyber bullying: From a Developmental Perspective
One of the reasons why cyber bullying is such a dangerous problem for youth is that adolescents are still in the process of developing these social competencies and might not be capable of fully grasping the seriousness of their actions—especially in an online setting where one cannot see others’ body language or facial reactions. According to Bengtsson & Johnson (1992), “Young children tend to focus on readily observable, external characteristics of people. With increasing age, this focus is shifted to internal dimensions of the person” (p. 2). As noted earlier, the anonymity factor of many online interactions taps into this developmental challenge—if a teen cannot see the response of the person they are communicating with, chances are they will be less empathetic to their experiences and less likely to curb their actions. As Willard (2004) emphasizes, empathy is explicitly tied to the ability to see another’s perspective. She notes, “The emerging ability to take the perspectives of another person increases the probability that a growing child or young teen will have an empathic response—feeling hurt inside—upon learning that an unseen other person has been harmed or is feeling hurt” (p. 3).

It is during adolescence that the development of one’s personal identity takes place (Erickson, 1963 as cited by Willard, 2004), where we begin developing our “internalized moral codes” Willard (2004, p. 2). According to Willard, we feel guilty when we act in a way that goes against our internal moral code—unless we can rationalize the action. This rationalization becomes easier in an online setting, where our actions might not seem real or we cannot see the reactions of the person who we have just harmed. Willard (2004, p. 5) gives the following examples of rationalizations that exist in both the real world and an online setting (but tend to be more prevalent in an online atmosphere): 1) “I won’t get caught”; 2) “It didn’t really hurt”; 3) “It is not a real person”; and 4) “Everyone does it.”

Online Victimization

When you think of an Internet connection as a portal into the private domain, it can bring to mind alarming images – that of the classic male predator, situated in a dark room and lit only by his computer screen as he preys upon innocent children. But what we’re learning (especially as a result of the studies conducted by the Center for Crimes Against Children, whose 2006 report (pdf) is the basis for this entry) is that it’s more complicated an issue.

Online victimization can be defined in any number of ways. The Center for Crimes Against Children defines online victimization as any of the following: 1. Exposure to unwanted sexual material 2. Sexual solicitations 3. Harassment

Exposure to unwanted sexual material
What are the means by which youth are inadvertently accessing unwanted sexual material? Everything from being sent links to pornographic sites through IM or email to coming across sexual material when doing innocuous searches online. One in three youth have experienced exposure to unwanted sexual material. Since 2000, there has been an increase in the number of youth exposed to unwanted sexual material; reasons for this, according to the CCAC; could include increased number of youth with Internet access, increased time spent online; technological advances (image capturing media more ubiquitous, computers more capable of storing and downloading large files more efficiently); and “aggressive marketing” of sexual material through pop-up ads and adware.

Sexual solicitations
According to the Center for Crimes Against Children, sexual solicitations can take two forms: non-aggressive and aggressive (where the aggressive entails some kind of offline encounter – either by phone, mail, or in-person contact).

Harassment
Harassment entails threats or other offensive behavior that could not be categorized as sexual solicitation.

Out of this report, there were some very positive findings about online victimization. From the time they did their first survey in 2000 to 2005, there had been a decline in the number of youth who communicate online with people they don’t know in person. There was also a decline in the number of youth who form close online relationships with people they met online and in the number of those receiving unwanted sexual solicitations. What this means, perhaps, is that youth are becoming more aware about the potential risks involved in talking to strangers online. This was further validated by a recent report issued by the Pew Internet and American Life Project; through a series of questions about social networking sites, Pew discovered that young people are very aware about what information they post to their profiles and that females, especially, typically avoid including any information that could lead someone they don’t know to track them down in an offline setting. But what the CCAC emphasizes is that it is not those youth who share private information with strangers who are most at risk of online victimization, but those youth who willingly engage in conversations about sexuality online or who engage in risky online behavior such as visiting porn sites or frequenting chat rooms.

Despite the good news that youth have developed an awareness about what information they're sharing online, the CCAC also found that the number of aggressive sexual solicitations has remained about the same since 2000. In addition, they noted an emerging trend of youth being asked to send sexual images of themselves to online solicitors (again, thanks to the advent of inexpensive tools like web cams and digital cameras).

Debunking Myths: Some important pieces of information to highlight that also came out of CCAC’s reports:

• Victims are typically teens, not young children.
• Offenders typically do not lie about their age or their intent.
• Offenders develop a relationship with their victim; often times youth will meet up with the offender on multiple occasions and engage in sexual acts.
• Youth are more likely to engage in risky online behavior when surrounded by a group of their peers.

At a recent panel discussion on online victimization presented to Congress, David Finkelhor explained a bit about these findings, “So these are not mostly violence sex crimes, but they are criminal seductions that take advantage of teenage, common teenage vulnerabilities. The offenders lure teens after weeks of conversations with them, they play on teens’ desires for romance, adventure, sexual information, understanding, and they lure them to encounters that the teams know are sexual in nature with people who are considerably older than themselves.” He continues, “…it’s not giving out personal information that puts kid at risk. It’s not having a blog or a personal website that does that either. What puts kids in danger is being willing to talk about sex online with strangers or having a pattern of multiple risky activities on the web like going to sex sites and chat rooms, meeting lots of people there, kind of behaving in what we call like an internet daredevil.”