Ethical Analysis of Children on the Internet

Children on the Internet

• Abeer AlSouly
• Ghada AlFantookh 
• Naima AlRashed

Overview:

Many people may consider the Internet as the greatest invention ever created by man. No doubt about that if we talked about how fast knowledge exchanging has become today, or how easy can people communicate with each other globally. Also children nowadays practice many activities on the Internet; the most popular ones are schoolwork, social networking and online gaming. Children’s ability to access the Internet has grown rapidly. It has made our life much easier and it has become an essential part of modern life.

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Find out more about our Essay Writing Service

Even though the benefits of the Internet are countless, it may be considered as an extremely dangerous environment for children because some of the Internet contents can’t be controlled and uncensored. Also children are not fully aware of how horrible and devastating the consequences could be.

However, there is no universally accepted view of what is more important whether the education of children or protection, which is also another challenge! Also the differences in people’s cultures and geographical location in legal and social norms reflect the lack of common agreement.

In this report, we will discuss three main issues that raise the concerns about children on the internet:

• The possibility that children could obverse inappropriate content in the Internet.
• Contact with people who seek to abuse children.
• Privacy risk from game sites that ask children for extensive personal and family Information for marketing purposes.

Background and The Importance of The Internet:

The evolution of the Internet in the last 3 decades has been hugely improved and nowadays we rely on it in most of our daily needs.

It’s both informative and entertaining medium. Some children use it to expand their horizon and increase their knowledge and other use it just for fun.

Also these activities doesn’t require the traditional desktop computer anymore, the platforms has increased to handheld devices such as smart phones and tablets.

The Internet doesn’t just improve children mental skills but also improves their imagination and develops their interaction skills.

The ways of using the Internet and the reasons differ from child to child according to the child age and interests.

Explanation of the issues:

Despite the many benefits of using the Internet and its associated services among children there are also risks, which they must be made aware of 1. In this report we will explain some issues such as: The possibility that children could obverse inappropriate content in the Internet (as in Networked Communications- Children Inappropriate Content section in the course), contact with people who seek to abuse children and privacy risk from game sites that ask children for extensive personal and family information for marketing purposes.

The possibility that children could obverse inappropriate content in the Internet:

The term ‘inappropriate content’ may vary across generations and across countries and cultures. On the other hand, there is content that is considered in all cultures as inappropriate for children, such as the depiction of graphic violence or sexual abuse, and encouragement to harm one’s self or others. Moreover, some content can be considered as illegal, such as violent or sexual acts against children, and the promotion of racism and xenophobia. The different types of inappropriate content and risks that children can encounter online is classified based on the role of the child (as recipient, participant or as actor) and the motives of the provider (commercial, aggressive, sexual and values-related). Children inevitably encounter content such as pornography as it is widely available on the Internet. Child pornography in particular has important implications and considered as one of the most serious crimes on the Internet. Sexual content, like pornographic or sexual depictions, might cause harm to children or lead them to personal contact with potentially dangerous strangers.

Contacting with people who seek to abuse children:

Speaking of contacting with people who seek to abuse children, ‘British investigators flew to America to rescue a six-year-old-girl who was being repeatedly raped on video by her father for the gratification of members of a highly secretive internet paedophile ring.’ And many other stories like this one appear on a regular basis. Child abuse takes new forms, leaving social workers and parents confused about new threats that may arrive with new technologies. Contact offences can be committed by adults where an adult commits or seeks to commit a sexual offence on a child. Historically most child sex abuse was by a family member or from people in his social circles. On the Internet adults who may become involved with sexually abusing children can locate them and make the initial contact using a different interactive, communications technologies. Usually the adult and the child will initially meet in an Internet chat room. Committed paedophiles are known to frequent chat rooms that are popular with children such as chat rooms related to music, fashion, or sport.

The paedophile may be very skillful in communicating with children, he shows himself to the child as a nice guy or tries to become their special friend and persuades the child to leave the public space and go off into a private chat room. The paedophile and the child can then arrange to continue to communicate with each other in different ways. He will ensure that the child does not keep any record of their conversations, as sooner or later he will seek to sexualize the contact and conversations as part of the grooming process. The effect on children of being sexually abused is almost deeply damaging both in the short and longer runs. A child who knew that images or a record of their abuse were out there on the Internet, might be worried that the image could reach their classmates, neighbors or other family members. Alternatively the image could fall into the hands of other people who know them and who might then use it against them. Children who have been abused in front of a web cam similarly could never be absolutely sure that they would not meet someone who might have witnessed their abuse and recognize them in real life.

Privacy risk from game sites that ask children for extensive personal and family information for marketing purposes:

Moreover on the issues of children on the Internet, the privacy risks from game sites that arise from asking children for extensive personal and family information for marketing purposes. Many corporations seeking to capitalize on this market create websites that offer games, quizzes, chat environments, and advice in order to encourage children to provide their personal information, which can then be used to target the children with advertising, For example Kraft, which owns Lifesavers, are interested in kids because of their spending power. Corporations Typically, these children’s sites play into their developmental needs in order to encourage kids to talk about themselves. Many of these sites, like Tickle.com, use personality tests to collect information from, and market to, individual girls. These quizzes ask detailed questions about the child’s personality, preferences, hopes, and aspirations. Since children have to register with the site before they can access the quizzes, the marketer is able to record the child’s responses linked to his or her first and last name, zip/postal code, email address, gender, marital status, and level of education. This information can also be matched against the data trail that the child generates as she surfs through the site, selecting articles, chatting online and playing games. Tickle also uses the information they collect to target girls with personalized advertisements.

Analysis and Evaluation:

Issue (1): “The possibility that children could obverse inappropriate content in the Internet”

1. Kantianism

1st formulation:

Proposed Rule “Some people post graphic violence or sexual abuse or encouragement to harm one’s self or others”

Universalize

rule

Everyone can post graphic violence or sexual abuse or encouragement to harm one’s self or others and everyone can see it.

Result

1- Physiological harms to the children.

2- Children will try to apply what they see of encouragement to harm one’s self or others, which leads to death in some cases.

3- May lead them to personal contact with potentially dangerous strangers to talk about what they had seen instead of talking with their parents.

So, based on Kantianism first formulation this rule can’t be universalized which makes it morally wrong.

2nd formulation:

Proposed

Rule

“Some people post graphic violence or sexual abuse or encouragement to harm one’s self or others”

Goal People who post these kinds of posts aim to gain fame and attention of others or satisfy their physiological desires.

Mean Since everyone can see the posts including children, innocent people who shouldn’t see this content including children will become the mean to achieve their goal.

Result So, based on Kantianism second formulation this rule is morally wrong.

2. Act Utilitarianism

Proposed

Rule

“Some people post graphic violence or sexual abuse or encouragement to harm one’s self or others”

Benefits 1. Sometimes this content may be used to increase the knowledge of the child about the inappropriate actions and things to avoid.

Harms

1. Physiological harms to the children.

2. Children will try to apply what they see of encouragement to harm one’s self or others, which leads to death in some cases.

3. May lead them to personal contact with potentially dangerous strangers to talk about what they had seen instead of talking with their parents. 

Result We can see above that harms overweigh the benefits, so, based on Act Utilitarianism this rule is morally wrong.

Our point of view:

The theories above all agree that it is morally wrong that people post graphic violence or sexual abuse or encouragement to harm one’s self or others on the Internet. From our point of view, we totally agree with this result since these posts will cause physiological harms to the children, they will try to apply what they see of encouragement to harm one’s self or others which leads to death in some cases and may lead them to personal contact with potentially dangerous strangers to talk about what they had seen instead of talking with their parents. We actually think these posts will kill the childhood innocence.

Issue (2): “Contacting with people who seek to abuse children”

1. Kantianism

1st formulation:

Proposed

Rule “People who seek to abuse children contact them on the Internet”

Universalize

rule Everyone can use the Internet to satiate their bad desires.

Result

1- The Internet will become a dangerous place everyone is afraid of.

2- Crime in all of its forms is going to increase exponentially.

3- Trusted content will significantly decrease.

So, based on Kantianism first formulation this rule can’t be universalized which makes it morally wrong.

2nd formulation:

Proposed

Rule “People who seek to abuse children contact them on the Internet”

Goal People who make this kind of connection aim to satiate their desires.

Mean In this rule they use the children as a mean to satiate their bad desires.

Result So, based on Kantianism second formulation this rule is morally wrong.

2. Act Utilitarianism

Proposed

Rule “People who seek to abuse children contact them on the Internet”

Benefits No benefits.

Harms

1. A child who knew that images or a record of their abuse were out there on the Internet, might be worried that the image could reach their classmates, neighbors or other family members; which will shake his/her self-confidence.

2. Children who have been abused in front of a web cam similarly could never be absolutely sure that they would not meet someone who might have witnessed their abuse and recognize them in real life; which may make them prefer the isolation and hate the social life.

3. The image of the child’s abuse could fall into the hands of other people who know them and who might then use it against them.

Result We can see above that harms overweigh the benefits, so, based on Act Utilitarianism this rule is morally wrong.

Our point of view:

The theories above all agree that it is morally wrong that people who seek to abuse children contact them on the Internet. From our point of view, this result is absolutely right, since these kinds of communication will harm the child, shake his/her self-confidence, make them prefer the isolation and hate the social life, the image of the child’s abuse could fall into the hands of other people who know them and who might then use it against them also, the Internet will become a dangerous place everyone is afraid of, crime in all of its forms is going to increase exponentially and finally trusted content will significantly decrease.

Issue (3): “Privacy risk from game sites that ask children for extensive personal and family information for marketing purposes”.

1. Kantianism

1st formulation:

Proposed

Rule

“Game sites collect personal and family information from children for marketing purposes”

Universalize rule Everyone can collect private information from children.

Result

1- May result in child giving her/his parents’ credit card number or financial information.

2- Crime in many of its forms is going to increase, since many of the private information had been leaked.

3- Blackmail propagation.

So, based on Kantianism first formulation this rule can’t be universalized which makes it morally wrong.

2nd formulation:

Proposed

Rule

“Game sites collect personal and family information from children for marketing purposes”

Goal People who collect these information aim to promote for their products or services in order to increase their revenue.

Mean In this rule they use the children as a mean to collect the personal and family information needed for this promotion.

Result So, based on Kantianism second formulation this rule is morally wrong.

2. Act Utilitarianism

Proposed

Rule

“Game sites collect personal and family information from children for marketing purposes”

Benefits

1. Child would benefit from enjoying playing the games.

2. Some of these games may enhance his/her intelligence and his/her way of thinking.

3. Corporations will suggest the appropriate games based on the collected information (ex: age, gender, interests, etc.) ; so both parties will benefit.

Harms

1. Parents or any of the family members of the child will receive so many annoying spam emails.

2. Corporations sell these personal and family information to other corporations without the permission of the information’s owner.

3. Parents or any of the family members of the child may receive many annoying sales or advertisements’ phone calls or SPIMs*.

4. All of the above wastes the target’s time, since the information had been collected without his/her permission which means (s)he’s not interested in these advertisements.

*

SPIM: Stands for Spam Instance Messaging.

Result We can see above that harms overweigh the benefits, so, based on Act Utilitarianism this rule is morally wrong.

Our point of view:

The theories above all agree that it is morally wrong to collect personal and family information from children for marketing purposes. Also, from our point of view we agree with this result, because the parents or any of the family members of the child will receive so many annoying spam emails, their information will be exchanged between the companies without their permission and they also will receive so many annoying sales or advertisements’ phone calls. These things wastes so much time especially if the targeted person is not interested in these advertisements.

Summary and conclusions:

To summaries, the Internet today has a very useful and important resources and a lot of schools depend on it almost completely, but also there is no clear accepted view that will everyone agree on when it comes to also protection. We had explained some issues such as:

The possibility that children could obverse inappropriate content in the Internet which prove to be morally wrong based on Kantianism, Act Utilitarianism and from our point of view, contact with people who seek to abuse children and privacy risk from game sites that ask children for extensive personal which prove to be morally wrong based on Kantianism, Act Utilitarianism and from our point of view and family information for marketing purposes which prove to be morally wrong based on Kantianism, Act Utilitarianism and from our point of view.

Eventually, we know that we can’t prevent the children from accessing the Internet; instead we can apply parental control over what the children can access. Moreover, children should be aware of the consequences of what their actions may lead to. Various laws have been passed to protect the children nowadays such as; The Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which was passed to restrict access by minors to any material, defined as harmful to such minors on the Internet5 and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA) “which was designed to limit the collection and use of personal information about children by the operators of Internet services and Web sites”6.

References: 

[1] S. Livingstone, L. Haddon.(2009, Sep 30). Kids Online: Opportunities and Risks for Children. (1st Edition). [On-line]. Available: http://books.google.com.sa/books?id=aPsXzcjf9vMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Kids+Online+book&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SeaBVLrSAcisU5fSgPAP&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Kids%20Online%20book&f=false [Nov. 15, 2014].

[2] O’NEILL S (2002), Paedophile Squad Saves Girl, 6, from Rapist Father, Daily Telegraph, 3 July 2002, p. 7.

[3] J. Carr. “child abuse, child pornography and the internet.” NCH (National Children’s Homes) (Dec, 2003).

[4] V. Steeves.(2006). “It’s Not Child’s Play: The Online Invasion of Children’s Privacy.” University of Ottawa Law & Technology Journal. Available: http://www.uoltj.ca/articles/vol3.1/2006.3.1.uoltj.Steeves.169-188.pdf?origin=publication_detail [Nov. 17, 2014].

[5] A. Carr. (2013, Feb 26). Child Protection. (1st Edition). [On-line]. Available: http://books.google.com.sa/books?id=UwKfxyy_S2cC&printsec=frontcover&hl=ar#v=onepage&q&f=false [Dec. 5, 2014].

[6] “Children’S Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).” Internet: http://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/childrens-online-privacy-protection-act-COPPA.html, [Dec. 5, 2014].