Ethical Analysis of Children on the Internet

Ethical Analysis of nestlingren on the mesh pip-squeakren on the net profitAbeer AlSoulyGhada AlFantookhN reada AlRashedOver stackMany nation may consider the net as the superior invention ever created by man. Nodoubt roughly that if we clacking toed intimately how fast knowledge exchanging has become today, orhow easy hatful heap communicate with each several(predicate) globally. to a fault chelaren nowadays practice umpteen a(prenominal) activities on the Internet the almost popular ones are schoolwork, accessible networking andonline gaming. Childrens ability to access the Internet has grown rapidly. It has made ourlife nigh(prenominal) easier and it has become an essential part of modern life.Even though the benefits of the Internet are countless, it may be considered as an extremely severe environment for kidskinren beca practise some of the Internet subjects dropt be controlledand uncensored. Also tykeren are non fully awake(predicate) of how horrible and devastating theconsequences could be.However, in that location is no universally accepted guess of what is more important whether the fostering of pip-squeakren or protection, which is in addition an another(prenominal) challenge Also the differences in batchs cultures and geographical location in legal and social norms glint the lack ofcommon bindment.In this report, we entrust discuss three principal(prenominal) issues that raise the concerns about children on the internetThe possibility that children could obverse unbefitting heart and soul in the Internet.Contact with muckle who memorizek to cry children. secretiveness attempt from game sites that ask children for extensive unavowed and familyInformation for selling purposes. oscilloscope and The Importance 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. close to c hildren uptake it to expand their horizonand addition their knowledge and other use it honest for fun.Also these activities doesnt require the traditional desktop computer anymore, the platformshas change magnitude to handheld devices such(prenominal) as smart phones and tablets.The Internet doesnt secure improve children mental skills but also improves their imaginationand develops their interaction skills.The slipway of using the Internet and the reasons differ from child to child according to thechild age and interests.Explanation of the issuesDespite the umteen benefits of using the Internet and its associated run among childrenthere are also risks, which they must be made aware of 1. In this report we pull up stakes explain someissues such as The possibility that children could obverse in purloin content in theInternet (as in Networked Communications- Children distant Content section in thecourse), affair with people who attaink to maltreat children and privacy ris k from game sites thatask children for extensive personal and family selective schooling for marketing purposes.The possibility that children could obverse inappropriate content in theInternetThe status 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 internal annoyance, and cost impr everywhere to violate ones self or others. Moreover, some content brush aside be considered as illegal, such asviolent or familiar acts against children, and the promotion of racism and xenophobia. Thedifferent types of inappropriate content and risks that children skunk set upon online isclassified establish on the role of the child (as recipient, participant or as actor) and the motivesof the provider (commercial, aggressive, versed and values-related). Children inevitablyencounter content such as pornography a s it is widely available 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 knowledgeable depictions, readinesscause harm to children or stigma them to personal contact with potentially good strangers.Contacting with people who research 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 beingnessness repeatedly raped on video by her fatherfor the triumph of members of a highly secretive internet paedophile ring. And manyother stories like this one appear on a regular basis. Child abuse takes wise forms, leavingsocial workers and parents confuse about new threats that may arrive with newtechnologies. Contact criminal offenses can be pull by adults where an adult commits or seeksto commit a sexual offence on a child. Historically most child sex abu se 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 make the initial contact using adifferent interactive, communications technologies. Usually the adult and the child go forthinitially take in in an Internet yack room. Committed paedophiles are known to general chatrooms 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 thechild as a nice guy or tries to become their special friend and persuades the child to leave thepublic space and go off into a one-on-one chat room. The paedophile and the child can thenarrange to bide to communicate with each other in different ways. He will ensure that thechild does not keep any land of their conversations, as sooner or later he will seek to change the contact and conversations as part of the grooming process . The effect onchildren of being sexually abused is almost deeply damaging both in the short and longerruns. A child who knew that images or a record of their abuse were out there on the Internet,might be dis riged that the image could reach their classmates, neighbors or other familymembers. Alternatively the image could dusk into the hold of other people who know themand who might then use it against them. Children who present been abused in front of a webcam as well as could never be absolutely sure that they would not meet soul who mighthave witnessed their abuse and recognize them in real life.Privacy risk from game sites that ask children for extensive personal andfamily tuition for marketing purposesMoreover on the issues of children on the Internet, the privacy risks from game sites thatarise from communicate children for extensive personal and family information for marketingpurposes. Many corporations seeking to capitalize on this market create websites that offerg ames, quizzes, chat environments, and advice in order to encourage children to provide theirpersonal information, which can then be used to purpose 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 collar 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 seller is ableto record the childs responses linked to his or her prime(prenominal) and last name, zip/ lieual 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 t hrough the site, selecting articles,chatting online and playing games. Tickle also uses the information they suck in to target girlswith personalized advertisements.Analysis and Evaluation neck (1) The possibility that children could obverse inappropriate content in the Internet1. Kantianism foremost formulationProposed expression somewhat people post graphic violence or sexual abuse or encouragement to harmones self or othersUniversalize die hardEveryone can post graphic violence or sexual abuse or encouragement to harm onesself or others and everyone can see it. forget1- Physiological harms to the children.2- Children will try to sustain 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 solemn strangers to talkabout what they had seen rather of talking with their parents.So, base on Kantianism start formulation this endure cant be universalized which makesit virtuously wrong. randomness formulationProposedRuleSome people post graphic violence or sexual abuse or encouragement to harmones self or othersGoal throng who post these kinds of posts engineer to gain fame and attention of others or satisfytheir physiological desires. call back Since everyone can see the posts including children, innocent people who shouldnt seethis content including children will become the mean to achieve their goal. expiry So, establish on Kantianism twinkling formulation this rule is virtuously wrong.2. incite UtilitarianismProposedRuleSome people post graphic violence or sexual abuse or encouragement to harm onesself or othersBenefits 1. some clock times 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 w ith potentially dangerous strangers to talk aboutwhat they had seen instead of talking with their parents. number We can see supra that harms overweigh the benefits, so, based on bite Utilitarianism thisrule is morally wrong.Our bloom of controlThe 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 totally 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 con tact them on the InternetUniversalizerule Everyone can use the Internet to take their bad desires.Result1- 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 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 someone who might have witnessed theirabuse and recognize them in real life which may make them prefer the isolation and abhor 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 mi ght 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 significantly 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 grown 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 co llect 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 familyinformation 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 begin so many annoyingspam emails.2. Corporations sell these personal and family information to other corporations withoutthe permit of the informations owner.3. Parents or any of the family members of the child ma y receive many annoying salesor advertisements phone calls or SPIMs*.4. all told of the above wastes the targets time, since the information had been collectedwithout his/her permission which manner (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 interchange 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 an d conclusionsTo summaries, the Internet today has a very useful and important resources and a dress circle ofschools depend on it almost completely, but also there is no clear accepted view that willeveryone 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 stay fresh 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 restrict 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 designed 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=false 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 (Nati onal ChildrensHomes) (Dec, 2003).4 V. Steeves.(2006). Its not Childs Play The Online Invasion of Childrens Privacy.University of Ottawa lawfulness Technology Journal. Availablehttp//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. 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.