Pediatricians and child development experts have repeatedly warned parents that putting a television set in a young child’s bedroom is associated with a host of undesirable outcomes, including poorer school performance, behavior problems and obesity. But what about teenagers? Epidemiologists at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health wondered whether the undesirable outcomes of bedroom television might be blunted at this age.

Apparently not, according to a federally funded study of 781 adolescents between 15 and 18 published in the April issue of Pediatrics.

Daheia J. Barr-Anderson and her colleagues found that the two-thirds of youths who had a bedroom set watched more TV, moved less and had poorer diets and lower grades than those without one.

Parents who are considering whether to put a television in a teenager’s room should refrain from doing so, the authors recommend.

Source: Washington Post, United States
http://tinyurl.com/4gltwq

Computer games and fast food have been blamed by doctors for a startling rise in the number of children being treated in hospital for sleep disorders.

Eating too much sugary food is also blamed for preventing children from dropping off to sleep.

Newly released NHS figures show that the number of under-11s referred to hospital specialists for insomnia, sleep-walking and sleep-related breathing problems has rocketed by 26 per cent over the past five years.

But the true numbers affected could be much higher because the figures reflect only those seeking medical help.

Studies have linked poor sleep to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). And lack of sleep harms children’s ability to learn at school.

Psychologist Chireal Shallow, of the Naturally Nurturing clinic for children’s sleep disorders in London, said: “There are likely to be thousands more children whose parents do not seek treatment.

“A lot of the problem is guilty parenting where kids are allowed the rule of the roost because Mum and Dad come home from work late.

“The light, sound and movement of television or computer screens is stimulating and keeps children awake and there should be at least an hour’s gap before going to bed.”

Nick Seaton, chairman of the Campaign for Real Education, said: “It’s absolutely crazy for parents to let their children go to bed any time they like.

“Parents need to exert more authority and remove computer games from bedrooms to make sure kids have the best start in life. I’m sure teachers would be delighted.”

The NHS statistics show nearly 3,000 children under 11 had their sleep monitored overnight by specialists during 2006 compared with only 2,200 in 2002.

Of those, 1,733 were boys.

Professor Jim Horne of the Sleep Research Centre at Loughborough University, said that children aged five to eight are particularly vulnerable to sleep problems as a result of ‘electronic distractions’ because having a rigid bedtime routine is so important to them.

“If they sleep better, the ADHD symptoms disappear.”

Jane Howell, 34, from Morden, South West London, struggled for years to get her son Marcel, now 13, to sleep.

After spending most of the day at school in front of a computer, Marcel would spend the evenings watching television but then found it hard to drop off, often not falling asleep until just a few hours before he had to be up again. “Eventually the problem got so bad that Jane approached a sleep clinic. “She said: “The clinic asked me about his routines and said computers, televisions and mobile phones were a distraction.

“They told me to minimise the time he uses computers and after 8pm it’s now wind-down time.

“He now has much more energy and is sleeping better. As parents you have to be hard on your kids. They want to do their own thing but you have to be strict.”

Dr Rob Primhak, a consultant paediatric respiratory physician at Sheffield Children’s Hospital, said there was now a shortage of specialists due to the numbers coming in.

“There has been a huge surge in demand,” he said.

Mandy Gurney, of the Millpond Children’s Sleep Clinic in London, said: “Not getting a good night’s sleep can have the same effect as four units of alcohol, so imagine what it is like for a child.”

Source: Daily Mail, UK
http://tinyurl.com/4ktvhr

The internet offers a world of possibilities for children — but adults need to manage the risks, say Matt Warman and Claudine Beaumont

It has not been a good few days for the internet: a succession of recent reports and surveys has warned of the dangers the web poses to children, and parents could be forgiven for cancelling their broadband subscriptions and dumping the family computer.

In Britain, a government-backed report got the ball rolling, calling for a new code of conduct for social networking sites. This was swiftly followed by detailed research which found that more than a quarter of eight-to-11-year-olds with internet access had circumvented ineffectual age restrictions to join social networking sites aimed at older people.

The British Home Office published a 73-page report that makes a series of recommendations about the steps social networking sites and websites need to take, in order to improve child safety online, including providing links that advertise phone numbers for the emergency services.

So, what steps can parents take to ensure their children’s online safety, when the internet appears to be little more than a lawless playground?

Those with younger children, not yet tempted by the forbidden fruit of Facebook or Bebo will also know that such inquisitive urges are just around the corner, and wonder how best to prepare their children for it.

Here are our top five tips for keeping children safe online, as well as our guide to the best websites for young children:

1: Be realistic

There are dangers online just as there are in real life. Make sure you know where children are going online, just as you would make sure you know who they’re playing with. Ask what websites they’re visiting and what their appeal is.

Make sure the computer is in a public place, such as the living room or kitchen, so you can see what’s going on. This will reduce the temptation for young people to shut the door on the pleasures of the real world, too.

2: Use parental controls or protective software

Almost all internet browsers now have effective parental controls built in, which can be easily tweaked to filter the kind of sites children can access. Don’t ask your children to help set it up — employ a competent friend or IT professional if it’s beyond your expertise.

There are also several commercial options: for instance, Cyberpatrol.com offers you the chance to limit time and type of web access, and an awful lot more besides; McAfee and Norton make equivalent versions, too, but be aware that the walled garden approach can always be circumvented by using another computer, so education about the rules and responsibilities of internet use needs to go hand-in-hand with such software solutions.

3: Protect your child’s online identity

Adults should know by now that signing up to a website usually involves a choice about how much personal data you want to give out, and how much you want to make public.

Try to explain to your children, too, that they can use pseudonyms, and that they shouldn’t ever tell strangers they meet online too much about themselves.

4: Remember that there is real danger out there

There’s been a huge amount of media coverage of a small number of incidents of young people being ‘groomed’ online by people who have subsequently ended up in prison.

Much of the internet offers anonymity, which makes this kind of criminal activity easier to perpetrate.

If you think that something really is amiss, talk first to your children, but don’t dismiss as harmless behaviour online that would be really suspicious in person.

5: Try to get the most out of technology

Remember that prohibition simply won’t work. Your children will use computers, even if it’s at school or at friends’ houses.

If you understand what’s worthwhile for your child, what’s harmful and how to balance risks, both you and your child will be able to get a lot more out of the web.

Best websites for young children

The internet is a useful educational tool for children of all ages, and when used properly, can provide a safe environment for creative play, as these sites show:

Club Penguin: a virtual world aimed at children aged between six and 14, where youngsters can play games and interact with other ‘penguins’.

Adventure Rock: a site from Children’s BBC that encourages youngsters to explore a long-forgotten island.

Moshi Monsters: adopt and care for a virtual pet monster.

Imbee: make trading cards, a personal blog and create interest groups for like-minded children.

Lola’s Land: launching on April 22, and aimed at slightly older girls, this social-networking site is based on the Lola Love character created by author Lisa Clark.

> Alternatively, you could try an internet browser designed specifically for children.

KidZui (www.kidzui.com ) restricts children’s online experience to half a million websites approved by teachers and parents.

It combines elements of social-networking and personalisation with educational information and fun games. Although US-centric in its focus, it’s worth taking a look at.

Source: Irish Independent, Ireland
http://tinyurl.com/64zn85

A proposal to restrict the sale of violent video games in Massachusetts has caused famed horror author Stephen King (…), who admits he is no fan of video games, to speak out against what he refers to as the government’s surrogate parenting.

“According to the proposed bill, violent video games are pornographic and have no redeeming social merit,” he wrote in an Entertainment Weekly column. “What makes me crazy is when politicians take it upon themselves to play surrogate parents. The results of that are usually disastrous. Not to mention undemocratic.”

Designated HB 1423, the state legislation would limit the sale of violent video games to anyone under the age of 18. “Which means, by the way, that a 17-year-old who can get in to see Hostel: Part II would be forbidden by law from buying (or renting, one supposes) the violent but less graphic Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas,” King pointed out. “If there’s violence to be had, the kids are gonna find a way to get it.”

Instead of a state-mandated restriction on violent game sales–many of which have been found to be unconstitutional in the past–King suggested that parents make an effort to take a more active role in raising their children as video games are not the only readily available source of violence in America.

“There’s a lot more to America’s culture of violence than Resident Evil 4,” he explained. “Parents need to have the guts to forbid material they find objectionable…and then explain why it’s being forbidden. They also need to monitor their children’s lives in the pop culture–which means a lot more than seeing what games they’re renting down the street.”

Source: Shacknews
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/52090

Paedophiles are not the only threat to children with no real concept of the dangers of the net, writes Carol Hunt

It’s ironic that in an age where parents are so sensitive to the dangers of allowing children socialise without supervision that the biggest threat to their safety could possibly be within their own home.

This week a report by the UK’s communications watchdog, Ofcom, showed that children as young as eight are at risk from paedophiles and bullies because of their use of the internet.

Of the 3,000 children surveyed, who had internet access, half of eight-to-11-year-olds have a profile on a social network — Bebo being the preferred site for nearly two-thirds of this age group. Many of the kids admit that they lie about their age when networking and nearly half say that their parents have laid down absolutely no rules or guidelines concerning their use of the internet.

Don’t parents realise that their child is probably more likely to link up with a paedophile masquerading as a fellow friend online than in the local park after school?

Okay, most parents of my age are still more than a little confused when it comes to the intricacies of social networking. We are not part of the millennial generation.

(Millennials, for all you old fogeys out there, are people [usually young] who are totally au fait with all aspects of internet communication).

But whether we like it or not, parents now have a responsibility to catch up with modern technology as quickly as possible — our children’s safety may depend on it.

And I admit that this may not be such an easy task, especially if — like me — you are a bit of a Luddite when it comes to technology.

I still get confused when I try to send group emails and I have never willingly accessed a social networking site.

I have an old-fashioned fear of posting anything on the internet — emails, photos, videos that I wouldn’t be happy seeing plastered over the front of a newspaper. Which is why I still find it quite unbelievable when I see what kids put up about themselves on the internet — most of them with not a thought for who will read it or what use their photos and personal details can be put to.

Most parents I know just can’t seem to get their heads around the casual manner in which kids will post sexually provocative material about themselves online.

They are genuinely shocked when they are shown Bebo or MySpace sites of precocious young girls who post porn-style pictures of themselves on their pages — complete with phone numbers and addresses — but still seem to remain ignorant of the fact that their own child may be posting inappropriate material about themselves online.

The Ofcom report states baldly that children and teenagers feel ‘invincible’ when on the web and it’s understandable that they fail to see the danger of posting sensitive information when cocooned in the privacy of their own homes.

Even Microsoft chairman Bill Gates has been caught out several times discussing schemes against a corporate enemy in emails which were admitted as evidence in anti-trust testimony.

And if he doesn’t know better, how can we expect teenagers to be aware of the dangers of posting information on the web that they would be far better off keeping to themselves? A few months ago I talked to a number of young, intelligent teenagers about their use of the internet and was amazed when most of them said they spent a minimum of two to three hours a day on it.

Many young people now spend far longer on the net than they do watching TV — up to 20 hours a week in some cases — and we wonder why they’re becoming obese?

In cyber-language they discuss their likes, dislikes, what they got up to at the weekend, drink/drugs, sexual preferences and a whole lot of other stuff that they would “die” if their parents found out about.

“But this stuff is out there for anyone to access, including your parents,” I said.

They dismissed my concern with a few shrugs and giggles: “My parents wouldn’t have a clue how to access my Bebo or MySpace site,” said one 15-year-old confidently. “My mother can’t even send emails, never mind find Google,” said another.

The teens are dismissive — and in some cases contemptuous — of the older generation’s inability to navigate the intricacies of social networking and other web activities.

What they don’t seem to be aware of — or care about — is that increasingly employers are using these sites to find out about current or potential employees. And it’s very easy for information and photos that you may have thought were confined to your own circle of friends to get out into the general arena.

Even if you never post a single incriminating item on the web, that’s no guarantee someone else won’t do it for you.

Earlier this year, a young teacher in Britain was suspended after an advertisement she did in her former career as an actress was posted on YouTube and spotted by her thrilled students.

Unfortunately for Sarah Green the ad was for Scruffs — clothing for construction workers — and featured three young women simulating sex with some lucky construction workers. The parents of the private school where Ms Green teaches were not amused.

“It appears her character is possibly not suited to such a highly regarded school,” one parent reportedly said.

Why do we give out so much personal information online when we cannot control its dissemination?

Not even George Orwell could have envisaged that the educated peoples of the free world would so enthusiastically hand over their lives to a pack of geeky global computer nerds: DIY surveillance — and it costs the manipulators nothing.

But whatever about the philosophical implications of a world where nothing is secret, our first priority is to teach our children how to protect themselves online: not just against possible predators, be they sexual or otherwise, but also against displaying information which may come back to haunt them in later years.

The Ofcom report states that many parents are oblivious to the issues of privacy and safety on the internet and seem to think that the sites themselves protect the users.

This isn’t good enough. If we allow our children to use the internet, we should also make sure that we know how to protect them from the risks they can incur online. As Robin Blake, head of media literacy at Ofcom, said: “This is an issue about parenting.”

Source: Irish Independent, Ireland
http://tinyurl.com/5ro88o

Fine line between normal use and going overboard

A few weeks ago, Walnut Creek Intermediate’s auditorium was crammed with parents eager to hear therapist Steven Freemire’s take on Wii, iPhones and cyber-addiction.

He started the talk with a few examples drawn from friends’ and patients’ experiences, including the following scenario: It’s a sunny Sunday afternoon, and a Walnut Creek teen is indoors, gazing unblinking at the flickering screen. For hours, she buffets the game-controller buttons, eager to reach the next level and the next and the next. Finally, six hours later, she tears herself away and goes on with her day.

“Problem?” Freemire asked.

Seventy hands shoot up.

In truth, however, the answer is no. This particular girl has a great circle of friends, gets consistently good grades and plays competitive soccer. And after an intense week, capped off by a Saturday spent on the soccer field, she was simply decompressing on a Sunday - her one day to relax - with a new video game.

“Six hours could be a danger,” Freemire said. “It wasn’t in this case.”

Less than a year after the American Medical Association backed away from labeling video-game addiction a mental illness, the debate rages on, particularly for the families of the 10percent to 14percent of avid gamers who have become so obsessed with video games, Facebook and other computer- based pastimes that their virtual lives are damaging their reality.

“There’s a fine line between addiction and the fact that most of our lives are spent on online,” said Larry Rosen, a California State University, Dominguez Hills, professor who wrote Me, MySpace and I: Parenting the Net Generation.

“Kids? Their whole social life is online. They’re IMing, and if you throw in texting and (school) work, it’s 50 hours a week. Is that addicted or are they just responding to their world?”

The line is crossed, he says, when grades drop, chores go undone, and children disappear from the family dinner table, wooed by the allure of that glowing screen.

It’s not just teens, of course. While we most frequently associate cyber-addiction with video games, adults are notorious for their dependency on BlackBerrys, compulsive e-mail checking and the “just one more thing” approach that keeps them online half the night, Lafayette therapist Dominic D’Ambrosio said.

A 2006 Stanford School of Medicine study found that 14percent of the nation’s Internet users - adults, not kids - found it difficult to stay off-line for several days, and nearly 9percent had lied about their Internet use to spouses, friends and colleagues.

And according to a Harris Interactive poll conducted last year, the average adolescent plays 13 hours of video games each week. Teen boys average 18 hours.

Interestingly, young gamers worry about their own level of addiction. About 44percent of the young gamers in the survey reported their friends were “addicted,” and 23percent of the boys said they worried about themselves, as well.

Determining addiction is about more than just adding up the hours, said Douglas Gentile, an Iowa State psychology professor who directs research at the National Institute on Media and the Family.

Gentile adapted gambling addiction criteria from the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic manual on mental disorders to paint a vivid pathological portrait of kids - and adults - whose obsession with and need for increasing amounts of game play to reach the same level of thrill, spills into the rest of life, sabotaging relationships, school, work and eventually health.

But if families and video gamers themselves knew what to watch for, experts say, problems could be alleviated before they become destructive.

Yet, self-regulation is key, Freemire said, because trying to ban the Internet is like banning food. It’s too ingrained in daily life at school, at work and at home, precisely because of its positives.

Text messages become notes of reassurance flowing between kids at college and their siblings back home. Facebook, Skype and Web cams bring faraway friends and family close. And Joseph Ross’ grandparents swing by his Pleasant Hill house each week to play.

“They always want to do the Wii bowling,” said Joseph’s mom, Julie. “My dad’s 83, and we can’t keep him away from the Wii.”

Source: Los Angeles Daily News, CA
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_8825402

The UK Government has proposed new measures to prevent paedophiles grooming children over the internet.

Phil Worms, director of the Glasgow-based internet safety and security company Netintelligence, gives his views on the idea.

“At last some decisive action is being taken to protect children online.

It has been announced that sex offenders will have to give their e-mail addresses to police so they can be barred from social networking sites like Bebo and Facebook.

This is great news - or at least it would be, if it was in any way enforceable.

Online predators learn to cover their tracks and get around security measures, so does the home secretary really think it is as simple as asking for their e-mail addresses?

Anyone, anywhere, can set up an e-mail address, so even if paedophiles give a genuine address to police, there’s still nothing to stop them setting up five new accounts with which to log on to Bebo and carry on regardless.

Jacqui Smith has admitted these measures could never be ‘completely foolproof,’ but frankly they are barely even worth bringing into force.

Voluntary scheme

What we need instead are more resources to protect children in the first place.

It is fine to make attempts to block access to certain sites for certain users, but to introduce it almost as some kind of voluntary scheme is pointless.

Last week a report by TV psychologist and parenting expert Dr Tanya Byron recommended that parents as well as children are educated on safe internet use, and that security software is more widely used.

Another recommendation was that computers are kept in a family room, as opposed to in a child’s bedroom where parents can less easily see what content is being accessed.

These points have been overlooked until now and it is in these areas where we now need action, instead of empty measures which will achieve very little.

Phil Worms’ tips for internet safety

* Stay public: Don’t allow children to have a PC in their bedroom

* Know their friends: Every so often ask your child to name the individuals on their instant messaging and social networking ‘friends’ lists - if they can’t then you need to investigate further

* Do your homework: Familiarise yourself with terminology and the basic language used by youngsters on popular websites

* Communicate: Speak to your children about the potential dangers on the internet, and write down basic ground rules for use - get your kids to suggest a few of their own

* Consider sharing an e-mail account with your child so you know what kind of e-mails they are receiving

* Be cautious of e-mails: Teach your children not to open attachments from unknown sources as they can contain viruses or pornography

* Watch the clock: Limit the amount of time your child spends online, and encourage them to take part in other social activities away from the computer

* Be wary if your child becomes secretive about their internet use

* Make sure children always use nicknames on social networking sites, and ensure they never, ever give out personal information over the internet

* Turn off your broadband: Computers can still send and receive data even if they’re switched off.

Source: BBC News, UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7330403.stm

‘Kids don’t need protection, we need guidance.” That quote from an unnamed British child appears in Safer Children in a Digital World: The Report of the Byron Review. The review, initiated by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in September and conducted by clinical psychologist Tanya Byron, was released late last week in Britain and was front-page news there. Child safety, the Internet, video games - these are hot topics.

However, the report has been largely ignored in Canada. I spent several days this week calling federal and provincial officials, looking for someone who had at least heard of the thing and could comment on its relevance here, and it did not bear much fruit. Still, after reading the report’s 226 pages, I think one thing is clear: A lot more people in Canada, parents especially, should read it too.

Dr. Byron was asked to analyze the risks and benefits presented by new technologies, specifically the Internet and video games, and their impact on childhood brain development. Her task was to look at what was already being done in Britain to safeguard kids from online predators and material meant for adults, whether in games or on websites, and then make recommendations for improvements.

In terms of video games, the report does all this masterfully. It is a beacon of common sense in what can be a polarized debate.

On the violence front, for example, there is a school of thought, based on research conducted almost exclusively in the United States, that games desensitize players to violence and actively lead them astray. (Last week, one British tabloid offered hundreds of pounds to anyone who would publicly trace their criminal behaviour back to video games; there have been no takers yet.) At the opposite end of the spectrum are proponents of the “catharsis effect,” the idea that exposure to violent content can purge players of their violent compulsions.

Dr. Byron parsed the existing research into those theories, and found almost all of it wanting. Throughout the video-game sections and the rest of the report, she urges people to “take into account children’s individual strengths and vulnerabilities, because the factors that can discriminate a ‘beneficial’ from a ‘harmful’ experience online and in video games will often be individual factors in the child.”

The review calls for a comprehensive marketing and education program, paid for by industry and government, to better prepare parents and children for their increasingly digital lives.

Her findings also set out three main areas of concern related to games and young minds: 1) Games can take up too much time and get in the way of other activities; 2) online games carry with them the risk of exposure to potentially harmful outsiders, in the same way the Internet does; and 3) young people often gain access to games meant for an older audience.

Regarding that last issue, Dr. Byron recommended that parents be made more aware of parental controls that can filter content for individual players on game consoles and computers. The review also calls for the British video-game rating system to be overhauled so that film classifications, with which parents are familiar, appear on the front of game packaging. It will be a big switch for the British review board, but it would be even more onerous here: Canada has seven provincial agencies charged with classifying movies, and all video games are currently rated by the U.S.-based Entertainment Software Rating Board.

Of course, since the Conservatives seem to be guided by the philosophy that government is useless, I don’t expect meaningful action on Internet and gaming issues any time soon.

That shouldn’t stop parents and others, however, from cherry-picking from this impressive, balanced piece of work. The full report, an executive summary and a special section for kids can be found at http://www.dfes.gov.uk/byronreview.

Source: Globe and Mail, Canada
http://tinyurl.com/4fhz73

More than a quarter of eight to 11-year-olds in the UK have a profile on a social network, research shows.

Most sites, such as Bebo, MySpace and Facebook, set a minimum age of between 13 and 14 to create a profile but none actively enforce the age requirement.

Almost half of all eight to 17-year-olds online have a profile, regulator Ofcom found in a survey of 5,000 adults and over 3,000 children.

Ofcom says parents need to learn more about their children’s online lives.

The Ofcom report looks into the impact of social networks on people’s lives in the UK as part of a wider media literacy campaign and surveyed 5,000 adults and more than 3,000 children.

“Social networks are clearly a very important part of people’s lives and are having an impact on how people live their lives,” said James Thickett, director of market research at Ofcom.

He added: “Children’s lives are very different from what they were 20 years ago. Social networks are a way of creating a social bond.”

The Home Office has been working with social networking firms and is expected to publish a set of guidelines for the sites around best practice, security and privacy on Friday.

The report is expected to recommend that profiles created by children are set to private by default, or are only viewable by friends nominated by the user.

The three leading social networks, MySpace, Bebo and Facebook, all say they remove profiles of users that are found to be too young on their sites.

But at present no technology is used to actively verify the age of users.

The Home Office guidelines are set to encourage social networking sites to investigate age veification technologies and to give better signposting to users about privacy settings, and warnings about the implications of posting personal details.

A spokesman for MySpace said the firm “proactively ensures that profiles of 14 and 15-year-olds are automatically made private so that users are protected from adults they don’t already know in the offline world”.

The company said in the future all of its users under 18 would have profiles set automatically to private.

Risk perception

More than a fifth of people in the UK aged 16 and over have an online profile, the Ofcom survey showed.

But the report revealed a “significant difference” between the perception of the risks and use of social networks between parents and children.

“While people are aware of the status of their profile there is a general lack of awareness of the issues attached to them around privacy and safety,” said Mr Thickett.

He added: “People put aside concerns about privacy and safety believing they have been taken care of by someone else.”

Forty-one per cent of children had set their profile so that it was visible to anyone, according to the report.

But 16% of parents admitted they did not know if their child’s profile could be seen or not by strangers.

“There is an issue about parenting,” said Robin Blake, head of media literacy at Ofcom.

New friends

He added: “Parents who are allowing their children to go online without supervision and support… need to recognise that their children are potentially at risk.”

According to the Ofcom report, almost 60% of children use social networking sites to make new friends, compared to 17% of adults who use the sites for the same purpose.

While two-thirds of parents said they set rules for their children when using social networking sites, only 53% of children said that their parents had set such rules.

“Children are using these sites with a far lower awareness of some of the issues and rules that these sites entail,” said Mr Thickett.

Ofcom called on social networks to improve the visibility of privacy settings.

Monitor guidelines

“The settings are not obvious to some people when using these sites,” said Mr Blake.

He said Ofcom would be “monitoring and reviewing” the guidelines that social networks had drawn up in conjuction with the Home Office.

However, Ofcom admitted it had no legal authority over social networks and was not “regulating them”.

Mr Blake said: “Ofcom’s approach is very much to encourage industry to do the right thing.”

Dr Rachel O’Connell, chief safety officer at Bebo, told BBC News: “We’re working with the regulatory bodies. It’s critical to our business that we adhere to these guidelines.”

Source: BBC News, UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7325019.stm

Asked by Gordon Brown to investigate the new dangers to children being brought up in the digital age, Tanya Byron last week produced a 224-page report. The child psychologist’s recommendations included a cinema-style system of classification for video games and a thorough public education campaign. However, she warns that protecting children against all risks stunts their development and an important part of growing up is learning to assess and deal with danger

Shortly before she published a report last week on keeping children safe in the online age, Dr Tanya Byron was invited to lunch with Gordon Brown at Chequers. It was a family affair: Byron, her husband Bruce, who plays DC Terry Perkins in The Bill, and their two children, Lily, 12, and Jack, 10, all went along.

Lunch at the prime minister’s country estate is the sort of occasion when any parent would want their little ones to be bright, presentable and on their best behaviour. But not even Byron, a child psychologist who has advised millions on parenting through her television series, is immune from modest rebellion.

“My son piped up just before we were going and he said, ‘Mummy, I could take my PlayStation and I could really make you scared in front of the prime minister’.”

He could. The prospect of son Jack smuggling in some dodgy game and whipping out his portable PlayStation to blast away in front of the prime minister had Byron “feeling slightly twitchy”. That’s not surprising given that she was about to advise Brown on how to protect young children from unsuitable computer material. But in typical calm style she simply said: “No, darling. You don’t play those games, so let’s not go there.”

A tall, curvaceous woman with wide eyes and a warm smile, Byron must be as annoying as hell to all those postfeministas who say you can’t have it all. She is clever, articulate, attractive and a natural performer, as well as being a mother and government adviser.

Although most people know her from television programmes such as Little Angels and The House of Tiny Tearaways, she is no pop-psycho with more beauty than brains. She did her first degree at York, a masters at University College London and a doctorate at University College hospital and Surrey University.

For 18 years she worked in the National Health Service, rising to be a consultant for children with severe mental disorders. She still works one day a week as a consultant in child mental health, although most of her time is taken up filming with the BBC.

Glamour, fame, acclaim – yet Byron, 41, also retains the common sense of an ordinary mum: making her the perfect candidate for a report into children growing up in a world where the risks, as well as benefits, of the internet and computer games are all-pervasive.

“When I came to doing the report . . . concerns were very much fuelled by a lack of understanding of the technology. People were asking, is it all big, bad and scary out there? I know a lot more than I did six months ago. It’s made me feel more positive and confident and less anxious.”

Of course she recognises the dangers – from paedophiles to porn, violence and cyberbullying. In her report, which arrived with much ministerial fanfare last week, she carefully examines the scientific evidence about how children are affected by nasty computer games or hardcore porn. Research, she concludes, shows mixed results.

Although, for example, there is a correlation between aggression and playing violent computer games, it’s not clear that there is a causal relationship – that violent games make children more violent. Convenient, since any kind of ban would be a political minefield. In person, though, she is more forthright. “I’m really clear that adult content is harmful and inappropriate for young children particularly,” she says. “They do not have the neural networks in place to be able to critically evaluate the content, to differentiate fantasy from reality.”

Byron would like the law on such matters to be clearer and to be applied with more vigour: “I am saying clarify the law . . . be clear about when there is content on websites that is breaking the law.”

She also encourages parents to challenge the classification of computer games if they think they are inappropriate: “It’s important to have a system where there can be a challenge, where people can complain.”

A less astute person might have let such conclusions suck them into recommending censorship of violent games or websites. Byron knows that won’t work: “If you go down the censorship route, the content would still be there somewhere. Children would go online to websites outside the UK, to unmoderated sites.” And parents, already struggling to keep up, might have even less idea what their youngsters are doing.

“The rapid pace at which new media are evolving has left adults and children stranded either side of a generational digital divide,” she says. Older people may still regard the internet as a parallel universe that somehow arrives through a machine at the office or home, but for youngsters it’s a seamless part of their lives. They are the cyborg generation.

The answer, Byron believes, is to trust in the better side of human nature. Families can navigate the risks provided they are informed and sensible. “I’m more of a ‘half-full’ girl than a ‘half-empty’ girl. That’s how I like to live life,” she explains.

Her report, which runs to more than 200 pages, is packed with recommendations some of which the government has promised to adopt. Key measures include a UK council on child internet safety to develop voluntary codes of practice for the industry and better information for the public; teaching adults about “parental control” systems on computers; a new classification of computer games like those used for films; and courses in schools to teach children “e-safety”.

It’s hard to argue against any of it (although whether the portly public sector needs yet another quango is debatable). Byron, using common sense, already regulates her children’s use of computers: “They don’t have a computer in their own rooms. We have got some in the office and one downstairs in the kitchen. Gaming and going online is good . . . but in a way that is right for their age and stage of development. It’s something you do after your homework. It never takes place instead of a family meal. When my son is gaming and I’m cooking, he’s there and I know what he’s doing.”

Her daughter, two years older, is given more leeway and Byron admits that she does not know exactly what her daughter does online: “We have a good relationship and I respect her privacy. In the same way I don’t know entirely what’s in her diary. But I know my child; I know when something has upset them or when they are distressed.”

They talk, they work it out, just as they would some other problem.

That, in a nutshell, is how Byron believes parents should approach bringing up children in the digital age. You can buy software to block websites, you can spy on children’s internet history, you can restrict access when they are young – but in the end children are going to go out into the big wide world and need to be able to look after themselves.

“We live in a risk-averse culture, but risk is a developmental imperative of childhood and I think we need to recognise that. It’s about fostering the independent child. What I want to get across is that [dealing with the online world] is similar to how we would parent children in the offline world.”

That old world has its own temptations, for adults as well as children. It’s clear that Byron enjoys the cameras and corridors of power: “I really like advising politicians. I really liked saying to the PM this morning, ‘The UK child internet safety council, you set it up, we could take a global lead, what do you reckon?’ And he says, ‘Okay’.”

Is she going to be on the internet safety council? “Oh no,” she laughs. “I’m outta here. It’s all about kids for me. I’d much rather work on behalf of children.” So she doesn’t want to be a politician? She gives that big disarming smile again: “Do you know, I really like advising them…”

She has already become too much of a politician to say no.

Source: Times Online, UK
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article3645034.ece