Teens charged in case of cyberbullying

Nine teenagers were charged Monday in the case of bullying against Phoebe Prince, the high school freshman at South Hadley High School who hung herself on Jan. 14 after months of harassment from other students.

Sean Mulveyhill, 17, Kayla Narey, 17, both of South Hadley, and Austin Renaud, 18, of Springfield are set to appear in court on Tuesday, an article in the Boston Herald reported.

Mulveyhill is charged with statutory rape, violation of civil rights resulting in bodily injury, criminal harassment and disturbance of a school assembly.

Narey is charged with one count of violation of civil rights resulting with bodily injury, criminal harassment and disturbance of a school assembly, according to the article.

Renaud is charged with one count of statutory rape.

Ashley Longe, 16, Flannery Mullins, 16, and Sharon Chanon Velazquez, 16, all South Hadley students, were also charged in the case, but their cases are being handled by the juvenile court. One of the girls faces a charge of assault with a dangerous weapon after she allegedly threw a bottle at Prince as she walked home from school on the day of her death, the article said.

Three other girls were also charged, but their names were not released because of their age.

Prince, 15, had recently moved to the Massachusetts district from Ireland, and had reportedly been receiving verbal assaults and threats for months, It'sonBad.com reported. According to the New York Times, the abuse started after Prince had a brief relationship with a senior boy; she began receiving threatening text messages and some students called her an "Irish slut."

On the 14, Prince's sister found her hanging in the stairwell leading to their second-floor apartment, wearing the same clothes she wore to school.

The oldest of the nine teenagers will be arraigned on Tuesday; the rest of the trials are still pending.

Hacker Arrested

Hackers can be a pain for anyone, but a Twitter hacker code named "Hacker Croll" has tried to leave his mark on more than just people.

The 25 year old French based hacker famously cracked over 300 private documents and was able to break down Twitter security as well as Twitter Google Apps by figuring out that most people use the same password for everything. On top of that he hacked into President Barack Obama as well as Britney Spears Twitter accounts, Hacker Croll said he doesn't crack into account out of malice, just to show how susceptible and how easy it is to do. His basic technique was to get the information of the employees, makes lists of where they live and different facts about them and make profiles with them. When he was able to crack into one of the Twitter employee's Gmail account, he reset their password and changed it, locking out the original user and using the e-mail to gain access to other personal sites.

Hacker Croll was arrested in late March because of the stolen Twitter corporate account information.

Google Hong Kong not providing as many options as intended

In a follow-up to the Google China case (as reported in Kaja's earlier post), the New York Times reported a change in search queries on the new Google Hong Kong site.

According to the article, searches for controversial topics peaked on Tuesday, the day Google stopped filtering its search results after redirected Google China to the less censored Google Hong Kong. The article said that searches for terms like "Tiananmen," "Falun Gong" and "corruption" increased by more than 10 times on that day. There were about 2.5 million searches for phrases containing "Tiananmen" and about 4.7 million searches for "Falun Gong."

However, within the next few days, searches for those terms decreased quickly. Many people did not start searching political terms as soon as the regulations were dropped, and even though Google Hong Kong does not filter search results, some of the pages it brought up were still restricted and blocked when accessed in China.

Users of Google Hong Kong in certain Chinese cities even found the Hong Kong site unavailable for a few minutes when searching Chinese government or political terms.

So, even though Google has stopped censoring, there is still so much firewall protection in China that access to any controversial information is blocked and limited. This is just one update of what I'm sure will be a long line of debate, controversy and information in the Google China case. As with many other developing stories, this is one to follow as further advancements come up and new developments arise.

Viacom v.s. Google: 3 Year Battle

Viacom is suing Youtube for $1 billion copyright infringement suit. The case began shortly after Google bought Youtube in 2007. Viacom asserts that YouTube showed copyright clips without permission. In retaliation, YouTube maintains its claim that it follows the Internet’s copyright laws.

Viacom’s Chief Executive Officer Philippe Dauman said, “The issue we had with YouTube, in particular, was that a lot of the content we produce professionally was being uploaded without a license agreement. We have nothing against YouTube. It’s a wonderful service.”

Since, March 13, 2007, this lawsuit has been unraveling, and it looks as though Google will not go down without a fight. Google claims that Viacom employees uploaded clips to YouTube as they were fighting about the copyright infringement, and Viacom filed the suit after Google bought the site with no hopes of any partnership between the two. Rather than using their company e-mail addresses, Google is also accusing Viacom of uploading videos through disguised e-mail addresses of Viacom marketing agents.

Google also argues that it is impossible to know which videos are uploaded without permission. Therefore, one of Google’s methods of defense has been to obey the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and it takes down videos when a copyright owner says they are uploaded with no permission.

It is interesting to see how this case will be resolved, because both plaintiff and defendant make appealing claims and neither are backing down without a fight. If you are interested in finding out more go to: NY TIMES and USA TODAY

---MONA DALIA

Net Slurs about Suicide Victims

After the recent suicide of a Long Island West Islips high school student Alexis "Lexi" Pilkington, a Facebook memorial site was created for the senior athlete. However, along with posting memorial comments, there have been some negative and derogatory post that have appeared on Internet site.

Some suggest that Web sites that allow anonymous postings should be banned. Others say police should prosecute those who make such offensive remarks. However according to police, they said that although the comments very offensive, they were not illegal.

The 17-year-old was allegedly receiving harassing Internet messages before she killed herself, but her parents deny that this was the reason why she committed suicide. Nonetheless, the police stated that nothing could really be done regarding the offensive comments.

Although Facebook does show names of people who posted the negative and derogatory comments, the family cannot sue or pursue any legal action. Due to the fact that the victim is deceased, the family is limited and suing libel or slander is not an option.

Nonetheless, the memorial site is still up and many of her friends are still posting positive messages remembering the life of their friend. The family continues to only view the positive comments posted and ignore the negative.

Twitter Helps People....Really!

Twitter is finally being used for good, rathering than just being annoying. Twestival is a worldwide event being held on Twitter to raise money for "Concern WorldWide"an organization that will use the money to help over 72 million kids worldwide get an education. The event will also help raise money for building schools, getting clean water to villages worldwide and help train people to become teachers. Twestival is in its second year and had already raised $208,000, and last year they raised $250,000.

When I first read about it, I didn't really get how it worked, but after looking at the website it looks like a great way to help out less fortunate people in the world. There are many ways to get involved in this event some of them following the typical volunteer format like organizing local groups to raise money and awareness, and bidding on celebrity auction items on Ebay. One of the less conventional ways to help involves downloading music from the radio site TwestivalFM and changing your avatars on social networking sites to ones they have designed. The main and most popular way to get the movement across is to tweet about it in your personal Twitter by using "@concern" to bring people to the site and have them give donations.

Its really refreshing to see something that it usually used to follow what self-deprecating thing some celebrity has to say for something that can actually make a difference in the world, so check it out.

Is This Jihad Jane?

Like Jessica Cutler, the sex blogger whose scandalous mark on the Internet will essentially never be scrubbed clean, Colleen LaRose of Millville, N.J., has a lot of reason to worry about her “Net-putation.” She shares the same name as “Jihad Jane,” the convert to Islam who is accused of recruiting terrorists in America. But instead of Jihad Jane’s face, LaRose was shocked to see her own beside an article that appeared on the Australian news site News Bizarre. The author had obtained the picture from LaRose’s Facebook page, mistaking it for Jihad Jane (who, besides for a frazzled mugshot floating around the Internet, mostly appears veiled in the style of strictly observant Muslim women in pictures).

The Star-Ledger reported March 13 that LaRose, a Millville, N.J. native who currently resides in Milford, N.J., wrote to the author, explained the mix-up, and he gladly took it down. However, other Web sites such as Digg.com used his version to tell its readers about Jihad Jane.

She told the Ledger that “on the Internet, there's just no way to get rid of the thing once and for all."

News Bizarre is lucky that she has a sense of humor—LaRose said that she did not wish to take legal action. It is very possible that she could have, on charges that her photo was used without permission and without her consent.

In class on Friday, March 12, we spoke about the impossibility of erasing something that appears on the Internet. Like a bag of feathers thrown to the wind, it becomes a daunting and nearly impossible task to trace and retract all offending material that may disseminate from its original posting on the World Wide Web. Will LaRose be able to redeem her “Net-putation?” That question is debatable-- is her picture forever encoded into the Internet alongside this story?

Google vs. China

Frustrated by China's insistence on Internet censorship, and the hacking which has come in Google's voluntary compliance, Google moved on Monday to redirect Chinese users automatically from their google.com.cn site to their uncensored Hong Kong site, google.com.hk.

In doing so Google attempted to not officially violate Chinese laws while putting an end to censorship practices. As the New York Times reported yesterday, this seemed to angered Chinese officials, who saw Google's move as a violation of its promise to uphold Chinese censorship laws.

On the official blog of Google, David Drummond, Senior VP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer posted on the issue yesterday:

We want as many people in the world as possible to have access to our services, including users in mainland China, yet the Chinese government has been crystal clear throughout our discussions that self-censorship is a non-negotiable legal requirement. We believe this new approach of providing uncensored search in simplified Chinese from Google.com.hk is a sensible solution to the challenges we've faced—it's entirely legal and will meaningfully increase access to information for people in China. We very much hope that the Chinese government respects our decision, though we are well aware that it could at any time block access to our services.

Despite Drummond's insitence that this is “entirely legal,” he was correct that the Chinese government might move to retaliate. On Tuesday this is exactly what it has done; as the New York Times reported this morning, Chinese authorities blocked mainland users from accessing the Hong Kong site.

The legal and technical issues in this conflict still need to be worked out, and the outcome is uncertain. Despite Google's pledge to end censorship, turning its back on China represents turning its back on the largest growing Internet search market. Google also has other business interests in China, such as its research and development department.

Teenage "sexters" equal to sexual predators?

"Sexting," or sending sexually explicit messages via cell phones, has been included in child pornography and sex offender laws, though many lawmakers are rethinking this lack of distinction. Teenagers who have taken and distributed nude or semi-nude pictures of themselves have been tried as sexual predators, a title they must carry with them for decades. Some have also been charged with distribution of child pornography, including girls who past scandalous pictures of themselves on their MySpace profiles.

Two insanely extreme cases like this occurred in Pennsylvania and New York within the last year. Both cases involved junior high school-aged children, one of whom was directly responsible for the distribution of the content and some who were merely innocent bystanders. (Innocent being the key word here--the case of the Pennsylvania girls hardly seems as scandalous and borderline pornographic as the prosecutors made it out to be.)

Riva Richmond writes in the New York Times' Gadgetwise blog:

According to a recent study commissioned by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy and CosmoGirl.com, 20 percent of teenagers have taken nude or semi-nude pictures or videos of themselves and sent them to someone or posted them online. Most send these gifts to their boyfriend or girlfriend (69 percent) or someone they want to date or hook up with (30 percent).

While not a very smart practice, sexting is not as dangerous and criminal as the current laws and aforementioned cases make it seem. Such cases illustrate the need for reevaluated laws and a change to the current system. As a result, 14 states are considering legislation, according to the New York Times article. Of those states, some would make sexting a misdemeanor, while others would classify it as a juvenile offense.

In Nebraska, the new law "gives pass to children under 18 who send out their own photograph to a willing recipient who is at least 15," according the Times article. However, under the same law, a teen who passes the picture along to friends could face a felony child pornography charge and five years in prison.

Overall, I agree that the laws need to be reexamined and changed to fit the times. Consequently, I also believe that teenagers in the digital age need to understand that their actions are no longer fleeting. Their stupid mistakes can now be permanently documented and haunt them for years to come. All it takes is one person to post the photo on the Internet for all the world to see. However, I think carrying around the label of "sex offender" for the rest of one's life or serving jail time are unproportionately large consequences for the errors of one's youth. This could be something to follow for the rest of the semester as more cases unfold and more states change current legislation.

Facebook Panic Button, Or Not?

According to an article written on Thursday, March 11 2010 on MSNBC, British officials were pressuring Facebook to create a panic button on its website following the conviction of Peter Chapman for the kidnap, rape and murder of 17-year-old Ashleigh Hall.

There has been an urgent call for Facebook to install a button on its website. British child protection authorities have been lobbying for a one-click button, which can allow children to get immediate police help if they suspect they are at risk.

Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, will discuss with Facebook later this week (March 16, 2010) about refusal to allow a panic button installation, which will allow children to report suspected pedophiles.

Home Office Minister, Alan Campbell, will meet representatives from the site in an attempt to persuade them to install the button, which connects to the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) center.

Mr. Campbell said he was disappointed that not all social networking sites had added the panic button. He claims, "Later this week the Home Secretary and I will be meeting with Facebook to impress upon them the need to allow users who feel threatened to have access to the CEOP button."

I question if a panic button is really needed on Facebook. Facebook does have a button where an individual can report a member, group, or event. A panic button can falsely identify a person presumed “threatening.” I agree with the idea of a panic button, but I do not think it will be as effective as hoped for.

More information can be found at: Yahoo and MSNBC

---Mona Dalia

What's this Internet business, anyway?

USA Today reported on March 8 that 80% of respondents in a recent global poll said that they strongly or somewhat agree that access to the Internet is a fundamental right. About half of the United States respondents agreed with the statement. Around 85% of the respondents say that the Internet has given them greater freedom, up from 78% of other respondents from around the world. Slightly over half said that the Internet is a safe place to quote opinions, and only 21% said that the Internet is a good place to meet a potential partner.

The answers to the questions in the poll differed around the world. Those in China came first in agreeing that access to the Internet is a fundamental right; less than half around the world on average said that the Internet is a safe place to express opinions; over ten points more agreed that the Internet was a safe place to meet a potential partner.

It's interesting to see how these answers connect to one of our first class discussions on the potential of the Internet. We came up with four “structures” for the Internet—as infrastructure (the “Information Superhighway,”); as a public sphere; as another medium; and as a cultural place. We also discussed the “openness” of the Internet and the “closedness” of the Internet. The Internet as an open place suggested that the free exchange of ideas would not just be tolerated, but expected and welcomed; that attitude was reflected most in countries like China, in which Internet and information is restricted, and the Chinese responses that agreed that the Internet should be a fundamental right may have been a reflection on that. The “openness” suggests that borders between countries, ideas, and cultures are knocked down, which is something that China seems to be afraid of with their attempts to shut down the certain Web sites or attempts to filter searches for words like “Tibet.”

This example alone reflects how the Internet is seen around the world as a tool not just to access information, but to have the freedom to do so. In a country like China, where behavior is restricted more than it is in a country like the United States, the Internet is not just a place to Google someone’s name or Wikipedia a topic—it becomes THE place to see what’s going on in other places around the world.