CSC 379:Week 5, Group 6

Safety and Internet Social Networks

Overview

Internet social network sites are services designed to link together communities of people, often those with similar interests, backgrounds, or goals. They usually require a user to sign up and create a profile to represent him or herself, and on the profile the user may usually include pictures, personal background, lists of interests and friends, and even music. The sites also offer multiple ways in which users may interact with each other, including chatting, messaging, blogging, video and voice chat, and sharing music or other files. Popular examples of internet social network sites include MySpace, Facebook, LiveJournal, Flickr, orkut, and Last.fm.

The rapid growth of these sites has led to a growing concern over the safety issues inherent in disseminating information about oneself online. Of particular concern is the use of social networking sites by children and young teenagers who may be vulnerable to sexual predators who use the sites to find victims. The site MySpace in particular has come under increased scrutiny after several high-profile cases in which men molested underage girls they met using the site. To limit use by children, many sites institute an age limit for members; MySpace's age limit, for example, is 14. However, these limits are largely not enforced, and it is therefore easy for an underage child or teenager to sign up by falsifying his or her age. Because of concern over this issue, advocates have proposed a number of possible solutions to increase the safety of internet social networks.

Some, however, think the danger associated with social networking sites is not as large as recent media attention portrays it to be. A recent study published in the Journal of Adolescence found that most MySpace users under the age of 18 guarded their personal information to varying degrees. According to the researchers, "when considered in its proper context, these results indicate that the problem of personal information disclosure on MySpace may not be as widespread as many assume, and that the overwhelming majority of adolescents are responsibly using the website."

Solutions

Limit Access in Public Places

Idea
Limit or eliminate the ability of individuals to access social networking sites in public places, such as schools or libraries, as in the Deleting Online Predator's Act of 2006

Rationale and Arguments
Proponents of this approach often cite that while the primary duty to protect and educate children falls with parents, locations such as schools and libraries are places where minors often lack parental supervision, and access to social networking sites should be limited to locations where parents can monitor the activity of their children. Schools and libraries, they further contend, are places of education, and while this approach often allows exemptions for the educational study of social networking, government-maintained computers and public institutions of education are not the appropriate place for online socialization. Also, they note that while the current availability of the Internet in libraries makes the resources of cyberspace available to all, it also provides the the questionable resource of a free, quick, simple, and wide-reaching way for adults to contact minors through social networks. Limitation of social networking sites in the public, it is argued, would at least make such access and contact somewhat more difficult, while leaving the majority of the benefits of the Internet intact.

Opponents of this approach question how much it would truly accomplish in keeping so-called "predators" at bay, as well as the true cost for such limited gains. They point out that preventing those who target children from accessing social networking sites in libraries does not prevent them from finding other ways to gain access - at home, work, or with friends. Also, while carefully limiting the behavior of children when outside of parental supervision seems a good idea in principle, a significant problem arises in attempting to legislate precisely what constitutes a "social networking site." While such sites are easily recognizable by those familiar with the technology, the current legislative definition, per the DOPA, would potentially limit access to a number of websites generally agreed to not be of a social networking nature, including Yahoo!, Slashdot, and perhaps, in the future, even Google. The implication of this fact would be to severely mitigate, if not essentially nullify entirely, the value of offering public access to the Internet in libraries at all.

Legality
This approach to promoting safety on social networking sites appears to be entirely legal, a point underwritten by the fact that there is presently an act in Congress with the aim of making this particular approach into a federal law. The only presently reasonably foreseeable challenge to the law on Constitutional grounds would be the broad but historically ineffectual assertion that the tenth amendment to the Constitution prohibits federal involvement in schools and libraries.

Require Age, Consent or Identity Verification via Credit Card

Idea
This approach to ensuring safety on social networking sites would require users to submit credit card information upon signing up for the service. This information would guarantee any of a number of data about a user, such as age, the possession of informed parental consent, or the validity of identity information displayed on the site. Variations on this approach include the use of debit cards or bank accounts in addition to credit cards.

Rationale and Arguments
The idea of requiring users of social networking sites to submit valid information is nothing new. At present, no system exists which compels users to definitively verify much if anything about themselves. Some social networking sites, such as Facebook, have preliminary checks to help ensure that a member really is from a particular area or academic institution, but for the most part these measures are easily circumvented. Proponents of requiring the entry of credit card information to sign up for social networking sites claim that this approach would provide a more effective manner of verifying identity than any measures currently in place, and would not require the establishment of any new identification system. Presentation of credit card information, they argue, would require that adults use their true names and ages when signing up for the site, and that minors have true parental consent, in order to create a social networking profile. Thus, parents would be kept more informed about their children's online behavior, and online predators would be easier to identify and monitor, screen, or eliminate from the service, as they would not be able to hide behind aliases. Additionally, potential first-time offenders would not be able to mislead minors about their identities, as names and ages of cardholders would be verifiable.

Opponents of this approach, however, adamantly insist that it would do more harm than good. As with all legislative approaches, the problem exists of legally defining precisely what constitutes a social networking site. Perhaps more importantly, current wide definitions of social networks would require a user to submit credit card information to a wealth of websites, putting him or her at risk for unauthorized transactions by unscrupulous employees or hackers, and perhaps even identity theft. Companies would also have to shoulder the burden of storing and securing databases of very sensitive information, and would most likely be liable for breaches. Further, this approach would unfairly exclude from social networks all adults who had no credit card or bank account, and all children of such adults, as well. While adults who signed up for social networking services would in theory have their identities verified, many point out that children, especially teens, are fully (if not legitimately) capable of obtaining a parent's credit card information either without informing the parent of the purpose, or entirely without consent. While this fault does ultimately reside with the parent, it nonetheless poses a significant challenge to those who claim that parental oversight of social networking activity would be achieved by means of credit card entry.

Legality
Though perhaps unwise, this policy does seem to be legal. Any institution can require the submission of credit information, if by no other means than simply charging a trivial fee for its services.

Require Age, Consent, or Identity Verification via National Identification

Idea
This approach would require the establishment of a national identification card program to cover United States citizens. Potential members of social networking sites would submit their identification number and confirming password or PIN, and identity information on the site would correspond to the information in a national database associated with that individual. In the event that a minor signed up for such a site, consent would ideally be obtained directly from the parent or guardian directly from the social networking organization.

Rationale and Arguments
Arguments both for and against establishing identity through a national identification system largely parallel their counterparts for and against establishing identity by means of credit card information. Proponents of this approach specifically indicate that four distinct advantages present themselves in the national identification scheme over the credit card scheme. Firstly, if all individuals were to have an identification card, then it would not be difficult for those without credit cards or bank accounts, or their children, to use social networking sites. Further, the information presented by minors to such sites would be accurate - something that cannot be guaranteed by the credit card system, as minors are not cardholders. Parental consent would also be less subject to circumvention, as children would be ostensibly less likely to give fraudulent consent when the parent was contacted directly - perhaps by phone, postal mail, or email - rather than when mere possession of a credit card. Finally, the risk of the theft of credit information would not be present in a system which did not retain that information at all.

Opponents, however, see more danger in the proposal of a national identity program alone, notwithstanding its use for social networking sites, than in the idea of using credit information to verify social networking information. National identification at all, they argue, would be a dangerous step in the direction of tighter government monitoring of American citizens, and would eventually mean the renunciation of further precepts of privacy, whether they be rights or privileges. Additionally, a centralized federal database of identity information, as well as the association of this information with numerous social networking accounts, would place users at perhaps an even greater risk for identity theft than any other safety scheme herein discussed. The registration of minors in particular poses an entirely different set of concerns, largely unrelated to this topic. It would be likely, as well, that any national identification program would be used, as social security numbers are now, for a number of different purposes relating to private information, meaning that a failure in the security of a social networking site could lead to a host of other problems for the site's users. Possession of parental consent by minors, while more likely than in the credit card scheme, would neither be guaranteed by these means. Undoubtedly, however, the most daunting problem with this idea is the establishment of a national identity program itself, which would most likely have to be government-mandated in order to ensure accuracy. Finally, it is doubtful that this would provide a complete fix to the problem, as most social networking sites are open to locations outside of the United States, which would be unaffected by any identity confirmation requirements in this nation, as when a teen from Michigan traveled to the nation of Jordan to meet someone with whom she was acquainted on a social network.

Legality
While no specific legislation exists to prohibit this particular approach, previous attempts to begin a national identification card program has met with significant opposition, both from private organizations and from the states, and would probably be challenged in the courts if enacted.

Restricting or Prohibiting Access...

Overview of Idea
The central idea for forcibly protecting the safety of minors on social networking sites is to limit access to such sites by those considered most likely to become potential victims, or those most likely to become potential abusers, or both. While this eliminates the risk of potentially unsafe incidents between these two groups, it raises serious questions, as well. Of course, moreover, the ability to block a specific portion of the population from social networking sites also requires that their computer usage be tracked and monitored, an idea alone with which many people take issue. Either a suspiciously Orwellian technological solution or vast armies of parole officers would be necessary for a number of the suggestions below.

...by Age
Due to the Children's Online Privacy and Protection Act, children under the age of 13 cannot sign up for memberships to any website without "verifiable" parental consent. Myspace, one of the major online social networking sites, requires its users to be at least 14 years of age, or rather, to report that they are at least 14 years of age, to register for an account. However, many wonder if this age limit is too low - whether 14-year-olds can fully grasp the possible repercussions of exposing personal data - everything from one's likes and dislikes, to a list of friends, to potentially exploitable photographs - online. There have been suggestions to raise this limit to anywhere between sixteen and eighteen. While this change would manifest a significant negative impact on the business and user base of several social networking sites, it would certainly put younger children out of harm's way. More importantly, however, is the statement that imposing this limit by means of legislation would make about children's rights, and the right of parents to govern their child's behavior as they see fit. Children's rights, relative to adults, are curtailed, to be sure. How many activities, however, purely innocent and recreational if not for the few who exploit the system, must the government legislate away in the name of safety? Do they truly have the right to do so? On the other hand, if it prevents abductions or abuse, does the question of authority really matter? More immediately, however, is the question of how, without a national ID card program, children who desire to use social networks can be expected to report their actual ages.

...by Felons
By law, individuals who commit a felony already forfeit a number of their rights as United States citizens, such as the right to vote or to hold certain political offices. It has been suggested that future social networking legislation also force felons to forfeit the right to create or use a social networking account. Essentially, the thinking behind this approach reasons that commission of a felony may be a "risk factor" for exploitation of children online - that felons are more likely than law-abiding citizens to be or to become online predators. Unfortunately, this is largely unsubstantiated, especially for those whose infractions have no relation to child exploitation or cyber-crime. Opponents argue that the punishment of prohibition of online social networking does not universally fit felony crimes. Thus, this policy might be challenged as "unusual" punishment on a Constitutional basis.

...by the Mentally Ill
Much as with the commission of a felony, some believe there to be a correlation between severe mental illness and the tendency to exploit or abuse minors. In fact, it has been argued that the desire to sexually abuse children in and of itself constitutes a mental illness. In many states, those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and thus judged to be a danger to themselves or others, are prohibited from owning a firearm. The idea has been brought forth that these people, having already been judged by professionals to be a danger in some capacity, be barred from social networking sites, as they there could pose a new sort of danger to the site's members. This is somewhat more accepted than the idea of banning all felons, as mental illness more closely relates to sociopathic or unpredictable behavior than does the commission of most crimes, but some still see it as the repression of a group whose members need more help than regulation.

...by the Domestically Violent
Prohibition of the domestically violent from using social networking sites has been suggested, not so much as a means of protecting the young, but of protecting anyone, minor or adult, with whom an unstable person might enter into a potentially dangerous relationship. As with most restrictions on the domestically violent, this would most likely be a temporary ban for a court-determined duration. Opponents contend that there is little to no precedent for such a ban, and that domestic violence does not necessarily correlate with negative behavior in online social networks, but there have been cases where the domestically violent were forbidden from relationships, and so this option is not unthinkable. However, this would most likely be applied on a case-by-case basis than as a general rule.

..by Sexual Offenders
Of all the proposals to ensure the safety of social network users by government means, this plan, many would agree, receives the least opposition. It is well-known that those with a history of sexual violence are prone to repeat episodes, and social networking sites provide an easy, free forum for sexual offenders to meet, trail, and target potential victims. Voluntarily, Myspace recently canceled the accounts of thousands of registered sex offenders, indicating that legislation is not necessary for action to be taken on this front. LiveJournal, a web-blog site with social networking capabilities, recently deleted numerous blogs which advocated pedophilia. If if unburdened by any sincere concern for the safety of their members, social networking sites have reason to fear a flurry of bad publicity and public outcry against them if they do not take action against known sexual offenders, both by individuals and by citizen's advocacy groups such as Perverted Justice. However, there is considerable push to forcibly legislate the prohibition of sexual offenders from social networks entirely. Opponents claim that this would not render social networks a "safe place," for first-time offenders would be left unchecked by this policy, but because of the grievous nature of sex crimes, the nature of social network abuse, and the fact that there already exists a system to track and monitor these individuals, it is unlikely to face strong resistance. Recently, Kentucky required sex offenders in its borders to register their electronic communication addresses with the state, specifically for use by social networking sites for cross-checks and account cancellations. Of course, only the most extreme forms of this solution or the coupling of this solution with a form of guaranteed identification would prevent these offenders from registering with aliases, but to most, prohibiting such heinous criminals from using social networks seems like a step in the right direction. Others, however, point to the large degree to which the liberty which former sexual offenders surrender, and wonder whether banning these people from Internet sites is in fact a step toward oppression.

Limitation of Posted and Available Information by Age

Idea
Given a way to verify the ages of social network subscribers, organizations could limit the nature of the information which younger users could put online, or the nature of the information that they could obtain from other users, thus making their presence on social networking sites less conspicuous to abusers.

Rationale and Arguments This approach addresses two facets of online networks which make victims and abusers prone to interaction. Acknowledging that sexual predators will find ways to use social networks - even in defiance of law and security measures - limiting the amount and type of information placed in social network profiles by age attempts to make younger victims less accessible, perhaps less attractive, and hopefully less vulnerable to sexual predators. For instance, given that people are more likely to be attracted - perversely or not - to people whom they can see, younger users of social networking sites could be prohibited from posting photographs. Given, also, that younger children may not understand what is or is not appropriate online or is or is not likely to attract sexual predators, they could be prohibited from posting blogs in which they may chronicle their days, or their profiles could be scanned algorithmically for personally identifying information, which could be automatically removed. Also, many online services, though no major social networking sites, have parental control settings by which younger users may be forbidden from direct contact with all but a specifically approved whitelist of friends. Thus, younger children would retain the ability to use social networking sites, but several of the factors which may make them likely to be targeted by abusers - visual attractiveness, availability for activities such as stalking, personal identification of or with the victim, and personal contact for developing a relationship with, or "grooming" of, the victim, would be eliminated. As level of site availability would be controlled by age, young users would have the same sort of access as their friends, allowing social networks to continue to be used for many of the same benign purposes as they are today, while hopefully reducing the tendency of their exploitation for illegal activity.

Opponents of this approach contend that limiting social networking sites' function for younger users may also limit their appeal, and lead to the downfall of this form of communication. Further, they point out that to stratify social network access by age, one must first successfully and accurately identify the ages of the users, which is not currently possible and would ostensibly require a system such as the national identification card suggestion, above, which would have its own set of inherent fixes to the problem of social network abuse. Thus, this approach is often lambasted as being either ineffectual, or, if accommodations are made for its implementation, superfluous.

Parental Oversight and Education

Idea
Those intent on the abuse or exploitation of children will always - despite legal requirements or other forms of deterrence - find a way to work towards their perverse goals. Social networking sites are one forum for these attempts at the exploitation of the young. No matter what the government may enact or legislate, responsibility rests with the parents to raise and educate their children in such a way that they are informed, able, and have an active desire to avoid potentially compromising situations online.

Rationale and Arguments
The responsibility to raise, instill values upon, and protect a child ultimately rests with the parents. Social networking sites, and the Internet in general, are a forum about which parents are often ignorant, but in today's world wherein these activities form such significant portions of children's social lives, and wherein such damage can be done to children, many boldly claim that this ignorance is a failure of parenting. Parents need to remain informed about their children's online habits and behavior, and need to instruct their children in what is and is not appropriate online to do online. Parents should instill in their children a desire to behave appropriately, whether on social networking sites or otherwise. Much as children are taught not to accept candy or rides from strangers, parents should issue grave warnings about the dangers of the social networking world. This is not to say that meeting an individual online is inherently bad, but children need to know, and desire to avoid, behaviors which will attract those with impure motives. If parents can raise their children in such a value system that they understand that private information is to be kept private, that the Internet isn't necessarily, but can be dangerous place for too much to be said about oneself, that provocative or sexually suggestive photographs are not something to be appreciated and that their sentiments to something to be emulated, that the provision of hundreds of photos of oneself to the public world is perhaps vanity, and that social networking users carefully judge the character of those with whom they come into contact, there would be little need for government legislation. After all, sexual predators are much less likely to find users who do not offer visual stimulation, often freely given today in the form of entirely inappropriate photographs on public social networking sites of ever-younger children. If a child, further, refuses to communicate with a predator, then no danger exists, even with unrestricted and unlegislated use of social networking sites. If children do not understand or value behavior by which they can protect themselves online, then parents have a duty to protect them, and to raise them in such a way that they will eventually be able to make positive ethical choices for the safe, productive, and fun use of social networks.

Few reasonable citizens oppose the idea that parents should raise their children with the knowledge and desire to protect themselves online. However, opponents of featuring this approach simply point out that it is not enough, alone, to protect minors on social networking sites. Parents, too often, are uninformed about or uninterested in protecting their children. Others lack the background, knowledge, or desire to raise and care for their children appropriately. Were this not the case, the vast majority of child protection legislation would be unnecessary, and the Departments of Social Services of every state would have no reason to exist. However, merely because one has a child does not mean that one is a good parent, and many point out how relying solely on parents to protect children from the dangers of social networking sites may be entirely unreliable and naive. In short, though it is unfortunate, the truth is that many parents are inept, especially in the realm of technology into which social networking sites fall. While the government cannot legislate the rearing of a child, child protection legislation is routinely needed as a safeguard against the parenting shortcomings of adults.

Legality The raising of children in a way to make them aware and conscientious of the dangers which social networking sites can potentially pose hardly intersects with the concerns of legality. Legal questions do arise, however, when a parent fails, through a lack of instruction, care, ability, or for some other reason, to protect their child from harm. The degree to which the state should be involved is a hotly debated and deeply personal question, but few disagree that when parents fail, legal measures, whether legislation or litigation, are necessary for the protection of minors.

Legislation

Children's Online Privacy Protection Act(1998) - Requires "verifiable parental consent" for the collection of personal data from children under 13 years of age.

Deleting Online Predators Act(2006) - Would require schools and libraries receiving federal funding to prohibit the use of chat rooms or very broadly-defined social networking sites for anything but strictly educational use.

Untitled Georgia bill concerning online predators(2007) - Would require that social networking sites get consent of a minor child's parent before that child could create or maintain a social networking profile, and would require that the parent be given full access to said profile.

North Carolina Protect Children from Sexual Predators Act(2007)(Video) - Would require parental consent and access for social networking sites of users under 16, and would prohibit convicted sexual offenders from using social networking sites.

Oklahoma HB1715(2007) - Would require adult supervision for access of the Internet by minor children in libraries, and the blocking of social networking sites on library computers.

Illinois Social Networking Prohibition Act(2007) - Would require schools and libraries to block all access to social networking sites.

Kentucky SB65(2007) - Requires all registered sex offenders to submit their email and instant messaging addresses for cross-referencing with the user rolls of social networking sites.

Table of Contents