Scary Internet Stuffs?!!

The issue of cybercrime invokes serious concerns from the media, policymakers, politicians, academics and the public, consistently and persistently. The Internet has become a vehicle for communications that sustain existing patterns of harmful activity such as drug trafficking. Is has also created a transnational environment that provides new opportunities for harmful activities that are currently the subject of existing criminal or civil law. One of the main features that distinguish cybercrime from other crimes is its possibility of multiple and instantaneous contacts multiply the occasion to commit crime. It involve non-routine events in which require cross-border investigations or types of deviant behaviour not normally regarded as criminal by policy officers.

Wall (2007) defined cybercrime as a form of media construction and distinguishes it into three typologies: computer integrity crimes, computer-assisted or related crimes, and computer content crimes. Cracking, hacking and denial of service are seen as computer integrity crimes. Scams, virtual robberies and thefts are seen as computer-assisted crimes. Pornography, violence and offensive communications are seen as computer content crimes.

The main problem for policing and action is that, unlike other crimes in which operationally and organizationally local, cybercrimes are globalised. The ambiguity of the Internet itself is that fact that it is in between private and public spaces which increases enormously the difficulty of policing cyberspace. Wall suggests that control over the Internet could be effected either by designing in crime-prevention in order to design out crime, or by increasing levels of security through advanced technological counter measures.

Who is currently policing cyberspace?

It is wrong to think that the Internet is an environment that cannot be regulates. Currently there are five main levels of policing activity takes place within cyberspace:

1. 1. The Internet users themselves
2. 2. The Internet Service Providers (ISPs)
3. 3. Corporate security organizations
4. 4. State-funded non-public police organizations
5. 5. State-funded public police organizations

For the Internet users themselves, it is essential that they invest their time and resources in creating and updating open source software programs to protect against cybercrime. Internet Service Providers are encouraged to participate in the improvement and expand the use of open source software, to embrace the valued. The rest levels of policing activities are urged working together to implement effective community policing solutions against cybercrimes. Just as community policing in real space increased the accountability of citizens and diffused the responsibility for preventing crime among the population.

The choices are:

• Choosing a total control future might curtail cybercrime and make the Web a safe vehicle for communication, socializing, commerce, etc., but at a substantial cost to privacy, freedom of speech, as well as other civil liberties.
• Choosing a nobody-in-charge future might allow a free flow of information and exchange of goods and services without government interference, but with a substantial threat to the economic and social lives of individuals and society itself posed by cyberoffenders.

Consider:

Should we tightly control all human interaction by holding individuals responsible for every deed and action in an efficiently networked Web, or should we allow creativity and individualism to emerge by refusing to set boundaries and jurisdictions on the Internet, leaving it much as it is today – without management or enforcement?

Reference:

Wall, D. 2007, Cybercrime, Cambridge: Polity Press, 288 pp.

Are YOU responsible for Teen Violence?!

I came across with this on Youtube the other day, it was aired on 2WAYFM an interview concerning the cause of youth violence. Pastor Kerry Medway suggests that the mass media are responsible for the alarming increase in violence among adolescents:

It is hard to ignore the impact of youth violence in the community, many resulted in serious grievance or even senseless deaths. Statistically there is considerable multiply in youth violence across Australia over the past decade. Even though there has been a more proactive communal and institutional response to the crisis, offences involving violence as a proportion of total juvenile offences are rising.

Adolescents and typically young men were suffering from the pressure of interacting in a social environment in which strongly endorses the use of violence as part of being masculine. Concerns over the role of mass media in our culture is clearly on the mark, apart from the role of binge drinking and the role of alcohol. The problem lies on an underlying cultural endorsement of the use of violence to resolve conflict, to settle differences, as well as to inform others other importance of the tough guy role. Such endorsement was deeply rooted in our daily routines and thus to move forward, it is fundamental to empathize the frequent depiction of violence in the mass media and the impact theses portrayals are capable of among the youth.

Dr. Olson suggests that heavy players of violent games are more likely to view aggression as a first-choice solution to problems instead of a last resort. Given that the children’s stage of cognitive development is extremely important as it is correlated with their life-long achievement, violent game play is believed to have disproportionately effect on children. Research showed that young frequent violent game players see violence as easily justified, and also showed less empathy for others in. That is, disclosure to such entertainment creates an illusion of seeing violence as more acceptable and promotes vicious thoughts and actions to frequent players.

According to Anderson’s meta-analysis of the effects of playing violent video games, findings showed that violent game exposure leads to major societal harm. However, what must be considered are the effects of moderating variables such as the context of violence in a particular game, or result of other factors such as lack of parental guardianship. It is therefore essential to amalgamate study findings for a more vigorous result with a diverse range of age and gender that were exposed to different types and amounts of game violence in a variety of environments.

Conversely, Griffiths (1997) noted that even though there is indication for a minor to average short-term boost in bodily and orally aggressive behavior, media violence has a relatively small influence on violence and hence the impact of video games on vicious behavior remains to be determined. Furthermore, indications were observed from many past researches that there is limited evidence to show any relationships between media violence and aggressive behaviour in youths.

“The state of present knowledge does not permit an agreed answer.”

Consequently, it is extremely difficult to document whether and how the mass media contribute to serious youth violence. Existing literatures often in support with the theory that exposure to violence in any forms of media represents a significant risk to the heath of children and adolescents. Although extensive research evidence indicates that media violence can contribute to aggressive behaviour however, little can be proved that the mass media is the only single factor in such controversial issue.

To move forward, it is crucial to examine the nature and complexity of the issue. The effectiveness of programs and initiatives designed to prevent youth violence should be assessed extensively and modify amendments where appropriate. There are no quick and easy solutions but the need for a collective responsibility and action from all parties in order to prevent and control violence in the youth. Efforts are required from the community, businesses and organisations, but most importantly young people should comprehend the issue and set out action to tackle it.