Although cyberbullying poses a far more realistic threat to children and teens online than sexual predators, a recent study from the C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health shows that parents continue to downplay concern over this fast growing problem.

According to Dr. Matthew Davis, who organized the study,

“Parents are quite aware of some online safety risks but seem less aware about others. We know from other studies that about one in seven children between the ages of 10 and 17 have received sexual solicitation over the Internet, and about one in three children have been exposed to sexually explicit material. So it’s not a surprise that most parents whose kids are online unsupervised are concerned about issues related to sexual predators and pornography. On the other hand, cyberbullying is a very worrisome problem for kids, yet the majority of parents say they are not concerned about it.”

Dr. Davis’ research also found that “81 percent of parents surveyed said their children aged 9 to 17 use the Internet without being supervised by an adult.”

It is distressing to see that there is still a lack of awareness regarding the dangers of cyberbullying, particularly when four out of five children are surfing the web without any supervision. Unfortunately, it is also somewhat expected.

Rarely are we able to identity the severity of a problem as it’s occurring. For instance, five or six years ago when MySpace and other social networking websites were beginning to gain traction, there were a rash of news stories about sexual predators trolling the internet looking for victims. From 2004 to 2008, the Dateline NBC show To Catch a Predator put a face to these stories, trapping would-be sex offenders in a hidden camera reality TV show.

Despite the continuing danger that sexual predators play, however, our exposure and awareness of the problem has helped us mitigate the threat somewhat. It is 2009. Teens are no longer inexperienced web surfers. They text, they tweet, they have multiple social networking accounts. As with all things on the web, the problems kids and teens face now have evolved.

Because kids and teens are so tuned in online, there is little disconnect from their time at school to their time at home. In some ways, this is good. Studies have shown that social networking websites help maintain stronger peripheral relationships over long periods of time, allowing for a more robust and useful social circle.

In other ways, however, being plugged in all the time is a bad thing. If a child is facing taunting or bullying at school, there is no respite from the abuse at home. Often, in the digital age, schoolyard abuse carries over to the web in ways that are far more destructive and emotionally scarring. The fact that parents are not supervising their kids online allows for the bullying to go virtually uninterrupted 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. As demonstrated in the case of Megan Meier, the results of prolonged cyberbullying can be tragic.

In order to protect your kids online effectively, you must understand all of the threats, not just the ones that make the headlines. In the next two or three years, cyberbullying will become one of the most talked about issues on the web. Don’t wait until then to talk about it with your kids. For more information on how to identify and prevent cyberbullying, check out this guide from ReputationDefender. Also, if you don’t already, follow us on Twitter and Facebook for more information.

From all of us here at ReputationDefender:

Happy Thanksgiving!

Remember to stay safe this holiday season and enjoy your time with friends and family.

New York Jets Wide Receiver David Clowney joined a new support group recently. The “no-I-didn’t-say-that-on-Twitter-what-do-you-think-I’m-nuts?” club.

Clowney and a growing number of celebrities, politicians, and other high profile individuals have had their Twitter accounts compromised, only to have the hacker send out humiliating tweets to the online world. Though most attacks haven’t lasted more than a couple minutes, the situation is embarrassing for both Twitter and the megastar, or even average Joe, who has to explain what happened.

Clowney’s Twitter account hack has been one of the worst so far with the attacker going on for hours, swearing at and insulting bewildered fans. Other notable hack attacks include the Fox News Twitter account, where comments about Bill O’Riley’s sexuality popped up, and the Britney Spears Twitter feed, where the assailant posted extremely distasteful remarks about the pop superstar, as well as references to Satanic worship. CNN’s Rick Sanchez, President Barack Obama, and The Huffington Post have all had their tweets hijacked too with disturbing results.

The majority of Twitter account hackings occurred back on January 5, when 33 tweeters had their accounts put into lock-down phase after Twitter discovered an infiltration. The company released a statement on the Twitter Blog, saying the hacker had “hacked into some of the tools our support team uses to help people do things like edit the email address associated with their Twitter account when they can’t remember or get stuck.” Twitter responded by moving the support tools offline for a period. Additionally, Twitter officials claimed they were undertaking a “full security review of all access points” at the time determine the problem, while increasing sign-in security.

Currently, the company is working on a beta version of Twitter Verified Accounts – a method of determining the authenticity of users who establish Twitter accounts. In other words, making sure Britney Spears or an official agent of Britney Spears is setting up the Britney Spears Twitter account. However, this system doesn’t address who is writing the tweets on each account.

Even social networking giant Facebook hasn’t completely resolved the hacking problem with the rash of worm viruses, phishing and spam attacks, and money transfer scams Facebook users have been bombarded with in the last year. In Facebook’s defense though, the top networking site does provide a comprehensive Q&A to warn users and help them address the problems themselves. Facebook’s latest problem: worm pimps, designed to entice even the most stalwart social networker into visiting naughty sites.

Twitter’s security problems fall far outside of “rogue tweeters.” In June a hacker comprised delicate company information, including Twitter staff PayPal passwords and other internal documents, and e-mailed them out to various companies. So when can we expect Twitter to clean up it’s security act, and how? Perhaps all that’s needed is a series of questions to access each account, like those employed by financial institutions, to better weed out the fakes.

Currently, Twitter and other Silicon Valley companies are beta testing the OAuth, open protocol system. The technology would allow Twitter users to use applications without having to give away account information. Whether or not the protocol will help or hinder Twitter’s security difficulties though, preventing defamatory tweets from being broadcast to hundreds of followers by phonies, remains to be seen.

If an offensive picture shows up in Google search results, should the company be responsible for removing it? What if the image is of someone famous? Google was forced to answer these questions recently after a crudely doctored image of the First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama, began appearing in Google Image search.

The racist picture, which characterizes First Lady Obama as a monkey, has appeared in Google Image search results for much of the past week. At first, Google banned the website that was hosting the image saying that the site could infect computers with malware. After the image appeared on a different website, however, Google has declined to take any formal action other than offering an apology and explanation of Google’s search algorithms above the picture.

Why is Google deferring this time around? Charles Arthur of The Guardian explained in a recent blog post:

Because Google doesn’t want to be seen to be making choices; that would put it into the middle of every battle fought by every special interest group everywhere. Hence: “We do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it.” The company has already tackled the issue once before, over the search results for the word “Jew”, which found all sorts of racist sites.

Only legal action – by the authorities (because the US first amendment allows Google to republish “legal” speech, making it proof against civil action) – can get a page taken out of the index.

The reason that Google has made it to the top of the web world is because it returns the most relevant results…usually. As we’ve seen with this Michelle Obama case, and with John McCain before her, with the right technical knowhow and a little bit of time, Google results can be manipulated. Still, just because the system can be gamed, does that mean Google should change the system?

If Google were to take personal responsibility everytime someone had a grievance with their search results, the site would slow to a crawl. However, that doesn’t mean that Google is in perfect condition as is. As the world becomes more web literate, “Googlebombs” are bound to become more commonplace. The way that Google decides to handle these issues going forward will say a lot about the company and truly test their “Don’t Be Evil” mantra.

According to an article in the Associated Press, beginning Wednesday, the Honolulu Police Department is testing out a new and controversial method of reducing drunk driving. The plan, which hopes to embarrass drunk drivers, calls for posting mug shots of suspected drunk drivers on the Honolulu Police Department website. Naturally, there are opposing views on the plan.

Quoting from the article:

Supporters say the experiment in public humiliation to be launched Wednesday should be used elsewhere in the nation if it reduces the number of drunks on the road.

Critics counter the photo gallery is a heavy-handed tactic that threatens to violate constitutional rights and stain reputations without court convictions.

“We’re not trying to embarrass anybody,” said police Maj. Thomas Nitta, head of the traffic division. “This is public record, and we want people to be aware of this.”

Defense attorneys doubt the strategy will stop intoxicated drivers from getting behind the wheel.

“There’s no empirical data to show it does anything other than embarrass them,” said attorney Pat McPherson, who handles hundreds of DUI cases a year. “There may be a good intent here, but it doesn’t necessarily make it a good thing and really opens the police up to liability.”

Arrest records and photos are considered to be public records and have been published in newspapers and shown on TV for decades. The Honolulu program is different, however, because the police themselves are publicizing the images.

Perhaps the most compelling argument in the article comes from the American Civil Liberties Union. Citing the possible unconstitutionality of the initiative, Jay Stanley, Jay Stanley, public education director for the ACLU’s technology and liberty program, says

“The police frequently arrest people who do not deserve to be arrested, and in today’s Internet environment having your picture posted on a Web site is something that can stick with you for the rest of your life.”

Drunk driving is a serious offense, and keeping repeat drunk drivers off the road undoubtedly saves lives, but the steps that the Honolulu Police Department have taken are flawed. The right to a fair trial is one of America’s bedrock principles. When an individual is found guilty of a crime, and only then, should a punishment be issued.

Even though the media has shared mugshots on TV and in the news in the past, this is a different situation. By posting mugshots of men and women who have not yet been found guilty of an offense directly on the department’s website, the Honoloulu Police Department is, in many ways, creating a perception of guilt.This is a direct violation of the precept that all people are innocent until proven guilty.

Furthermore, even if the individual is guilty of drunk driving, once they’ve paid their debt to society, shouldn’t they be able to live a normal life? It is hard enough for regular people to get a job in a down economy, imagine how difficult it must be for someone with a permanent reminder of their past mistake on Google? I’m by no means condoning drunk driving. As I said before, it is a serious crime and there should be serious consequences, but not at the expense of personal liberty.

As the internet continues to evolve, the way in which the law enforcement community investigates and prosecutes crimes will change too. We can only hope that as they change, they will keep our individual rights and liberties in mind.