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.

Media representation of crime - Moral Panic?

While I was doing some research about the relationship between media representations of crime and moral panic, I found this interesting video on Youtube that is worth of watching:

As defined by Cohen, moral panic is when the mass media delineate a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges as a threat to societal values and interest, often presented in a stereotypical way. Marsh and Melville (Chapter 3) also suggested that media actively shape citizens’ views of social life by providing only certain types of information and by subjectively framing issues in ways that lead the public to adopt particular beliefs.

Acting as claims maker, the media’s duty is to inform the public of the most concerned social problems, those that are often unfamiliar subjects to the average citizen. However, the way in which claims makers report on problems and what information they choose to report is often disfigured by biases, ignorance and many hidden agendas. The effect of such wrongdoing is that public fear is often created about issues that do not directly threaten majority of the public.

Williams and Dickinson (from the weekly reading) documented that the media’s tendency to focus on violent crime has led to a poorly informed and frightened public as resulted from the quantity and quality of the news media’s reporting of crime.

“If it bleeds, it leads.”

Profits are made when television and print news attract large proportion of audiences by satisfying the public’s curiosity with violence. The way that information is presented within a problem frame not only creates and amplifies public’s fear but in which became a public concern in regards to the danger and risk produced towards policing the society.

Cohen lists responses to school violence as one of seven clusters of moral panics, given the fact that responses to social problems are exaggerated and expressed in terms of moral outrage. He also illustrates how the response to school violence is a good example of moral panic as it involves suitable folk devils and sympathetic victims driven by the widespread concern in regards to school violence, accelerated response by dramatic cases, and the horror of the event elicits fear of widespread victimization.

Media’s role in shaping fears, capture the public’s imagination on the widespread of victimization rather than the actual crime rates exists. As Cohen states, it is essential to evaluate the content of the news articles published in order to understand what they articulate, the degree of accuracy in relates to reality, and what messages and images are trying to convey.

The Moral Panic Wheel

Controversially professor Ferguson from Texas A&M’s Department of Behavioral, Applied Sciences and Criminal Justice uses this Moral Panic Wheel to suggest that there is no one group or factor responsible for moral panics.

If such theory is factual, then who is responsible?

Youth, frightening?!

It is no surprising to observe that many adolescents had been the victims of unfair judgment by others; gratified to the media and the way it portrays young people these days. Media focuses on youth drug addiction, vandalism, conjointly with many other negative issues, in constructing the general public to view young people as stereotypes and gross generalizations.

Taking the media coverage of the 2004 student protests against increasing HECS fees as an example,

Capsicum spray used as students storm Chancellery in fees protest

Deliberately and entirely, the Sydney Morning Herald negatively focus on the minority who acted violently and wrongfully, ignoring the fact that majority of the young protestors staged in a peaceful manner.

Adolescents are in a stage of life where the preoccupation centres on finding their identities, and thus the surrounding environment becomes a significant factor in forming affirmation (Wren and Mendoza, 2004). Such process is continuing to develop throughout life; hence encouragements are requisite from all surrounding parties in order for the best outcomes. In spite of this, the media has incessantly focusing on creating a moral panic where young people being portrayed as violent and out-of-control criminals.

As asserted by Marsh and Melville in the Week 8 readings, media have played a crucial role in the construction of ‘problem youth’. Produced by media sensationalism and distortion, youth crimes have been illustrated as rapid increase in quantity and youth violence as increasing in severity. A great misrepresentation of youth crime invaded media coverage and these stereotypes had already deeply rooted in the public opinion.

Last month, Today Tonight deliberately puts to air fallaciously edited stories about home grown gangs of kids terrorizing neighbourhoods, purposely to scare the living daylights out of its viewers. Such program was late on being criticized by Media Watch:

Tweed Tales on TT

Why is such misrepresentation became a dilemma?

Media plays an important role in creating policy and laws other than informing the public to raise awareness and create opinion. Misrepresentation of young people imposes a danger that policies implemented may not address what is needed. Youth violence is framed as a growing crisis, both in size and in geography. Implications of negative media stereotypes to young people themselves and the society as a whole are beyond our expectations.

The way media constructed had raised moral panic among the society, advocating politicians and policy makers on a journey in searching for explanations in order to produce effectual solutions. Inevitably youth crime is sensationalized, simplified and decontextualized, and that youth violence is over-represented. What was reported by the media foster a climate of fear in which crime control is the only and last approach of choice, instead of making contribution in terms of helpful solutions for addressing the issues.

Young populations are the leaders of our future. Instead of being discriminated against or treated apprehensively, adolescents should be embraced by the community not alienated by it. The media is encouraged to shift the focus on negative and controversial issues concerning young people, to the accomplishments and positive contribution made by them. To be fair, both youth and the media have a responsibility to ensure that such progression maintains with the intention of precise and positive stories about young people being told.

Court On Air?!

Recent events and controversies had said so much in relation to the relationship between the courts, the media and the public in the Australian society. The most prevalent issue at the moment is media’s role in reporting court proceedings, whether it is appropriate to implement cameras in courtrooms.

Main argument in favor of such action is to ensure that the judicial process would be more transparent to the general public. Stepniak (week 8 readings) advises that our main focus should shift from whether the media be permitted to record and broadcast proceedings, to the consequences of courts being proactive in facilitating public access to any court-proceeding related matters. Based on the researches and experiences gathered, Stepniak argued that it is reasonless to doubt how media would be a useful tool to enhance public access to and understanding of the judicial process.

“Justice is done in public so tht it may be discussed and criticized in public…”

- Lord Scarman

The principle of open justice will imply the involvement of public scrutiny, with the balancing of the interests of a fair trial as the underlined principles.

Currently in Australia, Federal Court judges gave cameras to record their delivery of judgment summaries on a regular basis. In conducting the recording and broadcast of the insightful three part series titled ‘Divorce Stories’, broadcasters involved were exempted from liability granted by the Court.

However, some argued the media should not be accountable for publishing or broadcasting courts’ services, although it has a significant role in informing and scrutinizing court decisions of the general public interest. Such viewpoint can be further support given by the complexity of monitoring the media to adequately and correctly on distributing any court-related information. As stated by Alastair Nicholson, former Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, “…the Australian media has an unimpressive track record in protecting the rights or privacy of individuals.”

Moreover, court records often contain personal privacy information, which would be too sensitive for any public recording and/or broadcasting. Public exposure on court proceedings might enhance public awareness of courts’ functions and the judicial power, but who should be accountable for in any leakages of personal privacy?

A Pension for Prisoner?

Pension vs Prison - Channel Seven Today Tonight

(http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/article/7709776/general/pension-versus-prison)

I came across this story recently, the first impression I had after watching it was - "OMG, this is how far the discrepancy was!" Being locked up in prison these days means you are placed in a secure, clean and private room, with access to most technologies, not to mention that all meals and snack would be brought to the cell by a guard, who would also check on you every 20 minutes, making sure that you stay safe and healthy. With access of all sorts of recreational activities, plus eligible to claim a Crisis Payment (one week's payment of the basic Centrelink pension for every week you spent in the prison), guess it's more like the Tax payers are being punished for these. Totally wasn't aware of the fact that prisoners are taking better care of, compare to the rest of 20 million pensioners in Australia!

But then I think it's better off to hear both side of the story, especially when TT is known as one of the highly exaggerated TV programs, dramatize anything and everything. So I did went on doing some researches, and I found the following video on YouTube:

Basically two videos contrary one to another, and it appears to me that the TT program is half truths and non-truths mixed with limited degrees of reality to make prison life appear far more better than it really is. Think about this: why would there be fences and walls if the cell was so fantastic to be live in?

During last week's lecture on Media Representations of Imprisonment, Alyce showed us a film The Shawshank Redemption, and a documentary from BBC journalist Louis Theroux Behind Bars, two totally different portrayals of prison, a comparison of 'Reality' and 'Fictional Representations' of Prison was showed.

In the weekly readings, Mason (2006) argued that prison was constructed by the media as the essential cornerstone of criminal justice, that the meaning of prison "is shifted from a place to pain delivery to one which treats and train". At the end of the day, what we must consider is: what exactly is the meaning of prison? Certainly it is a place for the confinement of persons convicted of crimes in lawful detention, imprisonment that what we call it. But how should we justify the condition of it, in order to call it fair? Is it meant to be a place of cruelty where the convicted are being punished, or should it be a peaceful place where the convicted are being educated about the right and wrong?

One or another, what we must consider next time we come across with the Media is:

Is it really that we shouldn't be fooled by hysterical attention seeking television personalities because they mess with the real truth?