Youngsters are using social media and streaming content without supervision

NEARLY half of six-year-olds surf the web alone in their bedrooms, shock research shows.

The youngsters are now as internet savvy as ten-year-olds were in 2013.

Forty-four per cent are browsing the internet, on social media and streaming without adult supervision.

A study for Internet Matters to mark Thursday’s Safer Internet Day found a third of six-year-olds also use WhatsApp — despite its minimum age limit of 16.

A quarter are now on social media, up from 19 per cent in 2013, and three in five use sites such as YouTube.

A quarter of six-year-olds are on social media

A quarter of six-year-olds are on social media

Six year olds are using Facebook and Whatsapp despite the 16 age limit
ALAMY

Six year olds are using Facebook and Whatsapp despite the 16 age limit

Some even upload their own videos, according to the survey of 1,500 parents.

Almost half of six-year-olds can download apps and 47 per cent regularly use services such as iPlayer and Netflix.

Carolyn Bunting, of Internet Matters, said: “It’s vital for parents to set up devices safely and understand risks involved.”

Psychologist Dr Linda Papadopoulos added: “Parents need to set boundaries and arm children with the tools to stay safe online.

Parents need to set boundaries with their kids’ internet use
ALAMY

Parents need to set boundaries with their kids’ internet use

“Issues that a six-year-old may encounter can range from stranger danger to viewing inappropriate content such as violence or pornography.

“It’s vital you have parental controls in place and to ensure the websites and apps they are using are suitable for their age group.”

Internet safety checklist for young children

  • Agree boundaries
    Be clear what your child can and can’t do online – where they can use the internet, how much time they can spend online, the sites they can visit and the type of information they can share.
  • Explore together
    The best way to find out what your child is doing online is to ask them to tell you about what they do and what sites they like to visit.
  • Put yourself in control
    Install parental controls on your home broadband and any internet-enabled devices.
  • Use airplane mode
    Use airplane mode on your devices when your child is using them so they can’t make any unapproved purchases or interact with anyone online without your knowledge.
  • Stay involved
    Encourage them to use their tech devices in a communal area like the lounge or kitchen so you can keep an eye on them.
  • Talk to siblings
    It’s also a good idea to talk to any older children about what they’re doing online and what they show to younger children.
  • Search safely
    Use safe search engines such as Swiggle or Kids-search. Safe search settings can also be activated on Google and other search engines, as well as YouTube.
  • Check if it’s suitable
    The age ratings that come with games, apps, films and social networks are a good guide to whether they’re suitable for your child.

Author : JEN PHARO

Source : https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2802345/nearly-half-of-six-year-olds-are-browsing-the-internet-alone-in-their-rooms-shocking-research-reveals/

Categorized in Internet Search

The Disruptive Competition Project is detailing yet another bad copyright law change in Europe -- France, in particular, this time. Called the Freedom of Creation Act, it actually passed a few months ago, but people are just beginning to understand and comprehend the full horror of what's happening. Basically, it will now require any site that indexes images on the internet (i.e., any image search engine) to pay royalties for each image to a collection society.

How would this work? When an image is published online, the reproduction right and the right of communication to the public of this image shall be transferred to one or more collecting societies appointed by the French government. Online communication services “reproducing and communicating to the public images for search and indexing purposes” shall have to obtain a license from those collecting societies to index images legally. The license fee will either be based on the revenue accruing from the exploitation of the service or be a lump sum fee.

Of course, this makes no sense. In the US, thankfully, multiple cases on things like Google Images have found that indexing the images and showing thumbnails is clearly fair use. But that's not how it's going to work in France.

This seems particularly pointless on any number of levels. First, image search engines aren't "publishing" any works, they're just indexing what's already online and showing people where those images are. Second, if people creating works don't want them indexed they can just use robots.txt. And, yes, someone else might post those images elsewhere, but that's no reason to blame and charge a search engine. But the bigger issue, honestly, is that it's hard to see how this sort of system actually helps content creators at all. Does anyone honestly believe that the money this collection society collects will go to the people who created the indexed images? Remember, copyright collection societies have a very long and very detailed history of abuse and corruption. They collect lots of money, but they're not so great about paying it back out. And, as the Disruptive Competition Project points out, this is particularly problematic in this case, where both jurisdictional questions and just basic logistics make it almost impossible for the collection society to accurately distribute funds:

Moreover, the territorial scope of this measure is unclear. Are the rights of reproduction and communication to the public transferred to a collecting society when an image is published on a French website or on any website? Is the measure based on the nationality of the works? In practice, this measure may claim ownership of the billions of pictures uploaded everyday globally – even though the huge majority of those pictures are published today for personal use by the close-to-3-billion smartphones’ owners, not expecting any revenue. It is also worth noting that a sizable number of those pictures is published under a Creative Commons license that usually refuse remuneration in return, for example, for attribution. Therefore, this measure would override the choice made by users publishing under such a license – and more generally, would deprive rightsholders of the choice between licensing their pictures or not. 

Even worse, there is no realistic way for collecting societies to redistribute the revenues from the license fees accurately and fairly to billions of rightsholders all over the world. The relevant collecting societies won’t attempt to contact all French rightsholders (when close to 70% of French citizens above 15 years old have a smartphone!), let alone all global rightsholders. In practice, the money will be split between the relevant collecting societies and the few rightsholders affiliated to those societies, who – as we say in France – won the “Jackpot”.

It will be worth following to see how this plays out. If France does follow through and a collection society actually goes after Google, it does make me wonder if Google might pull out the nuclear option yet again and shut down Google Images in France as it did with Google News in Spain, when the Spanish government passed a similar tax on news aggregation.

Once again, like so many of these laws, this seems to not be so much about copyright as it is about taxing Google.

Source : https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160826/10092035354/france-passes-copyright-law-demanding-royalties-every-image-search-engines-index-online.shtml

Categorized in Internet Privacy

 

In the course ‘Methodology for Urbanism’ we discuss why Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable academic source. This is because Wikipedia is not “peer reviewed”. Peer reviewing means that to be accepted as authoritative, a text must be reviewed by a team of recognized specialists in that specific field of studies.

Wikipedia is indeed “peer reviewed” but the problem here is that the people contributing to Wikipedia are not backed by any scientific institution that guaranties their credentials (even though some of them are true authorities in their fields).

This generates all kinds of uncertainties.  But does this mean that we should avoid Wikipedia at all costs? Not at all.

Wikipedia is great to find FACTUAL INFORMATION that can be quickly TRIANGULATED. The kinds of verification and review mechanisms put in place by the Wikipedia Foundation are generally effective (but not always) and also generally result in reliable information (but again, not always).  The primary questions answered with factual information are WHAT?, WHERE?, HOW MANY? and WHO? (but again, this is disputable, as even these questions may result in different answers according to different sources and world views).

WIKIPEDIA cannot be used to gather ANALYTICAL INFORMATION, in which someone “analyses and interprets facts to form an opinion or come to a conclusion. The primary questions answered with analytical information are WHY? or HOW?”, according to the ODU Library Services Website.

WIKIPEDIA is a tremendous SOCIAL EXPERIENCE, where thousands of people contribute to a collective description and understanding of different issues. Besides, the comprehensiveness of the information contained in Wikipedia is impressive. The reality is, students make use of Wikipedia all the time.

However, we want to encourage you to go beyond Wikipedia and use other more authoritative sources.  If you want to be scientific, you must then go further and TRIANGULATE  your information. You also need to look for data in authoritative sources, which have been checked by people working in recognized education or research institutions. A good place to start is GOOGLE SCHOLAR. It will lead you to scientific papers published by responsible editors. You should also look into TU DELFT INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORY of thesis and reports. And of course, you should look into the collection of SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS at the TU DELFT LIBRARY. These are BY FAR the best sources of reliable, relevant analytical information! 

Source: 
https://methodologyforurbanism.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/wikipedia/ 

Categorized in Science & Tech

Nowadays the Internet is a wide-open source for information, entertainment, and communication. Many people believe that anything and everything go in cyberspace. I believed that myself, until becoming more informed. Sometimes, in a quest for knowledge and entertainment Internet users cross over a hidden line. Without proper knowledge, users unintentionally break the copyright laws that govern the Internet. Many myths have caused people to believe copyright laws do not apply to the Internet. However, copyright laws are in effect in today's cyberspace.

One of the biggest mistakes that people believe is that if a work has no copyright notice, it is not copyrighted. The correct form of a copyright notice is "Copyright or (date) by (author/owner)" (Templeton 1). Many people believe that if this notice is absent, they can post, use, or take any work on the Internet. Although no name can be copyrighted, the owner's work is (Templeton 2). In fact, everything from April 1, 1989 is copyrighted by the owner or author whether is has a notice or not. Most nations follow the same rules set up by the Berne copyright convention (Templeton 1). The Berne convention created uniform laws for worldwide works (Lussier 1). One of these laws was everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted. All Internet users must assume that the work is copyrighted, unless otherwise specified by the author.
Many works on the Internet are available for public use. However, the author of the work must have explicitly granted it to public domain. If a work is in public domain, granted by saying "I grant this to the public domain," anybody who stumbles upon it can use, take, or copy without giving credit to the owner (Templeton 1). Although, frequently a user can contact the author of the work and be granted permission to use it (Templeton 4). I did that through electronic-mail and received positive results. Requesting permission is not hard. Most times the owner quickly grants a user access and respects him or her more for asking. The author granted me a background graphic that I have since put into a page I have created (http://www.pitt.edu/~skvarka/active/ski/). Often, access to works on the Internet is granted easily and can avoid costly legal matters.
So how does that apply to Internet users? Internet users cannot scan material from periodicals and post them on the Internet. Users cannot transfer graphics or works, without the knowledge of the owner, and post them somewhere else on the Internet (Templeton 1). Technically, no one can post electronic-mail, wholly. A user can refer to a statement in an electronic-mail just as in any research paper. These acts can be prosecuted in a civil court, because "copyright law is civil law" (Templeton 3). The owner can sue for damages to his or her works, if major enough. These laws can be frightening, but often, nothing can be done about violations, because they happen every day. Copyright law on the Internet is a new region for the court system, though ten copies with a value of $2,500 were made a felony in the United States. To be safe, Internet users should just ask first to insure everyone's safety. 

Source:
http://www.pitt.edu/~skvarka/education/copyright/

Categorized in Internet Privacy

Should Internet companies be ruled by law or ethics?

“The law sets the floor,” Brad Smith, the CEO of Intuit (INTU, -1.35%), said during a panel on the Ethics of the Internet Society at Fortune’s Brainstorm Tech conference. “But you still have to have judgment.” Smith said that leading ethically is essential, but also especially challenging in technology where judgment calls a CEO faces often are far ahead of societal norms. “You have to be able to clear about what you are going to stand for,” he said. But a good leader must also be willing to evolve as social norms change.

Fellow panelist Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s (TWTR, +2.86%) general counsel, largely agreed, saying that, for example, the social network bans certain forms of bullying and abuse, even though they are legally permissible. “We do not allow abuse and harassment on the platform,” she said. “We have a dedicated team of people reviewing all those complaints.” The guidelines for what is and isn’t allowed on Twitter are publicly available, she added.

For his part, the third panelist, Gen. (Ret) Stanley McChrystal, was emphatic: “You don’t want to do everything you can do legally.” The interesting conversations, he said, begin when decisions involve things that are legal but not necessarily ethical.

The wide-ranging discussion on ethics touched on a variety of issues. Each panelist was asked about the most important ethical discussion they face in their professional lives.

Gadde said it was the constant push and pull between the company’s free speech principles – it’s belief that it most defend and protect user’s voice – and the demands from repressive governments for censorship. She noted a well-known incident when Twitter refused to take down content it believed to be legal in Turkey, despite demands from the government that it did so. The result was that the government shut down access to Twitter in the country. “We as a company decided (rejecting the takedown order) was a part of or values,” she said.

At Intuit, the most fraught decisions revolve around the use of customer data, Smith said. The company has vowed, in its user agreements, not to use data in ways that are not for the benefit of consumers, he added.

McChrystal, who now runs a consulting firm that advises business leaders, said one of his ethical guideposts is candor. He then added: “It’s a fine line between brutally candid and honest and try to be a leader that can motivate.”

Categorized in Internet Ethics

Get Exclusive Research Tips in Your Inbox

Receive Great tips via email, enter your email to Subscribe.
Please wait

airs logo

Association of Internet Research Specialists is the world's leading community for the Internet Research Specialist and provide a Unified Platform that delivers, Education, Training and Certification for Online Research.

Newsletter Subscription

Receive Great tips via email, enter your email to Subscribe.
Please wait

Follow Us on Social Media

Book Your Seat for Webinar GET FREE REGISTRATION FOR MEMBERS ONLY      Register Now