26. March 2009 · Write a comment · Categories: Uncategorized · Tags: , , ,

Update: Ars Technica has a good rundown of the history of the case.

The NY Times reports this morning that several students are suing the D.A. after he insisted that the teens attend a “10-hour class dealing with pornography and sexual violence.” Classes like these are usually intended for sex offenders, not for teenagers exploring the boundaries of their sexuality. There are several issues here to contend with. First, there’s the issue of teenagers participating in risky behavior by sending each other nude photos. Is this the school’s business to handle or the D.A.’s? In most of these cases, I imagine that the teens have some expectation that only the person they send the photo to is going to see the photo. However, what seems to be happening is that the phones are being confiscated and then “searched” by teachers or principals, which, to me, is a violation of privacy. In fact, ACLU attorneys representing the families in this case, have suggested that it’s a violation of the Fourth Amendment. I believe that parents probably have the right to view the photos on a kid’s phone (after all, they’re probably paying for it), but the school?

Sending a kid to a pornography and sexual violence class would do more harm than good, I think. Are they going to see certain kinds of images in this class? What exactly would they talk about? It just seems like the wrong solution for the problem. Chris Dawson suggests digital safety classes:

Alternatively, is this more of a public health concern? In general, I’m inclined to think it’s the latter. Too many kids are incredibly cavalier about sexting, along with the sorts of photos and comments they post on social networking sites. Educational programs aimed at safety in the digital age have as much merit as drug and alcohol awareness programs, sex education, and even fire safety.

Okay, maybe. But they’ve proven that those drug and alcohol programs don’t work in the same way that abstinence programs don’t work. I’m not sure, exactly, what would work, but it does seem like there needs to be some education here, and not just for the kids. Parents need to know what their kids are doing with their cell phones, online in Facebook or MySpace or elsewhere. They need to understand the same way that their kids do, that these images can last forever, that when they go to apply for a job someday, this nude photo may show up in a search. Too many parents throw up their hands when it comes to technology. So, if schools are going to offer classes, they need to have some for the parents, too. And maybe, it’s a matter, too, of helping them understand what should be private. That is, maybe explain to them how to manage an intimate relationship.

The kids in this case were 13, and the photos were taken at a slumber party, probably a sleep-deprived, silliness-inspired prank that’s resulted in some serious consequences. But there are other cases where it wasn’t a prank, where girlfriends and boyfriends are exchanging photos in part as an expression of affection, testing the boundaries, inspired by raging hormones. We’re probably not going to stop these activities entirely, but we should be aware of them and talk to our kids about why they’re problematic.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
26. December 2007 · Write a comment · Categories: Uncategorized · Tags: , , , ,

There’s a post this morning about how some people are complaining that Google Reader’s new feature where your shared items are shared with your contacts violates their privacy. Robert Scoble says that Google needs more granular privacy controls a la Facebook. I vote with his first response, that people need clarification on what public means.

I’ve written about this before, from the standpoint of being aware that future employers are increasingly eyeing a future employee’s online presence. Increasingly, I think, if you’re using social software, nothing is private. Search, even, is not private. Sure, there are ways to change settings so that your searches aren’t cached, your blogs aren’t pinging services, etc., but most people don’t change the defaults, so they’re just out there. And that’s okay. People just need to understand up front what it means to have so much of their online activity shared. And maybe being more open–online or elsewhere–is a good thing. Maybe it makes us more accountable for our actions. Sure, there are still some parts of our lives and our thoughts that are private, but mostly those parts aren’t being put online and if they are, I’d argue that either a) someone doesn’t understand how public the online space is; or b) they want people to know about those parts. Healthy skepticism is good, but paranoia leads us down a bad path.

Although we’ve had many, many instances of people getting into trouble because of things they’ve posted online, we still haven’t figured out where, exactly, to draw the line. Three separate incidents in the last week have me thinking about the issue more closely. First, at my own institution, there was an incident involving a party posting on Facebook that ultimately resulted in a Student Government officer being impeached and going home for the rest of the semester, perhaps never to return. Do a Google search and you can find out a little more. Many have said that the SGA officer, though wrong, was unfairly raked over the coals even after she apologized, raising the question of how much is enough, especially when the whole incident will live on the Internet perhaps for many years to come.

Another, similar incident, was first brought to my attention by Bitch, Ph.D. and then elaborated on by Janet at Adventures in Ethics and Science. A law student who administered an online bulletin board for other law students recently had a job rescinded because he refused to curb the harassment of female law students on the board. While many feel he deserved to lose a job over the incident, some have questioned how much one’s off-work statements and actions should affect your job.

A similar incident occurred with a Millersville University student who was denied her teaching certificate because of a single MySpace photo captioned “Drunken Pirate.”

While I definitely feel that when blogging or posting online, one has to be aware that everything can be seen by current and future employers, I think employers should be a little more thoughtful about how they consider such postings. If one finds pictures of a future employee online showing him or her drunk, does that automatically eliminate them from consideration? Shouldn’t one balance that with other information? Many people get drunk on occasion and increasingly, those incidents are documented and posted, often because they want to share the rare occurrence with friends. If an employer is concerned, maybe they should call references or ask the future employee directly.

Some may respond to such incidents by only venturing online under a pseudonym or not venturing online at all, but I think increasingly, people want an online presence that’s going to include many facets of their lives and personalities. And I think eventually, employers may have to learn to sift through information about people they find online more thoughtfully.

My suggestion for the student at my own institution whose mistake lives online in the student newspaper and Facebook: control your online presence, create a blog highlighting your accomplishments, write positively and move that presence above the other one. Sure, future employers may find the old mistake living in the Internet archive, but if everything else they find is positive, it’s going to be greatly minimized and maybe not even an issue.