Support the AWARE Act

March 11, 2010

The Adolescent Web Awareness Requires Education (AWARE) Act of 2009 is again under review in congress, and it matters to all of us that it passes.

Proposed by Florida State Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and supported by a companion bill from Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the AWARE Act will help create quality internet safety curriculum, and educate students and teachers on responsible, effective internet safety and ethics training across the country.

We are facing a crisis of ignorance about safe and responsible online use, and it’s one that will only be remedied through strong, quality education. New research from Staysafe Online U.S. K‐12 Cyberethics, Cybersafety and Cybersecurity Curriculum highlights the shocking lack of education for students and teachers, for more information about the lack of internet safety education in schools, read my blog Huge Gaps Exist in Internet Safety Education.

Unfortunately, there are special interest groups opposing this Act, some even among the internet safety proponents who have their own agenda. This is regrettable as our families, schools, and most of all our students need the AWARE Act to pass.

Below is a letter of support signed by 25 organizations, companies, and key professors urging Congress to pass this bill. Lend your voice to this cause.

The time to act is now. Contact your state representatives and senators and let them know of your support.

Linda

March 4, 2010

The Honorable Bobby Scott, Chairman
The Honorable Louie Gohmert, Ranking Member
House Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
U.S. House of Representatives
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 3630, the Adolescent Web Awareness Requires Education Act of 2009

Dear Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Gohmert:

On behalf of the undersigned organizations and thought leaders dedicated to educating parents, children, and educators about Internet safety and new media literacy, we thank and commend the Crime Subcommittee for holding a hearing last Fall on cyber-bullying and other online dangers. We strongly support swift passage of H.R. 3630, the Adolescent Web Awareness Requires Education Act of 2009 (“AWARE Act”). This urgently needed legislation will equip parents and teachers with tools to teach children how to safely, securely and ethically use the Internet. It will also support peer-driven Internet safety initiatives and develop public education campaigns to promote awareness of online risks and improve the health of young people.

Educators and parents must be prepared to help children learn how to navigate the digital media world, find and use age-appropriate and educational material and best avoid dangers while online. Indeed, federal law currently requires schools receiving E-Rate funding to provide Internet safety education to students. However, it also prohibits E-Rate funding from being used to provide that education. State and local agencies place the majority of responsibility of teaching Internet safety on educators who are simply unprepared to provide this education. As a result, students receive little to no education on safe and ethical Internet use. The AWARE Act helps fill this gap.

The AWARE Act is carefully crafted and bipartisan. The legislation establishes a grant program through which state education agencies (SEAs), local education agencies (LEAs) and nonprofit organizations will compete for funding. Because the program is both competitive and collaborative, it will promote innovative approaches and safeguard against ineffective and outdated methods.

The legislation contains tough accountability and transparency measures for grantees that are among the most stringent of any legislation providing funding for a federal grant program. Grant seekers must not only describe goals and target populations for education before receiving funds, but also publish annual reports analyzing their success or failure. The legislation requires that federal agencies modify grant guidance within six months of receiving these reports to make sure the most effective programs are being used.

The legislation further requires annual reports to Congress so that policy makers understand grantee findings, program effectiveness and best practices. Another key pillar of accountability in implementing the grant program is the use of research in both front-end and ongoing research and evaluation. We believe the accountability and transparency measures in the AWARE Act serve as a model for future legislation. Support for H.R. 3630, the Adolescent Web Awareness Requires Education Act of 2009

As a final measure of accountability, we strongly recommend any legislation sent to the President contain focused inter-agency cooperation. Specifically, the grant programs administered by the Department of Justice should be implemented in cooperation with the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services. This focused inter-agency cooperation is good public policy. Better understanding the concerns related to youth risk online requires collaboration and sharing insight at all levels, including government, nonprofit, academia and industry.

Congress can most immediately and effectively impact potential online risks by enacting Internet safety and digital media literacy measures in schools to prevent harm from occurring in the first place. We know that infusing basic online safety and digital citizenship messages for all students at the K-12 level is critical.

Education builds lessons for a lifetime. Until educators are fully immersed in the new digital reality of today’s students, we need legislation like the AWARE Act to enhance the skills of educators, transform the traditional role of classroom teaching, and provide students with hands-on opportunities to use technology safely and ethically for generations to come.

Thank you for your consideration of our views. We look forward to working with you and your staff on this important issue as legislation moves forward in the House.

Respectfully Submitted,

cc: Members of the House Committee on the Judiciary
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Rep. John Culberson Support for H.R. 3630, the Adolescent Web Awareness Requires Education Act of 2009

  • Marsali Hancock, President, Internet Keep Safe Coalition
  • Frederick S. Humphries, Jr., Managing Director, U.S. Government Affairs, Microsoft Corporation
  • Pablo Chavez, Managing Policy Counsel, Google
  • Tekedra M. Jefferson, Senior Vice President, Global Public Policy AOL Inc.
  • Tim Sparapani, Director, Public Policy Facebook
  • David Hantman, Vice President, Global Public Policy Yahoo! Inc.
  • Peter Davidson, Senior Vice President, Federal Government Relations, Verizon
  • Vonya B. McCann, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, Sprint
  • Hemanshu Nigam, Chief Security Officer, MySpace News Corporation
  • Linda Criddle, President LOOKBOTHWAYS Inc. & President Safe Internet Alliance
  • Kyle McSlarrow, President & CEO, National Cable & Telecommunications Association
  • Steve Largent, President & CEO CTIA, – The Wireless Association
  • Todd Thibodeaux, President & CEO, CompTIA
  • James P. Steyer, Founder & CEO, Common Sense Media
  • Stephen Balkam, CEO, Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI)
  • Judi Westberg Warren, President & CEO, Web Wise Kids
  • Michael Rich, MD, MPH “The Mediatrician”, Director, Center on Media and Child Health (CMCH), Director, Video Intervention/Prevention Assessment (VIA)
  • Children’s Hospital Boston, Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School
  • Associate Professor of Society, Human Development, and Health, Harvard School of Public Health
  • Jonathan Cohen, Ph.D, President & Co-Founder, The Center for Social and Emotional Education (CSEE),  Adjunct Professor in Psychology & Education, Columbia University
  • Adjunct Professor in Education, City University of New York
  • Davina Pruitt-Mentle, Ph.D. Director Educational Technology Policy, Research and Outreach Curriculum and Instruction STEM & C3 Initiatives
  • Amanda Fitzgerald, Director of Public Policy, American School Counselor Association
  • Benny Ellerbe, Executive Directo,r Optimist International
  • Oli Thordarson, Chairman of the Board, Technology Leadership PAC
  • Scott Dow, CEO, Woogie World, Inc., Children’s Way Foundation
  • John Palfrey, Law Professor, Harvard Law School
  • Denise Tayloe, President, Privacy Vaults Online, Inc.

Comments Off | Linda's Blog | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by reallylooksbothways

Mobile Phone Tip – Safer mobile transactions

March 6, 2010

If you use your phone’s browser to pay your bills, access your bank account of other medical or personal accounts and information, make sure you protect your phone with password or PIN (personal identification number) lock or password.

This is important because your phone’s browser may store website access and account information (usernames, passwords) locally. If you keep your phone PIN or password locked, even if you lose your phone or it is stolen, no one will be able to access your browser and through it gain access to your personal or financial information.

When creating PINs or passwords do not use dates, years, ages or other information associated with you, as these are too easy to guess.

Strong account passwords use at least 10 characters, and include capitals, characters and numbers, but they do not have to be hard to remember. To make it easy, use a phrase, incorporate shorthand, or use the website to give you clues:

  • 2BorNot2B? (To be or not to be, that is the question)
  • It’s@MyBank (It is at my bank) – Use what you are looking at as a reminder.
  • Matt6:9-13 (Biblical verse)

Stay safer!

Linda

Comments Off | Linda's Blog | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by reallylooksbothways

Stats on Broadband Adoption and Use in America

March 5, 2010

The Federal Communications Commission conducted a survey in October- November 2009 to understand the State of broadband adoption and use in America, as well as barriers facing those who do not have broadband at home. Some of the key survey findings include:

  • 78% of adults are Internet users, whether that means broadband, dial-up, access from home or access from someplace other than home
  • 74 percent of adults have internet access at home.
  • 65% of American adults use high-speed Internet con­nections to go online from home
  • 6% use dial-up Internet connections as their main form of home access.
  • 6%  are Internet users but do not use it from home; they access the Internet from places such as work, the library or community centers.

The main dividing lines for broadband access fall along socioeconomic dimensions such as income and education.

  • Education’s impact on adoption rates:
    • 46% of adults whose highest level of education is a high school degree are broadband users at home
    • 82% of adults who have attended or graduated from college are broadband users at home.
    • Income’s impact on adoption rates:
      • 40% broadband adoption among households with low income Americans – with income below $20,000
      • 52% broadband adoption among households with incomes at or below $50,000
      • 87% of adoption among households with incomes above $50,000
      • 91% adoption among households with annual incomes over $75,000.

Ethnicity’s impact on broadband access

African-Americans broadband access

African-Americans trail the average in broadband access, although gaps have narrowed since early 2009.

  • 59% of African-Americans have broadband at home, but this varies greatly by age:
    • 75% of young African-Americans (30 or younger) have broadband – matching the national average.
    • Senior African Americans however only have 21% broadband adoption (35% avg)
    • With respect to barriers to adoption, 42 percent of African-Americans say cost is the main reason they do not have broadband.

For African-Americans, online access is, relative to the average, somewhat less oriented to home high-speed wireline access and more focused on mobile Internet. Nearly three in five (59 percent) African-Americans have broadband at home, but 39 percent have used the Internet on their mobile handheld device. For African-Americans, home broadband adoption trails the national average by six percentage points; for mobile Internet use, African-Americans outpace the national average by nine percentage points.

Hispanics broadband access

Hispanics trail the average in broadband access, although gaps have narrowed since early 2009.

  • 49% of Hispanics have broadband at home, but this varies greatly by whether or not they speak English:
    • 20% of Hispanics who took the survey in Spanish have broad­band.
    • 65% of Hispanics who opted to take the survey in English, have broadband.
    • Only 57% of young Hispanics (30 or younger) have broadband, far below the 75% avg.
    • As to adoption barriers, 52% of Hispanic non-adopters cite cost, equally split between those who point to the monthly fee and those who say they cannot afford a computer.

The adoption gap for Hispanics is most acute among young adults. Some 57% of Hispanics between the ages of 18 – 29 have broadband, more than 20 points below the average. And 53% of those between the ages of 30-49 have broadband, 25 points behind the average.

85% of Hispanics have a cell phone and are active users of the mobile Internet; 39% have taken advantage of online access with their handheld. To a somewhat greater extent than African-Americans, mobile access takes the place of broadband at home.

25% of Hispanics who do not have broadband at home access the Internet using their mobile device. Among Hispanics who have used the Internet via handheld devices, 68% have broadband at home, another indication that the mobile Internet fills the wireline void for some Hispanics.

Disabilities and broadband access

42% of Americans with disabilities have broad­band at home, just 2/3rd’s the national average.

  • Looking at the data differently, 39 percent of all Americans without broadband have some type of disability.
  • 33% of respondents with a disability were over the age of 65 in the survey, and only 25% have broadband at home. At the other end of the spectrum, 33% were under the age of 50, and 57% have broadband at home—more than 20 points below average.
  • Senior citizens with disabilities are 76% less likely to have broadband than seniors who do not have a disability.

Age and broadband access

Senior citizens (over 65) continue to trail the national average in broadband adoption with a 35 per­cent broadband-at-home penetration rate.

  • Nearly half (48 percent) of senior citizens are Internet users, regardless of connection type.

Location and broadband access

  • 50% of rural residents have broadband, a rate that reflects in part the older and less wealthy rural population but also the lack of available infra­structure.
  • 10% of rural non-adopters say they cannot get broadband where they live. That is more than twice the aver­age.

3 primary reasons for lack of access

There are 3 primary reasons why the 35 percent of non-adopting Americans do not have broadband: cost, lack of digital literacy and broadband is not sufficiently relevant for them to purchase it:

  1. 36% of non-adopters cite cost as the main rea­son they do not have high-speed Internet at home.
  2. 22% of non-adopters cite factors pointing to lack of digital literacy as the main reason they are not online. Includes people who are uncomfortable with com­puters or, are “worried about all the bad things that can happen if I use the Internet.”
  3. 19% of non-adopters do not have broadband because they question its relevance to their lives. They do not believe digital content is sufficiently compelling to justify getting it.

24% of non-adopters have had expe­rience with broadband, meaning they once had service at home or have used it at work or someplace else:

  • 17 % had home access in the past – and half of these had high speed access.
  • 46 percent of dial-up or “not-at-home” Internet users have used a broadband connection from somewhere other than home, such as at work, school or a friend or family member’s house.

Many use the internet through someone else. “Proxy Internet” use is evident for 22% of non-In­ternet or “not-at-home” users who live with someone with online access. Among these users:

  • 16% ask the Internet user in the home to carry out an online task at least once a week.
  • 20% ask the Internet user in the house to carry out an online task about once a month.

When it comes to outlooks toward the Internet and levels of ownership of ICT products, non-adopting Americans fall into four categories, each with different barriers to broad­band adoption.

  1. Digitally Distant non-adopters make up 10% of the general population, and do not see the point of being online. Few in this group see the Internet as a tool for learning and most see it as a dangerous place for chil­dren. This is an older group (the median age is 63), nearly half are retired and half say that either lack of relevance or digital literacy are barriers to adoption.
  2. Digital Hopefuls make up 8% of the population. They like the idea of being online but lack the resources for ac­cess. Few have a computer and, among those who use one, few feel comfortable with the technology. They are most likely to cite cost as a barrier to adoption, with affordability of the com­puter playing an important role. They are also more likely than average to say digital literacy is a barrier. Demographically, this group is heavily Hispanic (26%), has a high share of African-Americans (20%) and is low-income.
  3. Digitally Uncomfortable make up 7% of the pop., and are the mirror image of the Digital Hopefuls; they have the resources for access but not a bright outlook on what it means to be online. Nearly all of the Digitally Uncomfortable have computers, but they lack the skills to use them and have tepid attitudes toward the Internet.
  4. The Near Converts, who make up 10% of the popu­lation, have many of the same characteristics of broadband adopters. They have high rates of computer ownership, positive attitudes about the Internet and are, relative to other non-adopters, youthful (at a median age of 45). Many are dial-up or “not-at-home” users, and monthly access cost is the largest reason for non-adoption among this group.

The bottom line, is that while we’ve made inroads in expanding broadband access to greater groups, it stills falls along the typical lines of the have’s and have nots – live in a town or city, have money, your health, and an education, and be under the age of 60 and you are much more likely to be set.

As we push to make broadband access available and affordable to all, creating internet safety educational materials that are:

  • Available in Spanish, and other key languages
  • Customized to appropriately target seniors
  • Accessible – distributed through a wide variety of sources that reach segments with lower rates of inclusion.

Linda

Comments Off | Linda's Blog | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by reallylooksbothways

Mobile Phone Tip – Protect the Environment

March 4, 2010

Cell phones, like all products take resources to make, package and transport. However, there are things we can do to reduce the environmental impact.

Do your part by choosing the right phone for you and keeping it longer. Follow the manufacturers’ instructions for charging your battery to extend its life. Then, donate your phone to extend its life even further.

Donating old phones gives people and organizations who could not otherwise afford a phone, free or low cost alternatives. Many carriers, charities, phone manufacturers, and electronic recyclers allow you to donate working cell phones.

Don’t throw your phone in the garbage. Phones contain metals, plastics, chemicals, and other hazardous materials, which can harm the environment if not disposed of properly.

Think Green

Linda

Comments Off | Linda's Blog | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by reallylooksbothways

As Debit Cards Use in Online Shopping Increases, So do Risks

March 3, 2010

Debit cards are rapidly growing in popularity according to a new study by Javelin Strategy & Research. While 70% of consumers used a credit card to make purchases in 2009, 51% used a payment service like PayPal and a surprising 55% used debit cards – which potentially carry significantly higher risks as debit cards do not provide the inherent protection that credit cards carry.

Online users largely unaware of the increased risks of using debit cards for purchases.

When using a credit card, you are using an extension of credit from the bank. The most you can be liable for is $50 if it is fraudulently used. If the card is stolen or abused, it is the bank’s money was stolen – it did not come out of your checking account.

Stolen or abused debit cards on the other hand, charge or debit your account at the moment of the transaction – and getting it back is far from guaranteed.

According to the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, notification of the theft of your debit card (or your debit card number and PIN) is given within two business days of discovery of the loss or theft, you may only be liable for $50. If you do not notify them within the two-day limit, you could lose up to $500. The kicker is that you may not know within two days that abuse has occurred – do you check and reconcile your account balance daily?

Finally, If you don’t report any unauthorized transaction that appears on your statement within 60 days of receiving it, you risk unlimited loss on transfers made after the 60-day period. The result can be that you lose all the money in your account plus your maximum overdraft if you have one.

In spite of the increased risks, the study reports that debit card purchase volume rose 21.3% between 2008 and 2009, equaling a jump from $47 billion to $57 billion USD, and debit card purchase volume is expected to increase 42.5% to $67 billion by the end of 2010.

Looking at projections for 2014, debit card purchase volume is expected to grow 123.4% from its 2008 level to $105 billion USD.

How debit card numbers are stolen online

There are a variety of ways in which debit card numbers and PINs can be stolen online. If your computer is infected with malware, you may be the one providing this information to thieves directly. If the site you purchase from is unethical, or one of the workers in that company is a thief, it may be stolen as part of your transaction. Or, if the ecommerce site is hacked, your debit card information can be stolen by the hackers.

In some attacks, millions of credit and debit card numbers have been stolen in single hacking incidents. For the credit card users, this can represent a real hassle – and a $50 loss. For the debit card users, the financial impact can be devastating.

The safest course is to use a credit card, or a Payment Service for online transactions.

Should you choose to use your debit card, check with your bank to understand exactly what protections they afford – some banks do provide better protections for their debit card holders than the law requires. Then, vigilantly monitor your account for unauthorized activity so that you can report any problems within the required reporting windows.

Linda

Comments Off | In The News | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by reallylooksbothways

Misguided Bill Wants to Stop Predators on Social Networking Sites

March 2, 2010

California state Senator George Runner has proposed a bill that would ban convicted sex offenders from creating profiles on social networking sites. This is similar bills passed in New York, Illinois, and to several being considered in several other states.

While these laws sound like motherhood and apple pie, they are misguided and will not accomplish the objective. The intent behind this law is easy to understand. We need to address public safety in the face of sharply increasing numbers of registered sex offenders. The issue is how best to accomplish this.

Unfortunately, this law fails to consider fundamental distinctions between what constitutes a social network, how this law balances the punishments meted to sex offenders vs. other types of serious online criminals, the problematic issues around which individuals become labeled as sex offenders, and so on.

The term ’social network’ is undefined

Making it a felony for sexual predators to join social networking sites that are designed for children and teens, for dating, or specifically designed to meet vulnerable people is one thing, but this law takes an entirely undifferentiated and draconian approach by including all sites with any social networking functionality.

Amazon.com and eBay, for example, are social networks that enable people to have profiles, post comments, and more. Sites that enable job searches like LinkedIn and Monster.com are social networks, (see How the Web Has Changed Job Searching for more on the critical role social networks play in job hunting).

Support sites for sex offenders, sites that facilitate communication with family members, sites that allow comments such as newspapers, sites sharing information on products, hobbies, music, and so on, are all social networking sites. Moreover, the dynamic nature of the web is driving ever more sites to enable social interactions.

As the law now stands, it will make it more difficult for sex offenders to find jobs, apartments, or get support to help prevent re-offending, according to the Center for Sex Offender Management, a project of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Dept of Justice. Their research found that steady employment and support are key factors in reducing recidivism risks; the unintended consequence of the law may actually be an increase in the risks posed to society.

Lawmakers need to spend more time considering the differences in social networking sites and, at a bare minimum, craft laws with a more precise definition of what types of social sites should be illegal for sex offenders.

Sex offenders are one type of criminal threatening consumers online

Given the intent of the law is to protect innocent individuals online, shouldn’t this law also ban other types of serious criminals that use social networking sites to facilitate their crimes – like scammers, stalkers, ID thieves, and so on? While the Internet is predominantly a safe and positive place for users of all ages, Internet criminals wreak considerable harm, stealing consumers’ life-savings, their identities, and in some cases killing victims they met online. Sex offenses are heinous crimes, but should murderers get lesser penalties?

The vast majority of convicted sex offenders did not use social networks (or the Internet) in the commission of their crimes. This law assumes that though most sex offenders did not use social networks to find or groom their victims, they will do so in the future. If the individual did not use social networking sites, is it reasonable to ban them?

The changes add fuel to the debate over how sex offenders are defined

Changing the law to prohibit sex offenders from using social networking sites does not alter the scope of who is labeled a “sex offender”, but it has reignited the debate over how broadly the label is applied. There is broad concern that the law as it stands is unjust because it does not differentiate between serial child rapists, and for example, a person caught three times relieving him/herself behind a tree. Public indecency for a third or subsequent conviction labels a person as a sex offender. Some are inappropriately caught under this label and they do not deserve to have their names and photos exposed on sex offender registries, or to be shunned by society.

The problem worsens as we look across states. Many states dump the sex offender label on individuals as diverse as rapists, pedophiles, exhibitionists, and teens that had consensual sex, or that sent explicit images of themselves to a boy/girlfriend, etc. Surely, no one believes these are equivalent behaviors, or that those caught in these varying circumstances should be treated equally.

The law also fails to take into account the varying likelihood of re-offense. Despite public anxiety, research shows that different categories of sex offenders pose widely different degrees of risk of re-offending.

According to the Center for Sex Offender Management, a project of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Dept of Justice, recidivism rates can be high for some types of sex offenders but even with elevated risk levels they strongly caution against viewing them as a homogeneous group.

Highlighting the disparity in recidivism rates among segments of sex offenders, Marshall and Barbaree (1990) found in their review of studies that the recidivism rate for:

  • Incest offenders ranged between 4 and 10 percent.
  • Rapists ranged between 7 and 35 percent.
  • Child molesters with female victims ranged between 10 and 29 percent.
  • Child molesters with male victims ranged between 13 and 40 percent.

Beyond categorizing sex offenders by the type of offense they committed, a complex set of variables determine who, within each category, is likely to re-offend. Factors include whether the offender received treatment, the age of the offender, whether they are employed, the type of sexual deviance, their psychological stability, whether they are substance abusers, and so on. The current one-size-fits all policy towards those labeled simply doesn’t fit.

The issues I’ve listed about this particular approach do not pretend to cover other aspects like legality, jurisdiction, enforceability, etc. that will surely be wrestled over, but they should raise concern in the minds of the public as to the justness of this law.

Indeed, in a 2008 brief on state sex offender management policies, Thomas MacLellan, program director for the justice and public safety program of the National Governors Association, outlined challenges facing states. “People try to do the right things, but states don’t always have the capacity to look at all the research,” he said. “A lot of decisions will be made on consensus.”

There are sexual predators using the Internet to find new victims, and the intent to help protect individuals from such offenders online is good. This particular legislation however will not achieve that goal.

Linda

Additional Resources:

Comments Off | Linda's Blog | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by reallylooksbothways

Huge Gaps Exist in Internet Safety Education

March 1, 2010

Staysafe Online released today a new study on the state of  U.S. K‐12 Cyberethics, Cybersafety and Cybersecurity Curriculum, and it’s a sobering read.

15 years after the Internet went mainstream, America’s young people still are not receiving adequate instruction in the use of digital technology and cyberspace navigation in a safe, secure and responsible manner and are ill-prepared to address these subjects, according to the study.

Among the study findings:

  • There is strong agreement on the need to teach online skills: Nearly all technology coordinators (100%), school administrators (97%), and teachers (95%) agree cyberethics, cybersafety, and cybersecurity curriculum should be taught in schools.
  • Confusion reigns on where the responsibility for internet skills education lies. Teachers (72%) and technology coordinators (58%) are most likely to think parents are primarily responsible for teaching children to use computers safely and securely, while school administrators (51%) are most likely to think teachers/schools are primarily responsible.
  • Who teaches the teachers? The lack of clarity over who should teach internet skills  may be due in large part to the lack of training teachers have received on these subjects. Over three quarters of teachers have spent less than six hours on any type of professional development education related to cyberethics, cybersafety and cybersecurity within the last 12 months.
  • More than half schools/school districts require content coverage in cyberethics cybersafety and cybersecurity – but that means nearly half of the schools don’t.
  • Integration of key cyberethics, -security, and -safety topics into everyday instructional activities is low. For example, only 27% of teachers taught about the safe use of social networks, only 18% taught about scams, fraud and social engineering, and only 19% taught about safe passwords in the past 12 months. Additionally, 32% of teachers indicated they had not taught cyberethics, and 44% of teachers had not taught cybersafety or cybersecurity.
  • Rather than teach skills and ethics, schools focus on blocking technologies. Over 90% of schools have installed digital defenses, like as filtering and blocking social network sites. Blocking technologies may help reduce exposure to online risks in school, and limit school’s liability, but they do not prepare students to act safely or responsibly when accessing the Internet in other locations.

Addressing the research findings, Jacqueline Beauchere, a Director in Microsoft Corporation’s Trustworthy Computing Group and the company’s representative to NCSA’s Board of Directors said, “Schools can be assisted via partnerships between public and private-sector entities. Such partnerships encourage information and idea-sharing and, most importantly, help give teachers the training they need and want so they can instruct their students about cybersecurity, cybersafety and cyberethics.  Microsoft supports efforts to provide teacher training, and is proud to be one partner, helping to provide K-12 educators across the U.S. the resources they need and the training they seek.”

The ramifications of this gap in internet education not places our youth at risk today, but has a long term impact in how well situated the US will be to compete in the global economy moving forward.

“The study illuminates that there is no cohesive effort to provide young people the education they need to safely and securely navigate the digital age and prepare them as digital citizens and employees,” said Michael Kaiser, Executive Director of the National Cyber Security Alliance.  “Unfortunately, we are not meeting the needs of schools, teachers, or students.  President Obama in his Cyberspace Policy Review released last year specifically calls for a ‘K-12 cybersecurity education program for digital safety, ethics and security.’ Now is the time for a national consensus to move forward to achieve that goal.”

Amen.

Linda

Comments Off | Linda's Blog | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by reallylooksbothways

Beware of con artists on the prowl on Facebook

February 26, 2010

Beware of con artists on the prowl on Facebook

I was interviewed for this article and TV segment by Connie Thompson from Fisher Communications. Below is the story in its entirety, including a link to the video segment.

Video

Cyber con artists turn your Facebook into an open book. They hack into your Facebook account and pretend to be you. Once they take over your Facebook account, hackers can often take control of your e-mail.

Their ultimate goal is to turn your Facebook screen into a cash machine either through identity theft or other forms of fraud.

Depending on your privacy setting and who you let share your information, every posted photo, every friend, each seemingly innocent message can give scammers the information they need to compose a story.

The typical communication explains that you’ve had an emergency in another state or country and need money. Friends and family who panic and want to help may wire money to the scammer, thinking they’re talking to you.

“In many ways we make it very very easy,” said Internet safety and security expert Linda Criddle.

The former Microsoft analyst is now an author and consumer advocate who specializes in educating children and adults about the different ways scammers can target you online. Social networks are a fertile hunting ground.

Internet security experts say 2010 could be a banner year for scams on sites like Facebook and Twitter, because of their popularity.

On Facebook alone, there are more than 350 million users- sharing their pictures and information with friends, who share with their friends, who share with their friends.

It’s an information gold mine for a hacker tactic known as “screen scraping.”

“It means that you are literally gathering, collecting all the information you can find on a screen.” explained Criddle.

People share information about hobbies, family background, employment, vacation plans, last names, nick names and more. Photographs and videos can reveal even more information you don’t even realize you’re providing.

“Gathering that information off these social networking sites is quick. And what you don’t share about yourself, your friends probably did, Criddle added.

And if just one person on your list takes the bait the scammers almost instantly get thousands of dollars, especially if they can get the name and phone number of an older relative in a different state.

Scammers like to use the telephone with older people, because seniors tend to respond to the “person to person” approach. They get caught up in the emotion. They’re sympathetic toward their relatives and are more likely to keep things a secret when asked not to say anything. That makes the victim less likely to call their family member at home and check on them.

The scammers explain they need money wired through Western Union. By the time the friend or family realizes it was a scam, the money’s gone. Police say caring relatives in particular- are sitting ducks.

Facebook is aware of the problem. Spokesperson Simon Axten offered the following e-mail reply in response to our questions:

“This is a very low-volume attack, affecting only a small number of people. However, we’re concerned about any potential security threat, and we’re taking this issue very seriously. Our team has analyzed the trends of these attacks and is using this information to surface compromised accounts before the scammers get very far.

When we find these accounts, we disable them and attempt to get them back to their rightful owner. In many cases, the scammer has changed the password or added a new contact email to attempt to maintain control of the account.

To combat this, we notify people when their account is modified and empower them to reverse the changes or disable the account entirely. We’re reminding people to be very suspicious of anyone, even friends, who ask for money over the Internet. Please verify their circumstances through some other means than the web (e.g. call them or mutual friends).If you see something that looks amiss with your account or a friend’s, please report it to us through the form in our Help Center.

These and other security tips can be found on our Facebook Security Page. We’ve also published a blog post about the scam.”

Specific things users can do to protect themselves:

  • Be suspicious of anyone – even friends – who ask for money over the Internet. Verify their circumstances independently (e.g. call them or mutual friends).
  • Choose a strong password and use unique credentials for each of your web accounts (we believe users are being phished on one site, and the bad guys are then trying those credentials on another).
  • Use an up-to-date browser that features an anti-phishing blacklist.
  • Use and run anti-virus on your machine.
  • Reset your Facebook password if you suspect your account has been compromised.

Specific actions Facebook has taken:

  • Adjusted and updated our sophisticated security systems to also detect and defeat these smaller-scale attacks.
  • Improved our prioritization systems so we can help impacted users more quickly.
  • Instituted changes to notify users when their account is modified and empower them to reverse the changes or disable the account.
  • Worked with law enforcement to investigate cases and with Western Union (a wire transfer company commonly used by the scammers) to improve education. With our help, Western Union has posted a warning about this scam. Western Union has also alerted its branches in London, where the scammers are picking up the money.

Comments Off | In The News | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by reallylooksbothways

Announcing our Courageous Parents, Confident Kids book cover and contents

February 26, 2010

Announcing the Courageous Parents, Confident Kids book cover and a first peek at the content by chapters.

I’ve blogged and Tweeted about this book several times, but we now have the cover formalized and permission to share with you the chapter outline.

This book is a tremendous collaborative effort brought about by the vision and determination of Amy Tiemann, Ph.D. and author of several books and articles – her latest book was Mojo Mom: Nurturing Your Self While Raising a Family.

The new book will be released in paperback on April  18th, but we are giving the book away as a free digital download to people who sign up for a free copy on MojoMom.com before April 18th. The digital download will be packaged as a PDF file so it can be read on any computer, or printed out.  This is an incredible opportunity to gain valuable information and insight free of charge.

Here is a preview of Courageous Parents, Confident Kids — Letting Go So You Both Can Grow

Introduction by the Editor, Amy Tiemann, Ph.D., author Mojo Mom: Nurturing Your Self While Raising a Family.

Part 1: The Courage to Invest in Your Own Development

Part 2: Developing Your Own Courageous Parenting Style

  • The Courage to Let Our Kids Solve Their Own Problems by Maya Frost, international lifestyle design expert and author of The New Global Student.
  • The Power of Personal Significance for Kids of All Ages by Amy McCready, parent educator and founder of  Positive Parenting Solutions.
  • I’m Worried I Worry Too Much, But How Do I Stop? by Jamie Woolf, leadership expert and author of Mom-In Chief.

Part 3: Real-world Safety Skills for All

Part 4: Finding Your Voice and Raising It for the Community

  • Becoming a Political Parent: PunditMom on Mothers Raising Their Voices Online by Joanne Bamberger, journalist and PunditMom blogger.
  • Building a Family-friendly America: Challenge and Progress Through the Eyes of MomsRising.org by Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, co-founder and Executive Director of MomsRising.org
  • It Takes a Motherhood by Cooper Munroe and Emily McKhann, co-creators of the award-winning online community, TheMotherhood.com

The goal of Courageous Parents, Confident Kids is to share core concepts and skills you can build on as you raise a family, participate in your community, and continue your own development. I hope you enjoy the book.

Linda

Comments Off | Linda's Blog | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by reallylooksbothways

Net Neutrality – Freedom of Speech or Corporate Heist?

February 23, 2010

The battle lines are sharpening over the question of “Net Neutrality” as FCC hearings and decisions loom. But what is really driving this push to change the status quo, and what’s really at stake for consumers?

Shakespeare got it wrong. In today’s world, a rose by any other name does not smell as sweet.  Politicians and lobbyists alike understand that how a proposal is named makes a world of difference. Associate a rallying cry with a motherhood-and-apple-pie name and your opponents are immediately cast in a negative light. For example, to vote against the Deleting Online Predators Act implied that one was voting for online predators – no matter that the proposal was misguided. What elected official can defend against that allegation in a 10-second sound bite?

The name ‘Net neutrality’ is equally deliberate and equally loaded – who wants to stand up and say I’m for Internet discrimination? Behind the guise of neutrality and a freedom-of-speech talking point are very powerful companies pushing for regulations that benefit their companies’ financial interests to the detriment of other companies’ financial interests. And, rather than have free market forces apply as they do rather admirably today, these companies’ are lobbying heavily to get regulators to stack the deck in their favor.

Online service providers and content creators want their services to be accessible to consumers (and get all the advertising revenue associated with their services) without having to collaborate with, or having to share proportional revenue with, network operators and carriers. They want to be able to use as much bandwidth as they choose to stream content, without having to pay more to do so.

Leading the opposition to the proposed legislation, Kyle McSlarrow, CEO of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association scoffed at allegations that ISPs are harming free speech. He summed it up by saying “Internet Service Providers do not threaten free speech; their business is to enable speech and they are part of an ecosystem that represents perhaps the greatest engine for promotion of democracy and free expression in history.”

Why you should care about this battle between industry titans

Supporters of regulation claim they are protecting your freedoms, which begs a response to a few questions. From what attacks against your freedom of speech do you need protection? And, what unintended or punitive consequences might the proposed legislation cause?

Two incidents are used as freedom-of-speech cautionary tales by Net Neutrality supporters, but the very fact that there are only two cases to cite erodes rather than supports their position.  What other industry, or set of mega-companies, can claim so few missteps?  Certainly not the companies now crying foul.

In fact, given the restrictions content and services websites impose on your freedom of speech, their choice of waving the First Amendment banner is curious. The Terms of Use of any online services or content company make it abundantly clear that they assert the right to block your access, delete your content, or take other measures at their discretion if you do not comply with their limitations on your freedom of speech.

To be clear, I think establishing Terms of Use that restrict the actions and speech allowed on a website is an entirely appropriate corporate choice. Yet for companies to have these ‘anti-freedom-of-speech’ policies in place, while complaining that the terms and conditions Internet access providers have set limit your freedom of speech is absurd.

With only a couple of incidents in years of network management, Net Neutrality opponents point out that the requested regulations will impose government control on a problem that does not exist. I will go a step further and say large portions of the proposal look like an old sleight-of-hand trick – asking consumers to look in one direction while the real action is happening behind the scenes in a classic corporate coup.

The ideological, or financially motivated, pull towards more regulation sidesteps three key points:

  1. We have experienced an unprecedented blossoming of the Internet under the FCC’s historical policy of minimal regulation.
  2. Consumers have choices. There is healthy competition between Internet providers indicating that capitalism is working well within the industry. Competing in this space are cable TV, fiber optics cable, and telephone cable operators, Wimax and similar technology providers, along with wireless cellular networks, and satellite companies. This diversity of players is our best guarantee of a continued open and innovative Internet. None has the near monopoly position that some leading Net Neutrality supporters enjoy.
  3. Government bodies move slowly and are ill prepared to manage a nimble, competitive industry that must react and innovate quickly to compete not only nationally, but internationally. That needs to be able to offer increased speed, services, and safety in a competitive manner.

It does not take a genius to understand that if we want ever-faster transmission speeds and the ability to access ever-greater volumes of rich content, someone has to pay for the infrastructure and support required to provide it.  Right now, those costs are shared by consumers and the companies who want to send high volumes of content over Internet access provider’s networks.

The Net Neutrality proposal aims to change this revenue model by prohibiting carriers from placing bandwidth limits or adding usage fees to companies that are straining their bandwidth. However, it is unreasonable for companies who are raking in ad revenues to be able to freeload off the companies that built – and continue to bear the costs of maintaining – the networks.

If Internet providers have their hands tied by Net Neutrality regulations, what happens to network innovation? If you use considerably less bandwidth as you surf online, why shouldn’t you have the choice to pay less for your service? If companies can change drive legislation absolving them from paying for their Internet access, it leaves consumers to bear these costs.

Though the name Net Neutrality was carefully crafted, I recommend a different catchphrase: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Linda

Comments Off | Linda's Blog | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by reallylooksbothways

« Previous Entries