#onlinerisks

Omegle Porn: Risks, Realities, and Safety Tips Explained

Hi there! Have you ever wondered about chatting online with strangers from everywhere? Omegle is a free website where you can chat with people one-on-one using text or video, no sign-up is required. It’s good for casual chats but known for explicit content, sometimes called “Omegle porn.” Discover the hidden dangers of Omegle porn. Learn about the risks, legal implications, and essential safety tips to protect yourself online.

Taraszow, T., Aristodemou, E., Shitta, G., Laouris, Y., & Arsoy, A. (2010)

This study aimed to look at “... the habits of young Facebook members with respect to publishing personal and contact information.” The methodology it used was directly observing profiles - so actual field data. 131 Facebook profiles were observed, and all members were in the age group of 13-30s. 

INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES:

SNSs can be defined as “... web-based services that allow individuals to:

construct a public or semi-public profile

communicate with other uses with whom they share a connection and

view and navigate through their own list of connections as well as those of others.

Acquisti and Gross (2006): “Internet-communities where individuals interact with others through profiles that represent their selves.” 

“SNSs simplify communication by integrating digital communication and publishing, supporting an individual’s construction of their digital identity and providing a single-point access to various communication tools, thus enabling communication across time and space.”

“The main motivation is communication, interaction and maintaining relationships.” Is this just adults or children too?

CHARACTERISTICS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES:

“... their main characteristic consists of visible profiles that display not only an ‘articulated list of friends’, but also detailed personal information.”

:... create a profile to ‘type oneself into being’.” So create an online self.

“Nobody is really forced to join an SNS, create a profile and reveal personal information.” But now we need to stay connected via online.

“... the connection of users with people they already know in real life, that is, existing friends, or to completely new people.”

“The public display of connections is a crucial component of SNSs.” Why?

“... profiles on Facebook used to be by default visible to any other user unless the profile owner denied permission. (...) Facebook changed their settings and made profiles by default visible to friends only, with the option to change one own’s profile into a public one.” But how many people, or more specifically adolescents, know about this and want to keep their profile private?

CONCEPTS OF PRIVACY:

“...privacy is a relative concept that should be seen as a continuum.”

“...privacy is understood as the ‘right to be let alone’.”

“...whether and how the law will protect the right to privacy.” But nothing is ever fully private once online. An example is unauthorized circulation of individuals’ portraits.

“... privacy means one’s control over one’s own personal information.” A good definition to use!

“... individuals are continually engaged in a process of adjustment to find a balance between the desire for privacy and the desire for disclosure of one’s self to others.” New technology can alter this balance though.

“... it is almost impossible to know when, how and to what extent others circulate one’s own personal information in SNSs.”

Privacy is also “... the ‘monitored’ and ‘searchable’ part of anyone’s life.” , “... traces of information that one ‘leaves’ behind in the environment.”

“... ‘life where less can be searched is a life more private’ (Lessing 1998: 1)”

“... individual life becomes more and more monitored as well as searchable as every activity online can be monitored and leaves a footprint or record.”

Privacy can also be: “... aspects of a person’s life that are culturally recognized as being safe and protected from others’ judgement.”

PRIVACY IN SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES AND IN FACEBOOK:

“Internet users, members of SNSs in particular, seem either not concerned about their privacy or not aware of the loss of privacy they suffer during their time online.”

“... the teenagers and young adults freely disclose personal and private information on SNSs.”

“Barnes (2006) argues that the privacy paradox occurs when users, especially teenagers, are not aware of the nature of the Internet in general and SNSs in particular.” → “... a disconnection between the users’ desire to protect their privacy and their actual behavior.”

SNSs encourage people to reveal personal info, and “That encouragement results in people really disclosing personal information without connecting it with their subsequent loss of privacy.”

On SNSs, “... any information is personally identifiable.”

“... an individual’s privacy concerns are only a weak predictor of his/her membership in an SNS.” They would join and share anyways. Why?

“... some SNS members demonstrated significant misconceptions about the SNS’s reach as well as the visibility of their profiles.” Not educated?

“... teenagers being generally worried about privacy issues and setting their profile to private, yet revealing private information to several hundred people in their friends’ list whom they have known only casually.”

“... Facebook members reveal a great amount of personal information about themselves openly, while at the same time they are not aware of their privacy options or who can view their profile.”

“.. most youth are aware not only of the type of information they are publishing in Facebook, but also of the potential dangers related to publishing detailed contact information.” But then why do they still participate in risky behaviour?

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN REVEALING PERSONAL INFORMATION:

“... female members were less likely to disclose their sexual orientation, personal address and mobile phone number than male members.” Are females generally more cautious?

Do “... males disclose different types of information than females do”?

THE STUDY:

131 young people (68 females and 63 males)

Ages ranged from 14 to 29 years. “The age range was decided according to the European Commission’s defined age range for youth, which is considered to be from 13 to 30 years.”

“... those young people whose Facebook profiles were examined, were not aware of this process...” Ethics issues?

Study used SPSS to analyse data.

RESULTS:

“Almost all subjects (89.3%) published a portrait profile picture of themselves from which one can identify their gender and approximate age.” Do people realize a picture can reveal information about themselves?

“... the majority of the subjects published their real names (96.2%) in comparison to a partial name (3.8%) or a fake name (0.0%).”

“... all participants disclosed their birth date...”

“No significant difference was found with respect to having a public or non-public ‘profile’ between female and male users.” as well as a portrait picture, real name, birth date, website, IM screen names and hometown.

Males were more likely to disclose their mobile phone number and other numbers, email addresses and home address than females.

“...96.6% of the participants aged 13-17 had their profile set as private, whereas among participants aged 18-22 only 64.1% had that.”

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

“... even though profiles are set to private, people tend to accept as their friends complete strangers.” Why? A feeling over control to whom they accept as compared to a completely public profile? “Thus, revealing personal and contact information on their profile only to friends can be equally threatening as having a public profile.”

“... most people use a facial picture of themselves in their profiles (...) This can pose a risk to members as it removes their protection of anonymity and allows them to be identified in real life as well.”

“Providing a full [real] name can make users more easily traceable in their real life.” But maybe want to be found?

“... potential ability to reconstruct users’ social security numbers utilizing a combination of information often found in profiles...” Identity theft. Do we have something like this in NZ?

“... majority of people reveal their email address to others...” Not only bullying can occur, but hacking of other profiles.

“Several incidents have become known through the media, where strangers found potential victims from SNSs, tracked them down, followed them and sometimes abused or even killed them.”

“... males report more often their mobile phone number than females do...” Reasoning? “... males are considered to be more dynamic and powerful, also less concerned with possible harm. Thus, without thinking too much about it, they reveal their mobile phone number on the Internet.”

Males between 18 and 22 are more likely to share their email address, IM screen names and home address than females. Reasoning? “... males of this age group are developmentally changing (moving from teens to adulthood) and want to present themselves as more independent, powerful and available to other people.” and “... males are more likely to have positive attitudes towards the Internet as well as greater experience in using it.”

“... clarifying young people’s knowledge and consciousness of privacy issues in SNSs with surveys or interviews is part of the continuing research agenda of this project.”

This article warns readers that there are many potential dangers with kids playing online games. This specific article tells the tale of a 13 year old boy made friends with another gamer on Minecraft, and after a year of friendship and a falling out, “... the local Avalon boy was then targeted, harassed and hacked by the other player.” Throughout the fallout, the cyberbully was able to steal personal information from the family’s computer. They were also able to obtain the family’s credit card information, and spent money on it. The most annoying part for the family was that they “.. had to change all their accounts and passwords and deal with strange phone calls and harassment from the New Zealand based gamer.” My question is: What did this gamer do to provoke the attack? I believe that this is just a one sided story, and that the Australian gamer did something to provoke the other gamer though Minecraft. It is important to note that now Netsafe investigates these types of occurrences, and looks at both sides of the story.

The article goes on to explain that this whole thing was made possible because of Virtual Network computing. This is where someone with access can temporarily take control of your computer and do what they want on it until the session ends. “... a user can be tricked into downloading a piece of software that gives another person to their computer.” From my personal experience (as this has happened to me before) - it is quite easy to determine whether these thinks are dodgy and will download something or not. Should kids just be taught to not click links they don’t know? Shouldn’t a 13 year old know this? Also, does the family computer not have any internet security program that can pick up this program as soon as it is downloaded? All computers need this.

The article then goes on to state that Minecraft itself is not the problem (nor any other game), “... but playing online games with strangers leaves your child vulnerable if something goes wrong.” It goes on to warn that your never know who your child is playing with online, as they may be children or adults. These adults could groom your kids and blackmail them for inappropriate photos.

This article ends with four brief tips to how to potentially keep your child safe:

“Don’t allow your younger children to play online games with strangers (...) they know offline is fun and much safer. Or single player.” I disagree with this - sometimes playing alone is boring as hell, and children want to play with their friends online. Certain games don’t allow you to play online with only people you know, as you may need a full lobby (such as call of duty) and don’t have that many friends. And no, it’s no more fun playing offline, it’s a different experience.

“Set boundaries around playing online (...) There’s a level of honesty...” I agree with this - parents need to be openly communicating with their parents surrounding boundaries, and both parties need to be honest about what they are doing online. This open conversation will allow for questions to be asked and skills to be learned.

“With older kids, you can possibly ask them not to text/chat to other gamers while playing online.” As someone who has played a lot of online games, sometimes it is needed to communicate with team mates, such as Rainbow Six Siege, which requires players to work together as a team. I doubt that even if you asked them, they would do it. If you tell them not to, most would do it behind your back.

“It is sometimes easier to delay your child playing most online games until your child can be trusted to play safely.” Yet again, children are willing to go behind backs and play video games, especially at an older age. And will anyone ever be 100% safe on online video games? I think not.

Valcke, M., De Wever, B., Van keer, H., & Schellens, T. (2011).

This study was completed 6 years ago in Belgium, and focused on contact risks and content risks. It included 10,000 children from the years 2005-2009. The study aimed to give a “... structured overview of Internet risks and summarizes approaches to foster safe Internet behavior.” They also state that “... children’s internet usage change continuously.” and this is important to note and a reason for my study as well.

INTRODUCTION:

“... a continuous increase in internet access at home can be observed. At a global level, an increase of 342.2% in Internet access is noticed since 2000.” Until 2009. “Internet access has increased with 250.3% since 2000...” 11 years.

“92.8% of the children between 12 and 18 years old have access to the internet at home.”

“... increase in Internet access in a separate room such as a study or bedroom, without parent supervision.” Why? Are parents less concerned?

“Children know more about computer and the Internet as compared to their parents.” What implications does this have?

“The current generation of youngsters is also the first generation that has not known a world without computers and the internet.”

“The level of Internet access, the nature of the user experience, and the impact of local policies and legislation seem to differ widely between countries and continents.” So localized studies are necessary.

INTERNET USAGE OF YOUNG CHILDREN:

Reasons why young children use the internet: Entertainment, education and edutainment.

“... the focus on gaming is dominant in 10-12 year olds and decreases after this age.” What type of gaming?

“The focus shifts to chatting, social networking and commercial usage from the age of 11 years on. Social networking dominates all types of Internet usage from 13 years on.”

“... older boys used the Internet to a longer extent.” Compared to?

“... girls use the internet significantly more for social networking or chatting; boys tend to focus more on games and entertainment-related activities.” Gender differences - why do they exist?

“This also implies that measures taken at a certain moment in time may no longer be that adequate when newer Internet applications have been adopted.” Important!

UNSAFE INTERNET USE:

- Content Risks:

“Content risks are related to the exposure of children to content that might be harmful.”

This content includes: “... images or text reflecting pornography, violence, racism, or hate.”

“40.7% of children between 10 and 12 were exposed to such shocking content.” (In 2008).

“...57% children-teenagers accessing the Internet once a week, did already witness pornographic content.” “... children have access to the Internet pornography at the age of 11.” Why at this age and not before? Do they want it then?

“...25% of youngsters indicated being disturbed due to the nature of this type of content...”

“...high proportions of teenagers viewed - on purpose - pornographic, violent, or racist online content.”

“Less research is available focusing on other types of harmful content such as suicide websites, eating disorders, and drug abuse.” So maybe a good area to research.

“The integrity of the information distributed via the internet is rarely questioned by children.” Why so?

“Only about 33% if the children between 9 and 19 years old learned to verify the reliability of Internet information.”

- Contact Risks:

ONLINE CONTACT:

Examples include cyber-bullying, sexual solicitation and threats to privacy.

“Contact risks seem to be related to specific types of Internet usage, such as blogging, chat room us, and instant messaging.”

“Cyber-bullying builds on the abusive use of email, instant messaging, chat rooms, or other communication types to bully, intimidate, threaten or insult others.”

“...one can hide his/her own identity is an important reason for the internet being a favorite bullying tool.” So anonymity is important.

“...54% of 12-13 year olds had been a victim of cyber-bullying. Up to 15% admitted to be an offender of cyber-bullying.” These are high numbers. Do kids think it’s okay? 2007 - what’s changed?

“Insults or threats are reported the most by victims, followed by sending misleading information, spreading rumors about someone, and fooling around with someone’s email or changing passwords.”

“internet-based sexual solicitation has become more and more frequent due to the use of webcam technologies and instant messaging.”

“...27% of 10-17 year old youngsters experienced sexual solicitation via the internet...” What did they do about it?

“... children run a larger risk to pass personal details to other.” Why? “Up to 70% of the children felt easy about giving someone their home address or email address.” Are they not aware of the consequences?

“...26% of respondents did not know who they are chatting with.”

“A potential consequence of this loss in privacy is undesirable offline contact, harassment and/or abuse.”

“... users exerted more discretion in posting personal information at a later stage.” Why is this? what is “a later stage”? “...increase in experience, internet safety awareness, parent supervision, or other measures that are intended at the reduction of privacy risks.” Possible reasoning.

     2.  OFFLINE CONTACT:

“... children are clearly at risk.”

“... 4% of their respondents reported attempted or actual offline contact.” (2002). “7.5% of children between 10 and 12 years old did already set up a meeting with an unknown person as a result of online contact.” (2008). Is this higher now?

“... some of these offline contacts are hardly risky if children meet with peers or same-age internet friends.” So not dangerous at all.

Grooming “... refers to adult offenders who develop an online relationship with young children and gain their trust.”

“14.6% of youngsters started online contact with strangers and the majority (84%) of these 59 youngsters met offline with the unknown person, and three reported having been assaulted.”

 - Commercial risks:

“Young children are approached via ‘gamevertising’.”

“... examples of such commercial exploitation, such as placing an order without consent, or games that are concealed sales offers.”

“... children nevertheless do not have the critical literacy to understand that “they like what they like” and easily follow the “suggestions” in the advertisement.”

“... parents do not fully understand potential commercial risks.” What exactly do they need to know to understand?

“... 13% of children of 9-13 years old realized that the aim of their favorite website is advertising. The majority of children thought the website aim was to entertain.”

“A rather hidden internet risk is the solicitation for background information of internet surfers.” So taking info from users.

“They are invited to respond to small surveys about their consumer behavior, their preferences, the extent to which they like a product.” Is there not ethics issues with this?

CONSEQUENCES OF UNSAFE INTERNET BEHAVIOR:

Some of the negative consequences of risky internet content include: aggression, fear, symptoms related to psychological trauma, negative self-image, identity confusion and emotional consequences.

“... one fourth of teenagers between 10 and 17 years old were upset due to exposure to harmful content.” “... 19% indicated they felt stressful during the days after the negative experience.”

“... a relationship between exposure of boys to sexual explicit content and their focus on females as lust objects.” So sexually explicit content can change behaviors in real life. “... correlations between exposure to sexual explicit content and attitudes about sex, respect for females, and the place of sex in a healthy relationship.”

“... 5% of the teenagers who felt being harassed via the internet also felt threatened or stressed (...) symptoms of a severe depression.”

“... significant positive relationship between a victim of cyber-bully and stress. Victims clearly felt less safe.”

“... 25% of teenagers who received a sexual solicitation via the internet were very upset, and expressed anxiety feelings.”

“The negative impact of offline contact (...) are hardly described in the literature.” So maybe an area to look into. “... higher risks related to their physical and socio-emotional health.”

TOWARDS SAFE INTERNET USE:

“... national governments installing a legislation to protect children.” What legislation is available in NZ?

The ‘Child Online Privacy Protection Act’: Is it valid in NZ?

“AN international legislative focus is needed: national laws can hardly tackle international illegal practices.” But still good to have.

- Awareness campaigns:

There are four main lines for this:

Fighting illegal or harmful content by setting national hotline networks.

Fighting harmful content by promoting filter software.

Installation of the Safer Internet Forum, brining together political and non-governmental organizations to promote safe internet use.

Organization of large scale awareness campaigns.

Main objects for a good campaign:

Fostering awareness of children, parents and teachers about safe internet use/ behaviour.

Starting national contact points to report illegal or harmful online content, with a focus on child abuse and grooming.

Promotion of self-regulation initiatives.

Stimulating children to set up themselves a safer internet environment.

Developing knowledge acquisition of children and teenagers about safe internet use, internet risks and promote collaborative research.

Click Safe Campaign in UK: was this active in NZ too?

- Filter software:

3 types of filter software: inclusion, exclusion and content filtering.

“... up to one third of parents installed filter softwares.” Were they free? Government provided? Will this amount still be the same?

“... 33% of the parents knew whether filter software was installed; 23% indicated they used monitoring software to check the surfing activities of their children; 20% of the parents was unaware of the purpose of filter software.”

“... the legislative actions installed in a number of countries that oblige schools to install filter software and to adopt Internet usage rules.” Does NZ have this legislation?

“... only 40% of the pupils confirmed that such rules have been established and communicated.” Why so low?

“Next to rules, schools can play an active role by introducing children to safer internet usage.”

“... despite school-invoked discussions about safe internet usage, children continued to adopt risky internet behavior.” Why? Rebellious?

“They also pointed out that this type of risky behavior might be part of the youth culture.” What is youth culture?

“... all authors stress the importance of this type of campaigns and actions. At the same time, little information was found about the impact of these approaches on the actual internet surfing behavior of young children.” 

RESEARCH DESIGN:

Offered a long-term perspective. A long-term cross-sectional research design study.

Wanted to find out “... whether newer generations of internet users reflect a safer internet usage profile.” So, do they?

Their main focuses were:

the quality of internet usage.

“the nature of actual internet usage”

“the content risks and contact risks reflected in internet usage.”

“the extent to which parents and schools have implemented restrictive and/or active mediation measures and how this impacts (un)safe internet use.”

- Research sample:

“... 10,000 pupils of the 4th, 5th, and 6th grade of 78 schools in Flanders were involved in this study.”

“A multi-stage sampling approach was adopted.”

- Research Instrument:

“... a pupil section and a school principal section.” So from more than just one perspective. Why not teachers though?

“On a five or seven-point Likert scale, they could indicate to what extent they did agree or disagree with a specific statement.”

Also five answer categories.

- Research procedure:

“Informed consent was obtained of the legal guardians of the pupils through the school principal.” So this is how they dealt with ethics.

“The school principal filled out the specific version of the instrument during the session with the pupils.” Would the principal not be biased and answer questions to make the school sound better?

- Statistical analysis:

“The Unsafe Internet Usage Index (UIUI) was calculated by adding together indicators referring to internet contact and content risks. For each variable of the UIUI index, a respondent could give a 1 or a 0 score...”

“A sum-score was calculated overall these variables, resulting in a new UIUI variable (maximum 10). This implies that a high UIUI score reflects a high level of Internet risk behavior and thus unsafe internet use.”

RESULTS:

- To what extent does internet usage of 4th, 5th, and 6th graders reflect unsafe internet use?

“Lower grades reflect a significantly higher level of risk behavior,” Due to personality? Rebelliousness?

“More and more children do not seem to know every person they are chatting with.”

“Children also seem to be less careful when it comes to passing address details to people online.”

“... the indicator “actually meeting someone face-to-face” is evidently a higher level risk.”

“Unsafe Internet Usage is also reflected in the extent youngsters are confronted with shocking content via the internet.”

- To what extent is there Internet Use Supervision at home and/or at school?

“...23.2% of all children reports never to be controlled and 23/6% reports to be hardly ever controlled, while accessing the internet.”

“...11.4% of the children reports never to be controlled and 10.2% reports to hardly ever while accessing the internet at school.”

“The reported level of parental control does not differ, depending on the grade level of the children.” You would think this would decrease with age.

- Is there a relationship between the level of control at home and at school and safe Internet use of 4th, 5th, and 6th graders?

“... teacher control is not a significant predictor of UIUI.”

“Parental control is hardly a negative predictor of risk behavior.”

DISCUSSION:

“... low usage of the internet in view of school related activities.” and “... a balance between entertainment-orientated use to a more functional use of the internet.” and “... a large proportion is linked to social use...”

The study points out that even though there was a substantial amount of money put into awareness campaigns, the risk behavior did not decrease. Why though? Not targeting the ones with the risk behavior?

So not a decrease, but not increase either. Need to be aware that campaigns are making young people aware and remember (since they have to be told again and again), and “... that each new group of internet users has to be paid attention to.”

“... have to be aware of the fact that the nature of the internet changes.” So new research needs to be done to cover this.

“The growth in social network tools and applications that invite users to exchange (...) has resulted in a whole new setting that has to be considered when setting up safe Internet initiatives.”

“Awareness campaigns should focus on these new types of risks.”

“They offer - from a developmental psychology perspective - valuable “opportunities for the representation of the self for learning, for construction a wide circle of relationships, and the management of privacy and intimacy.” (p.75)” Livingstone and brake (2009). Psychological reasoning why the web is good.

“But they also stress the risks and refer to children-at-risk in this area and that a “children’s rights” framework should be developed, starting from a clear evidence-based policy base.”

“... both parental and teacher control did not increase during recent years and that supervision is not (yet) an important predictor of (un)safe internet usage.”

“On the contrary, despite all the awareness campaigns, we observed no increase in reported control over the years.”

“... parents and their children might differ in their sensitivity to parental supervision and that this can become a barrier to enforcement of Internet monitoring.” Perception?

“This calls for more research focusing on the responses of youngsters on Internet regulation.”

“... supervision approaches incorporating sitting with or checking on the child while being online, the use of filters, and control of the sites did not result in a decrease in the risk of attending a face-to-face meeting with people they met online.”

“... importance of setting clear rules (control), which is most effective when combined with a sufficient level of parental warmth.”

“... parents discussing Internet safety, made teenagers more Internet safety conscious.”

“... teens do not perceive parental presence in their online practices.” what does this mean and what impact does it have?

“Parental regulation interpretation seems to depend on the types of Internet usage.” Yet again, what does this mean?

“... a family installing a privacy policy framework, results in a reduction of privacy risks on the Internet.”

“... teenagers who engage very intensively in the social usage of the Internet, parental supervision is less adequate to reduce the Internet privacy-risks.” So can’t reduce the risk completely?

“New technologies challenge both the relationships and the pace at which regulations have to be developed.”

“... parents reporting a high Internet literacy level seem to trust their children and hardly regulate Internet usage.” Why? would they not realize the dangers more?

LIMITATION, DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND CONCLUSIONS:

Because of age of respondents, their reading level could reflect their responses. So older would be better.

“Though contact risks already have a larger weight in the UIUI index, future research should focus on developing a UIUI index that balances the different types of risk.” will be using some form of the index - may not need to balance if focus is on contact.

“... new questions, risks, and problems have to be incorporated in the study...” Why it is important to do new studies.

Berson, I. R., & Berson, M. J. (2005).

I found this article very interesting as it really tried to look into what I was looking into. It tried to provide a reason for the risk behavior, saying that children and teens have not fully developed this skill. It emphasized that trying to navigate the cyberworld hinders this process even more as there is too many cues to keep up with. This study focused on adolescent girls in both the United States and New Zealand. Published in 2005, this article was written 12 years ago, so what has changed? Would these results be different now? As always, here are the most interesting facts and questions that came up:

“... youth must struggle to assume a proactive role in exerting their voice and influence as they connect with others.” What exactly does this mean for us?

“... who must not only master the tasks required by the tools but must also simultaneously function as part of a networked group as it shapes the social space in which it resides.” So not only learn and use SNSs, but be social in them too.

“Individual characteristics of young people can affect their readiness to participate in these social interactive experiences online.” What are these characteristics?

DEVELOPMENTAL FRAMEWORK:

“... children typically do not begin to attenuating to risk until middle childhood...” So they do not understand risk until a certain age.

“Even in the teen years, the ability to make informed life choices is still in a state of flux.” So even as teens, risk management and decision making is not fully developed.

Risk taking is:

Associated with personality traits. Which traits? Why does it make an impact?

“Learned behavior resulting from poor interaction in the family system.”

“... a developmental phenomenon in which a lack of experience leads to an error of judgement regarding level of risk (...) or in which a youth’s sense of invulnerability results in a failure to consider risk or the need to act in a deliberate way.”

“a failure to categorize actions as falling within the moral domain of behavior so that personal gain is emphasized over safety for self and others.”

“... multiplicity sensory inputs are demanding on cognitive resources and can overwhelm children’s capacity to engage in thoughtful decision making.” Can we rid rid of the multiplicity?

“... can interfere with reasoned choice, placing young people in a state of imbalance for recognizing risk or responding to threats. The resulting overload can reduce the ability of youth to make sense of what is presented or to respond in a judicious manner.” So children can’t see risk online.

“... young people may act or react without reflection on the implication for self and others.” So young people act without thinking about any consequences. “As a result, adolescents typically underestimate the influence of digital technologies on their behavior and potential for risk.”

“Influences are especially powerful when youth cannot readily perceive potential threats nor access skills to create a barrier from harm.”

“... virtual interaction provide limited access to the critical signals needed to differentiate safety from harm.”

“... young people may impulsively act and react in cyberspace without forethought to the influence of powerful sensations and may be easily lured by the artificial distinctions between virtual encounters and real-life activity.”

“Electronic communication had been used to bully, harass, threaten, and exploit victims.” Why is it being used for this? How can we stop it?

“... models to predict the likelihood to engage in at-risk activities online that may be associated with subsequent violence and/or exploitation.” What are these models? What do they tell us?

Risks identified include: “online stalking, obscene interactions including unsolicited exposure to pornographic material, spamming, flaming, hate speech, threats of violence, unwanted advances, consumer exploitation and sexual predation.”

“Exposure to internet violence may also transcend into real-life abuse...” Why does it link up?

METHOD:

- Procedure:

“Comparative analyses were conducted with data gathered from online surveys that were completed by adolescent girls in the United States (...) and New Zealand.”

“Participants completed a 19-item questionnaire that included multiple-choice and open-ended questions.”

- Participants:

“... adolescent girls were a particularly high-risk group for exploitation and victimization...” They may be at risk, but what about boys?

“... 10,800 females for the U.S. sample and 347 females for the New Zealand sample.”

- Data Analysis:

Predictors for harm: “Sharing personal information, engaging in threatening or sexually suggestive communication, meeting in the real world with online acquaintances.”

Predictors for risk mediators: “... preventative activities (supervision, education, discussion) by significant adults (parents and teachers)...”

RESULTS:

- Online Habits:

“... 50% spent less than 6 hours online weekly compared to 44% of the New Zealand respondents.” So this group of NZers spent more time online than the USers. Would this still be the same now?

“New Zealand girls exceeded their U.S. counterparts in the percent online for over 10 hours per week (33% vs 27%).”

- Patterns of interaction online:

“The at-risk activity of disclosing personal information was more prevalent among the U.S. respondents (59% vs 34%), but actually meeting or agreeing to meet someone as a result of an online interaction was nearly twice as common among New Zealand girls compared to U.S. participants (24% vs 12%).” So U.S. at more risk online, but NZ more risk offline.

“... respondents described their online immersion into a culture of deception where activities involved the exchange of verbally harassing or sexually suggestive chat. In contrast, other young women used online dialogue as a way to empower themselves and to find a voice.” So people see he cyberworld differently.

“in cyberspace, the pressures to fit in and to act a certain way were moderated by the pseudoanonymity and perceived security of being protected behind the computer screen, often in the comfort and safety of one’s home.”

“... shed their traditional expectations and explore alternate aspects of themselves.” A reason why the web is good.

- Supervision of online activities:

“In both countries, the percentage of adults monitoring the use of the internet was quite small...” Perceived monitoring maybe? Why is this so low?

“... discussing or reading about internet safety, almost 16% more U.S. girls discussed these issues with a parent, guardian, or caregiver than did respondents from New Zealand.” Why the big difference?

“Comparable number of girls from each study engaged in discussions with teachers regarding appropriate use of digital technologies and resources in cyberspace.” as well as friends.

“... significant difference between the samples with regard to who discussed their online activities with their siblings...” Did they take into consideration if they had no siblings?

“... who reported that they had never received any instruction or information about internet safety...” Higher in the U.S.

- Development of a profile of challenging behaviors in cyberspace:

“... as adolescent girls get older, the odds of agreeing to risky behavior increases, as 17- to 18-year-olds are almost four times more likely to meet a stranger than are 12- to 13-year-olds.” Why? Do they feel safer? Less parental restrictions?

“... 15- and 16-year-olds were found to be the most vulnerable.”

“The 14- to 16-year-old age groups (...) accounted for 68% of the risks.” So maybe they should be targeted?

“... time spent online and the probability of engaging in risky activities.” Exponential again?

“Internet misconduct may become increasingly prevalent as youth expand their use of the internet.”

Advice and counselling influences the likelihood of agreeing to meet a stranger. From whom was this advice and counselling received from? “... of the girls who agreed to a face-to-face meeting with strangers, none had discussed Internet safety with parents or caregivers.” Likewise, those who had discussed had reduced odds of engaging in risky behavior. So discussions are important!

“... direct supervision, periodic monitoring, and ongoing discussions with adults...” leads to less risky online activity.

DISCUSSION:

- Limitations:

It is a secondary analysis.

“A measure of the severity of risk also would be valuable in further developing he model of challenging behavior.”

- Preventative interventions for responsible choice and prosocial skills in a digital world:

“... people often make online choices that are contrary to their real world behaviors.” So we may act differently online to how we act in the real world. Why?

“As young people spend increased amounts of time online, there is increased risk for exposure to violence and/or exploitation.” But also positive aspects, right?

“Identity deception is an inherent part of online communication and transformations can have positive and negative repercussions for youth who also experiment with self-constructed and fluid identity online.”

“The deindividuation that occurs online is associated with a tendency to diminish self-regulation and to engage in disinhibited behavior.” What is disinhibited behavior?

“... a tendency to share more intimate disclosure.” So people can more easily have intimate relationships online.

Reasons for poor decision making online: “The lack of effective feedback and remoteness from the impact of harm, the reduced fear of punishment, the disregard of existing rules in the new context of cyberspace, and the perception of pervasive corruption online.”

“... provide growing temptations for misuse...”

How to prepare children: “... early preparatory experience that engage a child in assessing risky situations, developing appropriate coping techniques, and practicing responses to problematic situations...”

“... youth are unlikely to heed simplistic cautions and authoritative rules.”

“Instead, comprehensive education for safety awareness needs to be introduced as part of a broader internet safety program.” Do we have this now in New Zealand?

“... they need instruction in interpreting behavioral cues and improving their conflict resolution skills.”

“... harm avoidance can be best achieved when sensation-seeking behaviors are minimized.” What are sensation-seeking behaviors?

“... because fear of repercussions is diminished, it is necessary to enhance the effectiveness of the cognitive components of empathy through prevention programs designed to safeguard youth online.”

“Raising the sensitivity of young people to how their online communications may impact other appears to be an essential component of educational programs to prevent harmful online communication.”

“We cannot help our own youth to achieve competency with digital technology trough rote learning of basic rules or amid filtered environments that set up conditions that fail to optimize use of their intellectual capital.” So rule making and straight up protection from the environment does not work.

“Young people need opportunities to create, test, and revise their constructs about online environments.”

“... build their skills through a carefully crafted learning environment that supports them in this endeavor.”

- Concluding thoughts: