AW: AW: [LINK] more shonky stats

[David Goldstein]

 --- "Auer, Karl James" <karl.auer at id.ethz.ch> wrote:

> No. You continue to confuse a different *perception* of the
> problem with denial of the problem.
This is bizarre Karl. Where do you get your information from?
Rachel O'Connel who seems to do quite objective research,
although I doubt those commenting here would ever agree so, has
co-written a report where the media has reported that:
'more children now recognise the importance of safety guidelines
when chatting online, with 72% regarding the advice as "very
important".

More than three-quarters of the eight to 11-year-olds we
surveyed knew that they should never meet up with cyber-friends,
and 91% were aware they should never give out personal
information, such as their phone number or address. And the
proportion who said they had never received advice about net
safety fell from 10% in 2002 to 2% last year.

This was reflected in the decline in the number of children who
give out personal details, such as their name, address and phone
number, and a 27% reduction in the proportion talking with
strangers in chat rooms. In fact, the report found that last
year there were fewer school children regularly visiting chat
rooms.

However, safety messages do not appear to be reaching a hardcore
of young internet users who are increasingly engaging in risky
behaviour, including meeting with people they befriend online.
Less than 40% of regular chat users were aware of the advice to
always be accompanied by an adult when meeting cyber friends, a
10% drop from 2002.

Most worryingly, the proportion of regular chat users who attend
face-to-face meetings has risen from 10% in 2002 to 24% last
year. Ten children reported that between March and September
2003 they had attended more than 35 meetings with different chat
users. Fortunately, all of them reported that the encounters had
been positive. What is unclear is whether or not such enjoyable
experiences lead them to take greater risks.

Interestingly, the children who indulged in the riskiest
activities spent the most time online but were least aware of
safety guidelines. These factors should be of equal importance
to teachers as a pupil's academic ability and those who continue
to disregard them will place children at risk.'

And then there are the stories I see what seems every day coming
out of the USA. I imagine only a small percentage of the problem
is ever detected. And whether it's meeting the people online,
deceiving them and then meeting them or the making of photos -
it's no good putting your head in the sand and ignoring the
problem.

Anyway, who says that personal freedoms online need be
threatened by addressing the issue, the main reason it seems
here that people refuse to countenance addressing the issue?

David

> 
> > There is a problem just like pollution and so much else, 
> > although there are plenty who will deny pollution is a
> problem.
> 
> No again. It is a problem completely UNLIKE pollution.
> Pollution is pervasive and affects millions, even billlions of
> people DIRECTLY, with sickness and death, leaving aside the
> reduced quality of life to millions more. That is NOT the same
> as a problem that affects  three to four orders of magnitude
> fewer persons.
> 
> > I still find it disturbing that people here find child 
> > protection a minor issue.
> 
> That's because it IS a minor issue. And I explained why from
> at least one standpoint. Take issue with the argument if you
> will, but just insisting "it ain't so" doesn't make it not so.
> It may be controversial, it may be an emotional issue, but
> it's minor.
> 
> > As for dubious stats - the claimed threat to freedom online 
> > posed by western governments as has been discussed here
> often 
> > is pretty dubious. The threat to children, albeit tiny, is 
> > much greater than the threat to your freedom.
> 
> Any threat, once discussed, may turn out to be dubious. The
> point is that they get discussed. As now.
> 
> As to the threat to children being greater than the threat to
> my freedoms, that seems to be a completely unsubstantiated and
> indeed unsubstantiatable statement. It compares oranges to
> apples. However, I'm pleased you agree that the threat to
> children is tiny.
> 
> Regards, K.
> 
> --
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Karl Auer (karl.auer at id.ethz.ch)             Geschaeft/work
> +41- 1-6327531
> Kommunikation, ETHZ RZ                          Privat/home
> +41-43-2660706
> Clausiusstrasse 59 CH-8092 ZUERICH Switzerland          Fax
> +41- 1-6321225
>             Eidgenoessische Technische Hochschule, Zuerich
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link 

Try the new improved Yahoo! Australia & NZ Search at http://www.yahoo.com.au