Ethical Analysis of Children on the Internet

Ethical Analysis of Children on the net incomeChildren on the meshingAbeer AlSoulyGhada AlFantookhNaima AlRashedOverviewMany heap may consider the Internet as the greatest invention ever created by man. Nodoubt about that if we talked about how lush knowledge exchanging has become instantly, orhow easy drop people communicate with from each one other glob every(prenominal)y. Also youngsterren nowadays practice more activities on the Internet the most popular ones atomic bite 18 schoolwork, hearty networking andonline gaming. Childrens ability to access the Internet has grown rapidly. It has made ourlife much easier and it has become an essential spark of modern life.Even though the benefits of the Internet are countless, it may be considered as an extremely stark environment for baberen beca function some of the Internet substances bottomt be inhibitledand uncensored. Also clawren are not fully aware of how horrible and devastating theconsequences could be.However, there is no universally true view of what is more important whether theeducation of children or protection, which is alike another challenge Also the differences inpeoples cultures and geo pictorialal location in legal and social norms reflect the lack ofcommon agreement.In this report, we testament discuss three main issues that raise the concerns about children on the internetThe possibility that children could obverse contrasted content in the Internet.Contact with people who catchk to maltreatment children. solitude risk from game sites that ask children for massive personal and familyInformation for food trade purposes.Background and The enormousness of The InternetThe evolution of the Internet in the last 3 decades has been hugely improved and nowadayswe rely on it in most of our daily needs.Its both informative and entertaining medium. several(prenominal) children use it to expand their horizonand increase their knowledge and other use it just for fun.Also these a ctivities doesnt shoot the traditional desktop computer anymore, the platformshas increased to handheld devices much(prenominal)(prenominal) as smart phones and tablets.The Internet doesnt just improve children mental s belt downs but also improves their imaginationand develops their interaction skills.The ways of utilize the Internet and the reasons differ from child to child according to thechild age and interests.Explanation of the issuesDespite the many benefits of employ the Internet and its associated services among childrenthere are also risks, which they must be made aware of 1. In this report we will explain someissues such as The possibility that children could obverse inappropriate content in theInternet (as in Networked Communications- Children Inappropriate Content section in thecourse), disturb with people who seek to abuse children and privacy risk from game sites thatask children for extensive personal and family information for marketing purposes.The possibilit y that children could obverse inappropriate content in theInternetThe term inappropriate content may vary across generations and across countries andcultures. On the other hand, there is content that is considered in all cultures as inappropriatefor children, such as the depiction of graphic violence or sexual abuse, and encouragement toharm ones self-importance or others. nevertheless, some content can be considered as illegal, such asviolent or sexual acts against children, and the promotion of racism and xenophobia. Thedifferent types of inappropriate content and risks that children can encounter online isclassified ground on the determination of the child (as recipient, participant or as actor) and the motivesof the provider (commercial, aggressive, sexual and values-related). Children inevitablyencounter content such as pornography as it is widely open on the Internet. Childpornography in particular has important implications and considered as one of the mostserious crimes on the Internet. Sexual content, like pornographic or sexual depictions, expertnesscause harm to children or lead them to personal contact with potentially dicey strangers.Contacting with people who seek to abuse childrenSpeaking of contacting with people who seek to abuse children, British investigators flew toAmerica to rescue a six-year-old-girl who was being repeatedly raped on video by her fatherfor the gratification of members of a highly secretive internet paedophile ring. And manyother stories like this one appear on a regular basis. Child abuse takes revolutionary forms, leavingsocial workers and parents confused about new threats that may arrive with newtechnologies. Contact offences can be committed by adults where an adult commits or seeksto commit a sexual offence on a child. Historically most child sex abuse was by a familymember or from people in his social circles. On the Internet adults who may becomeinvolved with sexually abusing children can locate them and mak e the initial contact using adifferent interactive, communications technologies. Usually the adult and the child willinitially meet in an Internet chat room. Committed paedophiles are cognise to frequent chatrooms that are popular with children such as chat rooms related to music, fashion, or sport.The paedophile may be in truth skillful in communicating with children, he shows himself to thechild as a nice guy or tries to become their special friend and persuades the child to issue thepublic space and go off into a private chat room. The paedophile and the child can and thenarrange to continue to communicate with each other in different ways. He will ensure that thechild does not keep any record of their conversations, as sooner or after he will seek tosexualize the contact and conversations as part of the grooming process. The effect onchildren of being sexually abused is almost profoundly damaging both in the short and longerruns. A child who knew that images or a record of t heir abuse were out there on the Internet,might be worried that the image could reach their classmates, neighbors or other familymembers. Alternatively the image could fall into the hands of other people who know themand who might then use it against them. Children who have been abused in front of a webcam similarly could never be absolutely sure that they would not meet soulfulness who mighthave witnessed their abuse and recognize them in real life.Privacy risk from game sites that ask children for extensive personal andfamily information for marketing purposesMoreover on the issues of children on the Internet, the privacy risks from game sites thatarise from asking children for extensive personal and family information for marketingpurposes. Many corporations seeking to capitalize on this market create websites that offergames, quizzes, chat environments, and advice in order to encourage children to provide theirpersonal information, which can then be used to scrape the children with advertising, Forexample Kraft, which owns Lifesavers, are interested in kids because of their spendingpower. Corporations Typically, these childrens sites play into their developmental needs inorder to encourage kids to talk about themselves. Many of these sites, like Tickle.com, usepersonality tests to uplift information from, and market to, individual girls. These quizzesask detailed questions about the childs personality, preferences, hopes, and aspirations. Sincechildren have to register with the site before they can access the quizzes, the marketer is ableto record the childs responses linked to his or her first and last name, zip/ federal agencyal code, emailaddress, gender, marital status, and level of education. This information can also be matchedagainst 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 gull to target girlswith personalized advertisements .Analysis and EvaluationIssue (1) The possibility that children could obverse inappropriate content in the Internet1. Kantianism1st readinessProposed Rule Some people post graphic violence or sexual abuse or encouragement to harmones self or others generalise towerEveryone can post graphic violence or sexual abuse or encouragement to harm onesself or others and everyone can see it. bequeath1- Physiological harms to the children.2- Children will chasten to apply what they see of encouragement to harm ones self orothers, which leads to death in some cases.3- May lead them to personal contact with potentially dangerous strangers to talkabout what they had seen instead of talking with their parents.So, ground on Kantianism first formulation this rule cant be universalized which makesit morally defective.2nd formulationProposedRuleSome people post graphic violence or sexual abuse or encouragement to harmones self or others final stage People who post these changes of posts aim to g ain fame and attention of others or satisfytheir physiological desires.Mean Since everyone can see the posts including children, innocent people who shouldnt seethis content including children will become the squiffy to achieve their goal.Result So, based on Kantianism second formulation this rule is morally wrong.2. action UtilitarianismProposedRuleSome people post graphic violence or sexual abuse or encouragement to harm onesself or othersBenefits 1. Sometimes this content may be used to increase the knowledge of the child about theinappropriate actions and things to avoid.Harms1. Physiological harms to the children.2. Children will try to apply what they see of encouragement to harm ones self orothers, which leads to death in some cases.3. May lead them to personal contact with potentially dangerous strangers to talk aboutwhat they had seen instead of talking with their parents.Result We can see above that harms overweigh the benefits, so, based on execute Utilitarianism thisr ule is morally wrong.Our point of viewThe theories above all agree that it is morally wrong that people post graphic violence orsexual abuse or encouragement to harm ones self or others on the Internet. From our point ofview, we wholly agree with this result since these posts will cause physiological harms to thechildren, they will try to apply what they see of encouragement to harm ones self or otherswhich leads to death in some cases and may lead them to personal contact with potentiallydangerous strangers to talk about what they had seen instead of talking with their parents. Weactually think these posts will kill the childhood innocence.Issue (2) Contacting with people who seek to abuse children1. Kantianism1st formulationProposedRule People who seek to abuse children contact them on the InternetUniversalizerule Everyone can use the Internet to satiate their bad desires.Result1- The Internet will become a dangerous place everyone is afraid of.2- offensive activity in all of it s forms is going to increase exponentially.3- Trusted content will significantly decrease.So, based on Kantianism first formulation this rule cant be universalized which makes itmorally wrong.2nd formulationProposedRule People who seek to abuse children contact them on the InternetGoal 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 UtilitarianismProposedRule People who seek to abuse children contact them on the InternetBenefits No benefits.Harms1. A child who knew that images or a record of their abuse were out there on theInternet, might be worried that the image could reach their classmates, neighbors orother family members which will shake his/her self-confidence.2. Children who have been abused in front of a web cam similarly could never beabsolutely sure that they would not meet somebody who migh t have witnessed theirabuse and recognize them in real life which may make them prefer the isolation andhate the social life.3. The image of the childs abuse could fall into the hands of other people who knowthem and who might then use it against them.Result We can see above that harms overweigh the benefits, so, based on Act Utilitarianismthis rule is morally wrong.Our point of viewThe theories above all agree that it is morally wrong that people who seek to abuse childrencontact them on the Internet. From our point of view, this result is absolutely right, sincethese kinds of communication will harm the child, shake his/her self-confidence, make themprefer the isolation and hate the social life, the image of the childs abuse could fall into thehands of other people who know them and who might then use it against them also, theInternet will become a dangerous place everyone is afraid of, crime in all of its forms is goingto increase exponentially and finally trusted content will si gnificantly decrease.Issue (3) Privacy risk from game sites that ask children for extensive personal and familyinformation for marketing purposes.1. Kantianism1st formulationProposedRuleGame sites collect personal and family information from children for marketingpurposesUniversalizerule Everyone can collect private information from children.Result1- May result in child giving her/his parents credit card number or financialinformation.2- Crime in many of its forms is going to increase, since many of the privateinformation had been leaked.3- Blackmail propagation.So, based on Kantianism first formulation this rule cant be universalized which makes itmorally wrong.2nd formulationProposedRuleGame sites collect personal and family information from children for marketingpurposesGoal People who collect these information aim to promote for their products or services inorder to increase their revenue.Mean In this rule they use the children as a mean to collect the personal and familyinforma tion needed for this promotion.Result So, based on Kantianism second formulation this rule is morally wrong.2. Act UtilitarianismProposedRuleGame sites collect personal and family information from children for marketingpurposesBenefits1. 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.Harms1. Parents or any of the family members of the child will discover so many annoying e-mail emails.2. Corporations sell these personal and family information to other corporations withoutthe permission of the informations owner.3. Parents or any of the family members of the child may receive many annoying salesor advertisements phone calls or SPIMs*.4. All of the above wastes the targets time, since the information had been collectedwithout his/her permission whic h means (s)hes not interested in theseadvertisements.*SPIM Stands for Spam Instance Messaging.Result We can see above that harms overweigh the benefits, so, based on Act Utilitarianismthis rule is morally wrong.Our point of viewThe theories above all agree that it is morally wrong to collect personal and familyinformation from children for marketing purposes. Also, from our point of view we agreewith this result, because the parents or any of the family members of the child will receive somany annoying spam emails, their information will be exchanged between the companieswithout their permission and they also will receive so many annoying sales oradvertisements phone calls. These things wastes so much time especially if the targetedperson is not interested in these advertisements.Summary and conclusionsTo summaries, the Internet today has a very useful and important resources and a lot ofschools depend on it almost completely, but also there is no clear accepted view that willeveryo ne agree on when it comes to also protection. We had explained some issues such asThe possibility that children could obverse inappropriate content in the Internet which proveto 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 askchildren for extensive personal which prove to be morally wrong based on Kantianism, ActUtilitarianism and from our point of view and family information for marketing purposeswhich prove to be morally wrong based on Kantianism, Act Utilitarianism and from our pointof view.Eventually, we know that we cant prevent the children from accessing the Internet insteadwe can apply parental control over what the children can access. Moreover, children shouldbe aware of the consequences of what their actions may lead to. Various laws have beenpassed to protect the children nowadays such as The Child Online Protection Act (COPA),which was passed to re strict access by minors to any material, defined as harmful to suchminors on the Internet5 and the Childrens Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA)which was knowing to limit the collection and use of personal information about children bythe operators of Internet services and Web sites6.References1 S. Livingstone, L. Haddon.(2009, Sep 30). Kids Online Opportunities and Risks forChildren. (1st Edition). On-line. Availablehttp//books.google.com.sa/books?id=aPsXzcjf9vMCprintsec=frontcoverdq=Kids+Online+bookhl=ensa=Xei=SeaBVLrSAcisU5fSgPAPredir_esc=yv=onepageq=Kids%20Online%20bookf= erroneous Nov. 15, 2014.2 ONEILL 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 ChildrensHomes) (Dec, 2003).4 V. Steeves.(2006). Its Not Childs run away The Online Invasion of Childrens Privacy.University of Ottawa Law Technology Journal. Availablehttp//www.uoltj.ca/articles/vo l3.1/2006.3.1.uoltj.Steeves.169-188.pdf?origin=publication_detail Nov. 17, 2014.5 A. Carr. (2013, Feb 26). Child Protection. (1st Edition). On-line. Availablehttp//books.google.com.sa/books?id=UwKfxyy_S2cCprintsec=frontcoverhl=arv=onepageqf=false Dec. 5, 2014.6 ChildrenS Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). Internethttp//www.inc.com/encyclopedia/childrens-online-privacy-protection-act-COPPA.html, Dec. 5, 2014.