1. © South West Grid for Learning Trust Online Safety: mapping and understanding risk Ken Corish E-safety Consultant & Education Adviser South West Grid for Learning Peter Bower SWGfL E-safety Consultant

2. Overview

3. Understanding the Culture Technologies and behaviours

5. What risks should we be guarding against? Content (child as recipient) Commercial Adverts Spam Sponsorship Personal info Aggressive Violent / hateful content Sexual Pornographic or unwelcome sexual content Values Bias Racist Misleading info or advice Table developed by the EUKids Online project as and referenced in paragraph 1.3 of the Byron Review.

6. Contact (child as participant) Commercial Tracking Harvesting personal info Aggressive Being bullied, harassed or stalked Sexual Meeting strangers Being groomed Values Self harm Unwelcome persuasions Table developed by the EUKids Online project as and referenced in paragraph 1.3 of the Byron Review. What risks should we be guarding against?

7. Conduct (child as actor) Commercial Illegal downloading Hacking Gambling Financial scams Terrorism Aggressive Bullying or harassing another Sexual Creating and uploading inappropriate material Values Providing misleading info or advice Table developed by the EUKids Online project as and referenced in paragraph 1.3 of the Byron Review. What risks should we be guarding against?

8. The net as a permanent searchable archive Persistence and Searchability The ability to copy and paste from anywhere on the net to anywhere online Replicability High potential visibility well beyond the audience you had in mind Scalability Never really knowing who’s seeing, reading or watching what you post Invisible Audiences Boundaries aren’t clear between what is private or indeed what is physical and what is online Blurring of public and private Inhibitions breakdown because of a lack of visual cues and inflection Online disinhibition Taken Out of Context; American Teen Sociality in Networked Publics” danah boyd

9. 5-7 year olds Activity% of children who carry out the activity at least once a week 200720082009 Radio211 Games444237 (65) Music454 (9) Information312819 (35) Social Networking647 (8) Communication453 Schoolwork / Homework212433 (57) Ofcom – March 2010

10. 8-11 year olds Activity% of children who carry out the activity at least once a week 200720082009 Radio342 News1110 Games504752 (67) Music161817 (30) Information545146 (59) Social Networking192131 (38) Communication323033 Schoolwork / Homework556260 (85) Ofcom – March 2010

11. 12-15 year olds Activity% of children who carry out the activity at least once a week 200720082009 Radio91012 News1922 Games444148 (67) Music483950 (65) Information636466 (80) Social Networking555669 (84) Communication696772 Schoolwork / Homework758084 (94) Ofcom – March 2010

12. Time spent online... © SWGfL Trust 2011

13. Grooming and sexual predation

14. Online grooming Very often child can be a coerced perpetrator Child can be actively involved in process May often be aware of the sexual intentions, age and gender of the person grooming Feeds on the attention and praise that the process offers to young people Can often be older peers Cf David Finkelhor Crimes Against Children Research Centre University of New Hampshire “A substantial number of kids who have been abused, including sexual abuse, tend to be sexualized,

15. Risk ranking and demographics EU KidsOnline2 UK is a high use-high risk country Girls more prone to contact risks Boys more prone to conduct risks Children from lower socio-economic groups more at risk Meeting someone offline that they had met online and suffering physical abuse was ranked least Recommendations Education to understand privacy and identify risk Involvement of young people Parents cannot be relied on alone to keep young people safe Not always seeing the child as the unwitting victim

16. OfCom Media Literacy Tracker April 2010 Children (aged 8 – 15) who use the internet at home have high levels of belief in their ability to keep themselves safe online – only 2% say that they are not confident. 4% of 12-15s who use the internet at home or elsewhere say they’d be happy to give out their home address online. A further 13% would have some concerns, but would still give out their home address. 22% of 12 - 15s say that they’d be happy to give out their email address online. A further 30% would have some concerns, but would still give out their email address. 8% of 12 – 15s say that they’d be happy to give out their mobile phone number online. A further 21% have some concerns, but would still give out their phone number. 14% of children aged 8-15 who use the internet at home say they forget about the safety rules when online.

17. OfCom Media Literacy Tracker April 2010 9% of children aged 8-15 who use the internet at home or elsewhere say that they wouldn’t tell anyone, or don’t know who they would tell/if they would tell someone if they saw something worrying, nasty or offensive online. 9% of children aged 8-15 with a currently active social networking account say that their profile can be seen by anyone. One third (33%) of 8-12 year old home internet users say they have a profile on Facebook, Bebo or MySpace – social networking sites intended for those aged 13+. Of these users, 7% say their profile is visible by anyone.

19. Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP)

20. Cyberbullying

21. Perceived anonymity Cannot see or judge the response of the person Publishing hurtful images can seldom be recalled 24/7 with little respite Increases number of bystanders Much quicker to escalate Distance apart What are the differences between physical bullying and cyberbullying? Staff can equally be targeted Different bully profile

22. Virtual Violence (2009) The Beatbullying survey concluded Pupils with SEN are 16% more likely to be persistently cyberbullied over a prolonged period of time. Pupils receiving free school meals (an “agreed” universal indicator of increased deprivation – although this can clearly be very flawed) are 13% more likely to be persistently cyberbullied over a prolonged period of time. Girls experience twice as much persistent cyberbullying as boys. © SWGfL Trust 2011

23. www.digizen.org

25. Sexting

26. Sexual images ƒ 11% of UK children have encountered sexual images online. 8% of UK 11 ‐ 16 year olds say they have seen online sexual images including nudity 6% (more teenagers than young children) have seen images of someone having sex, 6% have seen someone’s genitals online and 2% say they have seen violent sexual images. ƒAmong children who have seen online sexual images, 41% of parents say their child has not seen this, while 30% recognise that they have and 29% say they don’t know. ƒAs in other countries, 9 ‐ 10 year olds are less likely to see sexual images online but more likely to be bothered or upset by the experience if they do see them.

27. SWGfL Sexting Research 2010 1100 12-16 year old respondents across schools in the South West 40% Sexting is quite common Knew friends who had 40% Nothing wrong with a topless image 15% nothing wrong with naked image 56% Aware of images going beyond intended recipient 23% believed this was to cause upset 70% Would turn to friends for help

28. UK Safer Internet Centre

29. How do we affect change…?

30. Teach a new media that involves critical thinking Make it relevant by involving young people Build resilience and independence in young people with the right education Promote the ethics of good online behaviour Factor in adolescent brain development and build a progressive approach rather than a “one size fits all” © www.connectsafely.org 2010

31. Bridge the gap between formal and informal learning Make the most of technology’s potential rather than locking it down Empower and engage parents Involve a wider range of professionals beyond just the technical Be realistic! Don’t exaggerate the fears. Tell it like it is. © www.connectsafely.org 2010

32. www.swgfl.org.uk/delegateevaluation Add your email address to enter a monthly draw for £25 Amazon Voucher Thank You

33. Scenario Discussions Time to engage!

34. Implications... What are the considerations for the young person? What are the considerations for the member of staff involved? How might this issue be resolved with current intervention? What are the implications for Bournemouth and Poole? How does this inform future key priorities? What next?