[LINK] NetAlert Campaign 'truth' finally coming out

[Ivan Trundle]

Regardless of the impersonation dilemma, it's the nature of the net  
that some people aren't who or what they claim to be. And the  
proportion of these is higher than in real life.

Therein is the real danger, and I don't think that it matters if the  
relationship is between a 13 year-old and a 50 year-old (though it  
does help to illuminate the issue), but rather that it's difficult to  
tell not just age, but a whole raft of factors that influence  
relationships of any kind. Much like in real life, but more so.

Whilst we are generally better able to assess a person's sex and age  
in real life (though not always), we are also less likely to strike up  
a friendship of any kind without jumping through a number of hoops -  
and there's the difference.

It's all too easy to strike up a relationship online, and some people  
seem to be blinded by the lack of cues to indicate if that person is  
genuine or not. I sometimes wonder if people enjoy the level of  
anonymity that the net offers as a form of protection, yet at the same  
time offering an element of risk (the unknown).

There's a thesis in the making, I suspect. And it goes way beyond the  
'On the internet no-one knows that you're a dog'...

iT


On 15/12/2007, at 11:56 AM, Scott Howard wrote:

> On 12/15/07, Stilgherrian <stil at stilgherrian.com> wrote:
>>
>> While this is a valid concern, whether you're a parent or not, the
>> duplicity
>> of Coonan's statement is the conflation of "someone you haven't met
>> before"
>> with "stranger" with "danger". The pre-existing alliterative  
>> "stranger
>> danger" meme made it even easier for the (previous) government to  
>> continue
>> their campaign of fear.
>
>
>
> The first definition for "stranger" on dictionary.com :
> stran·ger      –noun
> 1.    a person with whom one has had no personal acquaintance: "He  
> is a
> perfect stranger to me."
>
> which sounds pretty much like what you've got above.
>
> The jump from "stranger" to "danger" is a little more subjective,  
> but when
> we're talking about kids is it necessarily the wrong one to make?
>
> you suddenly have "half of the kids have been
>> approached by a dangerous paedophile". Hardly the same thing.
>
>
> I'm sure that you're just about to cite your reference for where the
> ex-government said anything that looked even remotely like that? Or  
> are you
> just putting words in their mouth?  In Jan's initial email the  
> wording was
> "more than half of 11-15-year-olds who chatted online were contacted  
> by
> strangers" (I'm not sure if that's a direct quote from the  
> advertisings, but
> it's close), which, using the definition of "stranger" above, is  
> almost
> certainly correct.
>
> Even in "real life", we meed "strangers" all the time. That  
> conversation we
>> strike up at the bus stop, in the theatre queue or at the pub.
>
>
> You let your 11 to 15 year old kids strike up conversations down the  
> pub?
>
> Of course if another 11 to 15 year old came up to them at the bus- 
> stop and
> started talking to them you'd probably be OK with it - but what is a  
> 50 year
> old man did it?
>
> The issue with the internet is a simple one - you can't really tell  
> if that
> "13 year old girl" is actually a 13 year old girl, or really a 50  
> year old
> man.  In real life it's a very different story.
>
> How many of us met a "stranger" last week? I'd wager that it was  
> more than
>> half of us!
>
>
> How many of your children met a 50 year old man in person who  
> claimed to be
> a 13 year old girl?  I'm guessing not so many.  How about on the net?
>
>  Scott.