Friday 17 December 2010

Internet security, Part 2

I have for some years been puzzled about all the fuss about the dangers which the Internet poses to children and young people. What is particularly interesting to me is that when I ask ordinary people what these dangers actually are, they seem unable to tell me! I am very much inclined to think that it is another aspect of the obsessive protection which so many parents today are determined to afford their children; protection which does them no favours once they are a little older. The peak age for deaths from road accidents among children and young people is eleven and twelve. The reason? These are children who have always been driven to school by their parents and not allowed out on their own to cross the road. As soon as they start secondary school and travel by themselves, they find they do not know the elementary principles of road safety. Mind you, a lot of parents now continue to take their kids to school even when they are fourteen or fifteen. No wonder such children are unable to assess hazards by themselves.

Returning to the subject of the perils of the Internet, a particular anxiety for parents seems to be that the child might reveal her personal contact details; in ordinary language, her address. This is apparently extremely dangerous. I wonder what the danger is thought to consist of? let us look at the past and see how things worked for many years, without any great harm befalling children. I have already mentioned that anybody leafing through a local paper will be able to take his pick of photographs of children and teenagers. May Queen, winner of a Duke of Edinburgh's Award, choristers, school sports days; the list is endless. It has often been the custom to describe the young person by name and road, as in; 'Gladys Jones of Church Lane won the prize for best kept garden' or something similar. A quick trip to the local library to consult the electoral register would soon tell you what number in Church Lane the Jones live at. Oh, no! Somebody has hold of the child's personal details! Still, it might be argued, this is only a local matter. With the Internet, anybody in Britain might find out a child's home address if she isn't careful. Looking through a pile of old magazines and comics from the fifties and sixties, we find that a number have sections for penpals. Children and teenagers write in and ask for others to write to them. They typically detail their hobbies and interests, sometimes send a photograph and, horror of horrors, their address is there for all to see in a nationally circulated publication!

Now I don't recall ever reading a guide to 'Penpal Security' or even 'Having Your Picture in the Local Paper Security' and I never heard of an child being abducted, raped or murdered as a result of these things. What actually is the danger of a complete stranger seeing a photograph of a teenager or child and knowing her address? Obviously, if there is a danger then it must also have existed in the fifties and sixties.

One threat which many parents worry about is that their child could be 'groomed' by a paedophile. I don't doubt for a moment that some weird adults wrote to children in the sixties and engaged them as penpals by pretending to be children themselves. I am sure that the same thing happens today, although it is unlikely to be by letter. Instant messenger or email is more likely. A child's home address in this context is quite irrelevant. The grooming adult is not likely to send the kid a letter!

What other dangers are there? Could a stranger stake out the home of a child? Well this is possible, but unlikely. If I were that way inclined and wanted to watch the house of a teenager, why would I go any further than my own neighbourhood? There are plenty of children and teenagers living round here and if I wanted to, I suppose that I could go and hide in their back gardens at night. I would hardly need to get an address from the Internet if that was what I enjoyed doing. There has never been a shortage of Peeping Toms, even before the Internet was even thought of.

What about rape and murder? The same applies really. Children are almost always raped and murdered by their friends and families; the risk from complete strangers is very small. Besides, what am I going to do? See a kid's picture on the Internet, note with pleasure that her address is there and then take a train to her home town and knock on the door? Why would I go to all that trouble when there are plenty of other kids locally?

Those adults who wish to form inappropriate relationships with and abuse children do not need to use the Internet. having an address would not really help such people. They need to build a friendship with the child, gain their trust. Such people generally get jobs as teachers, tennis coaches and swimming instructors. That way they can actually get to know the children. A random address of some child who is unknown to them would be useless.

Perhaps readers can give me a few tips here on why the addresses of children are so much more likely to bring harm to them now than was the case fifty years ago? I am genuinely intrigued by this.

12 comments:

  1. I think it's more about information in general being 'out there'. It goes hand in hand with people's concerns about about 'big brother' and the all seeing eye etc etc.
    I wouldnt put my address online (though to be honest through Facebook, Blogging, Twitter and other online activities it would be easy to guage my town and possibly pin down where I lived) as it seems a little too much info. I am not particularly worried by the internet though.
    But then I am the type of person who would still leave their door unlocked were it not for DH being super paranoid

    ReplyDelete
  2. I re-read what you wrote and see my comment didnt answer the question you asked.
    "Perhaps readers can give me a few tips here on why the addresses of children are so much more likely to bring harm to them now than was the case fifty years ago? I am genuinely intrigued by this."

    I studied this in my OU course a few years ago, well not this specifically but whether crime was worse or had increased. At the point of doing the course, the answer was 'No' What has changed our perception of crime is Media Hype and Media Bias. Since these have increased, so have our fears and insecurities when in fact crime at that point hadn't worsened or increased in over 150 years.
    This was attributed to the Media making us more aware of crimes, to people tending to thrive on fear culture, and to people being more likely to report crimes.
    I dont know if the course has been altered to say different but I totally agree that crime, risk and uncertainty are all about perception and the reality of real risk is very different - I think this is true for internet risk too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, I am sure that there are no more child molesters now than was the case fifty years ago. I don't think that the dangers to our children have increased in recent years; more that we as parents have become more neurotic. My own daughter was walking to the library and shops at the age of nine and I have to say that almost every parent we knew, expressed disapproval. I think they subscribed to the idea that most abuse of children is carried out by scruffy, unshaven men lurking behind bushes with a bag of sweeties. In fact the real danger to children of that age is traffic. This is why it is important to allow them to learn road safety without becoming embroiled in the 'Stranger Danger' nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think every parent needs to warn of the dangers - that is common sense. And as you say, Road Safety is a prime example, I see so many kids unable to safely cross roads. But my opinion is that scaremongering does no one any good.

    ReplyDelete
  5. C says-I studied this in my OU course a few years ago, well not this specifically but whether crime was worse or had increased. At the point of doing the course, the answer was 'No' What has changed our perception of crime is Media Hype and Media Bias. Since these have increased, so have our fears and insecurities when in fact crime at that point hadn't worsened or increased in over 150 years.

    of course crime has increased what planet you live on? go into any big city on a friday sat night your see plenty of crime from fighting abuse of police weeing in street young girls being accosted for sex people drunk and a lot of this crime is unrecorded! but where it is the police can not do very much to much paperwork bogs them down. dont gotget gang crim hass gone up to with many gangs using guns! i think you live on cloud cukkoo land C!

    ReplyDelete
  6. 'your see plenty of crime from fighting abuse of police weeing in street young girls being accosted for sex people drunk and a lot of this crime is unrecorded! but where it is the police can not do very much to much paperwork bogs them down. dont gotget gang crim hass gone up to with many gangs using guns!'

    The moral here being to avoid Alton at the weekend! C is quite right of course; the rates for most offences have not really risen much over the years and are far lower than they were a century or two ago. It is tru that the fifties and sixties had pretty low levels of crime, but this was a bit of a blip if you take the long view. Even things like terrororism are no worse now than they were in the nineteenth century. The first bombing on the underground was in the 1880s and the worst terrorist attack in London until the 7/7 attacks was in Clerkenwell in 1867, when twelve people were killed.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "of course crime has increased what planet you live on? go into any big city on a friday sat night your see plenty of crime from fighting abuse of police weeing in street young girls being accosted for sex people drunk and a lot of this crime is unrecorded! but where it is the police can not do very much to much paperwork bogs them down. dont gotget gang crim hass gone up to with many gangs using guns! i think you live on cloud cukkoo land C!"

    I appreciate that you dont agree with me but I felt you were being a rude which is unnecessary.
    Anyway, to address what you said. You are right of course, being in the city is hazardous.

    I dont see any of the crimes you mentioned though as being 'new' crimes. All these crimes were happening 100 years ago easily. Gang violence may be a point of debate but there are case studies about gangs back in the late 1800's right up to 1930's. I cant lay my hands on the studies which is annoying but I will keep looking.
    Paperwork is a problem for police(and everyone) these days but this isnt usually the reason for not reporting crimes. More often its lack of faith in the police and belief that there is unlikely to be a conviction.
    In short, same crimes, different eras and increased fears.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Old Webb writes-The moral here being to avoid Alton at the weekend! C is quite right of course; the rates for most offences have not really risen much over the years and are far lower than they were a century or two ago.

    Alton a nice middle class area with most people in work with very low crime rate! house prices are high to ours has gone up so much since i brought it in 1984! with that paint spaying job LOL very nice! we go the stream line here to watercress line really good it is thomas the tank engine days Alton does the little ones love it! you should visit Webb LOL!

    Im afraid a lot of crime in big citys is just not recorded! Essex has a much higher crime rate than Alton a number of high profile drug gangs live in Essex and that gang who killed that young black man Stepehen Lawernce came from Essex very worrying!

    ReplyDelete
  9. 'Paperwork is a problem for police(and everyone) these days but this isnt usually the reason for not reporting crimes. More often its lack of faith in the police and belief that there is unlikely to be a conviction.'

    Not only that of course, but a few decades ago many people did not have any insurance. There was little point in reporting a theft to the police. The main reason people report break-ins and so on today is so that they can get a Crime Number for the insurance. This has the effect of boosting the rates of reported theft compared to fifty years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  10. C says-Paperwork is a problem for police(and everyone) these days but this isnt usually the reason for not reporting crimes. More often its lack of faith in the police and belief that there is

    It is people know that police spend to much time of paperwork so will think is they any point in reporting a crime and how many forms will i have to fill in to? Lack fait with.police comes though knowing that police spend to much time on paperwork stuck in police station!

    we have more of the same crime now but a lot of it is not reported!
    Gang crime with guns in more major city's is new! and really on the increase hence the police puting in that gun noise device in Birmingham i think this area has had a real increase in gun attacks!

    I think you do live on anther planet C take a look around the city's on a friday Saturday night if you dare? but do be carefull!

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Not only that of course, but a few decades ago many people did not have any insurance. There was little point in reporting a theft to the police. The main reason people report break-ins and so on today is so that they can get a Crime Number for the insurance. This has the effect of boosting the rates of reported theft compared to fifty years ago."
    Of course yes, I forgot about this. I know when I was a child my parents werent insured until I was around 10 years old. It was such a big deal when they finally did.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I think you do live on anther planet C take a look around the city's on a friday Saturday night if you dare? but do be carefull!"

    Interesting that you assume I do not live in a city. Having lived in inner-city Lincoln, Exeter, Plymouth, Leeds and Bristol, as well as several majoy towns, I am more than aware of what a Friday and Saturday night looks like in the City.
    It is messy, unpleasant and at times incredibly distressing - I dont dispute this point.
    What I am simply saying is that this has always been the case but in 'those days' it wasnt so well publicised, people were less inclined to report things and there were different ways of dealing with and accepting crime back then.

    ReplyDelete