Cell phones have certainly become more powerful computing devices, enabling most of the functionality we take for granted on our desktops - e-mail, text messaging, web browsing. And with that power comes the same perils we encounter at the desktops -- spam e-mail (and texts), and undesirable web content. Still, parents who give their young children and teens cell phones often do so solely so that *they* can communicate with them, and so they can respond or reach out in an emergency; not as a covert communication channel for them to circumvent adult supervision as has been demonstrated quite often in the media recently. From needing to 'crack the teen texting code' to the problems of 'Sexting', these problems are simply the symptoms of larger social issues heightened by the relentless advance of technology.
While parents want to trust their children implicitly, we cannot forget the powerful forces at work on them in social communities beyond our reach. Between peer pressure from not-so-well-intentioned peers, and media/marketing campaigns that might foster values that may not be in the best interests of their age group, it's fairly likely that their unfettered access to limitless technology will inevitably be abused.
The recent phenomenon of cyber-bullying and Sexting have risen out of the boundless nature of the technologies of the telecommunications and internet industries, and the perceived certainty of secrecy, permitting youth to commit actions covertly which they would be less likely to do in the open. Most parents wouldn't let their child stay on the telephone for anywhere near the amount of time they admit to spending on texting. So why permit hours upon hours of communication just because it's in a different, unobservable venue?
Today (Wednesday, April 15th, 2009) on GMA, New York attorney Parry Aftab has suggested parents install Google Desktop to mine their PCs for evidence of undesirable behavior. While inspecting one's own computer is a reasonable move, this suggestion is fraught with its own perils. An application like Google Desktop is a complex utility, and if improperly configured, can transmit sensitive or confidential personal information via index files on the PC to servers located within Google itself, resulting in trading one problem for another. While Google claims that such data is encrypted and protected according to its published privacy policy, the application (like many) has a history of internet related vulnerabilities**, so it's simply not an application one should use without some education and forethought in its use.
A better response is simply to recognize that unlimited text and data packages are most likely unnecessary and inappropriate for most children or teens, and promote abuses like the ones we hear about almost daily. Telecom service providers would seem to have fostered this problem by targeting families with children and teens with incredibly inexpensive 'unlimited text and/or data plans' that make not buying them seem ludicrous. But giving in to children/teens unwillingness to refrain from using available text and data services to prevent exorbitant telecom bills is the same as giving in to extortion.
Most children and teens can't acquire or afford these devices on their own, and wouldn't likely have them at all if parents didn't feel the need to be more closely connected with their kids in this day and age. But that doesn't mean you need to let the 'tail wag the dog'. A bargain (affordable text/data services) isn't a bargain if it creates a bigger problem than it solves. And if that unlimited plan weren't in place, there would likely be a much more obvious indicator of your child or teen's behavior on the monthly bill, not unlike the routine grades they get from their school. Even though most basic plans may include a paltry number of included text messages in their monthly rate, sending just one photo from a cell phone without a data plan can send your bill skyrocketing.
However, unlike most genies that get out of the bottle this one can be put back. Limiting chatting to 'landlines' or on the computer where it can be documented or monitored makes more sense for most of the ages we're talking about. And while photos taken with cell phones can be downloaded and transmitted via traditional mail and text applications from the desktop, they are more likely to be detected in hidden in undeleted cache files. Something the average technologically savvy teen is probably keenly aware of.
Also, we're fortunate that not all phones these days have the same features or use the same storage media anymore. Many older phones used to have infrared communication ports (like the television remote), allowing two devices to transfer files and data between them. As the price of digital memory has fallen and become more ubiquitous, this feature has become less common in new phones. And the wide diversity of media formats significantly limits the ability to transfer files and pictures from device to device since most devices can only access one piece of storage media at a time and only one format of media. History proves time and time again that the attraction of a feature or service is inversely related to the level of inconvenience one has to engage in to use it. So, between these two 'advances' in technology, opportunities to continue engaging in the transfer of undesirable Sexting-related files are likely also reduced.
Will kids and teens find ways around these speed bumps? Probably, especially if they think nobody's looking, or nobody cares. These aren't issues of civil liberties, nor are they about fear mongering. Parents do have the right to decide what their children are or are not mature enough to handle (within legal limits). It's about parents being 'parental', and not letting the economies of capitalism and technologies inform poor choices at a time in children's lives when they perhaps need reasoned guidance the most.
**4/27/09: ref: www.schneier.com
Last month, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (I'm on its board of directors) filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission concerning Google's cloud computing services. On its website, Google repeatedly assures customers that their data is secure and private, while published vulnerabilities demonstrate that it is not. Google's not foolish, though; its Terms of Service explicitly disavow any warranty or any liability for harm that might result from Google's negligence, recklessness, malevolent intent, or even purposeful disregard of existing legal obligations to protect the privacy and security of user data. EPIC claims that's deceptive.
No comments:
Post a Comment