CSC 379:Week 5, Group 6

From Expertiza_Wiki
Revision as of 19:34, 3 August 2007 by Jjpittar (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Safety and Internet Social Networks

Overview

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.

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.

...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

Parental Oversight and Education

Legislation

DOPA COPPA

Ethical Considerations

Examine the ethical implications of laws that restrict use of social networking services and other internet-based software on the basis of age or criminal record (such as for sex offenders). What are the advantages of these laws and what are the trade-offs for the prospect of increased safety that these laws promise? What are some difficulties in judging the effectiveness of these laws? How does dangerous use of internet social networks by society relate to other dangerous uses of software? When may legislation be appropriate to control use of software by members of society?

Relevant External Links

Retrieved from "https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_5,_Group_6&oldid=2091"