The Internet carries with it danger as well as promise. Advertising can interfere with the learning process and take advantage of a captive audience of learners-of all types and ages. Privacy can be endangered when data is collected on users of online materials. Students, especially young children, need protections from harmful or inappropriate intrusions in their learning environments.

We all have a responsibility to assure that they do not find themselves in the "dark places" of the World Wide Web.

Online Advertising and Marketing in Schools

While many consider materials on the Web to be free, "banner ads" and other forms of online advertising support much of the material. Some maintain that schools should consider this as a non-intrusive tradeoff for high quality online content. They argue that commercialism is a part of society, has been a part of the school environment for years, and that students largely ignore product advertisements.2

Yet, where some see corporate support, others see exploitation.

Critics decry the extension of advertisers into the school, and their added power in the online environment. They counter that, if students are expected to ignore ads, then why are companies spending millions to "capture the eyeballs" of the youth market? Advertisers are aware that children spend or influence $500 billion worth of purchases. Children, not their parents, are increasingly the focal point for advertising.4

Some companies have gone further by providing whole systems to schools, including computer labs, online access, and software, in return for advertising that appears when the Internet is accessed from these facilities. The ZapMe Netspace was one such effort. It offered a 2 x 4 inch banner ad window that presented multimedia ads to students at all times, with the ads changing every 15 seconds, exposing students to approximately 200 ads in a 50-minute class period.5

Some schools and districts have gone the opposite direction, banning advertising altogether. In 1998, the National Association of State Boards of Education developed a set of principles to guide state boards in the development of policy regarding corporate involvement in schools.6 Among the principles for "positive school-business relationships" were the following:

· Corporate involvement shall not require students to observe, listen to, or read commercial advertising.

· Selling or providing access to a captive audience in the classroom for commercial purposes is exploitation and a violation of public trust.

Online Profiling
Online profiling is the collection of information from and about an individual as he or she uses the Internet. This can be accomplished either through the collection of personal data a user provides or through the use of screen name or identifier "cookies" placed on a hard drive by the Web site or third-party delivering ads to a Web site.7

Many consumers are unaware when they are being profiled or that profiling is in fact a sophisticated form of personalized marketing. A recent Business-Week/Harris Poll found that only 40 percent of those surveyed had even heard of cookies, and only 75 percent of those who had knew what they were.8

This lack of understanding is a special concern for students and young children, unsophisticated as they are in the importance of protecting information privacy. Children, and even teenagers (currently not covered by the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act-COPPA), may not have yet developed the sophisticated skills to understand why they should not provide information to others online.

A recent study by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that, although young people expressed concerns about protecting privacy and information that may be collected about them on Web sites, when offered a free gift in exchange for personal or family information, many more children than parents were willing to provide this information.9

Young People and the "Dark Streets"

A more direct threat is children's exposure to violence, pornography, and predators on the Web. A recent study entitled Online Victimization: A Report on the Nation's Youth,10 conducted interviews with a nationally representative sample of 1,500 youths ages 10-17 who use the Internet. The study found that large numbers of youths are encountering offensive experiences on the Internet. Twenty percent were sexually solicited. Six percent were harassed. The offenses and offenders are diverse, not just men trolling for sex. Much of the offending behavior comes from other youth, and some from women. Teenagers are the primary targets, creating a different sort of challenge than would be the case if younger children, over whom parents have more control, were the primary targets. Although most solicitations fail, the sheer numbers are alarming. Several million young people, ages 10 to 17, are sexually propositioned on the Internet every year.

Furthermore, sexual material is intrusive on the Internet. One in 4 youths surveyed had an unwanted exposure to pictures that included nudity or even more graphic sexual scenes. Although all these offenses are troubling, most youths do not tell parents, teachers, or even their friends about them. Even when parents are aware of the offenses, they, like their children, do not know where to report them.

The authors of the study emphasize that Internet friendships between teens and adults are not uncommon and are generally benign. In fact, the opportunity for people of all ages to congregate and chat online about common interests is one of the great strengths of the Internet, and one of the reasons it can be so useful for young people as they reach out to individuals who can be positive role models and mentors. The authors also state: "We need to learn more about the signs and symptoms of potentially exploitative adult-youth relationships, not just on the Internet, but in face-to-face relationships too."11

The study makes another important point: that the Internet is far from the only, or the greatest, threat to young people in our society.

Among respondents in the study, 30 percent had been attacked in real life by other youths in the last year. Other studies on school violence make it clear that child victimization in the online world is dwarfed by what they experience in the real world. Wherever such threats occur, society must work to address the many "not so nice streets" that can lead to the victimization of America's youth.

Potential Solutions

Protection comes in many forms and levels of control ranging from legislation to voluntary acceptable-use policies, to technical solutions like filters, monitoring systems, and portals, to consumer empowerment systems like ratings and consumer and learner education. No one "solution" is perfect-each has benefits, each has limitations. Their potential utility depends on personal and community preferences as well as the setting (home, preK-12 education provider, library, higher education, or training environment).

Legislation has been one response. The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) went into effect April 2000. It regulates the collection of personal information from children under the age of 13. It requires commercial Web sites targeted at children under 13 to secure parental permission before collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from children. These sites must also post a privacy policy detailing what personal information is being collected, how it is to be used, and if it will be given to third parties. While most witnesses who testified before the Commission support the underlying intent of COPPA, several concerns were raised:

· COPPA does not cover teens, an especially vulnerable group for online victimization as noted above. Teens are also major targets for online profiling and marketing.12

· Current "opt-in" requirements for "verifiable parental consent" may unduly restrict children's access to valuable online educational resources in schools. One witness expressed the concern that if "a single child fails to obtain parental consent, this could compromise or preclude an entire class from using an online learning program."13

· COPPA's administrative and record-keeping burdens for schools are substantial and may be enough to discourage full usage of the Internet. The National School Boards Association and American Association of School Administrators predict "the drastic increase of schools' administrative responsibilities prior to engaging their students in online activity would have a 'chilling' effect on the positive, productive collaborations of educational businesses and schools."14

· Of equal concern is the dampening effect COPPA requirements could have on innovative uses of the Internet for delivering personalized content and assessment materials. The regular collection of student data is necessary for these systems to function.15 One proposal suggested throughout the Commission's hearings would allow parents of young children to "opt-out" of their child's participation in an online activity or service.

Filtering or blocking software (also known as "firewalls") is an approach advocated by many. Legislation has been proposed that would prevent schools from receiving E-rate funding for discounted Internet use unless they filter Web content. Witnesses voiced concern with this approach for both practical and philosophical reasons. On the practical side, filters are not foolproof. Often unwanted material gets through.

Other times valid content may be screened out inappropriately (e.g., students doing research on breast cancer found that their filter does not accept sites containing the word "breast"). Filters can create a false sense of security, and have been called ill-advised solutions since Internet sites can appear, shift, and relocate overnight.16

One-third of the families surveyed in the online victimization study report that they currently use filters. However, 5 percent say they have stopped using them, suggesting some level of dissatisfaction.17

There is also the philosophical concern about filters in public institutions like libraries, raising freedom of information issues.

One witness suggested that purveyors of objectionable material could be required to check a database of those who opt out of receiving this material (like those who opt out of receiving telephone or mail advertising or other solicitations). Those who receive objectionable material online against their stated wishes could then have legal recourse.18

Monitoring systems are software solutions that provide a record of the sites a person has visited on the Internet. Most browsers keep at least a short-term record, and more complex monitoring systems can collect past visits by viewer. This is a relatively simple, low-cost solution for parents and schools, who can link accountability with education efforts and attach consequences for inappropriate or unauthorized activity.

Approximately three-fifths of households surveyed in the online victimization study reported that parents or guardians checked the computer history function to see where their children had been travelling on the Internet. Obviously, monitoring systems are only as good as the amount of attention they are given by those supervising students' Internet use.

Ratings systems put the power of choice back on the user, school, parent, or other authority figure supervising students' use of the Internet. Like ratings for movies, television, software, and now video games and music, the rationale is to give the consumer a choice. The Internet Content Rating Association (ICRA) is an independent, nonprofit organization that promotes a voluntary content-based ratings system built around Web operators' responses to questions about violence, nudity, sex, and offensive language.19

The value of ICRA ratings has been debated, especially as the self-assessment aspect of the system may not correspond with judgments a parent or teacher might make regarding the level of intensity of questionable content. Furthermore, as Web sites change rapidly, keeping a rating system up to date is nearly impossible.

Portals offer a gateway to pre-selected, screened sites around a particular area of interest. They often combine the features of a firewall and a ratings system by assuring that offensive materials or those inappropriate for children will not be included. Portals provide a way for parents and educators to guide students not only to sites that have been deemed of value, but also to those that do not present negative online experiences.

Acceptable use policies and education are solutions supported by all witnesses before the Commission. Educators, parents, and those who work with young people need to be aware of the dangers the Internet can pose to the privacy and safety of all users. Families need to know about various strategies and tools they can use to guide and protect themselves. Communities-including schools and libraries-must develop standards for what they consider appropriate monitoring of Internet usage for various age groups. These communities of users, from community to classroom to family, must develop and abide by acceptable use policies they feel comfortable with, along with appropriate sanctions for irresponsible behavior. Educators and parents must teach young people what it means to be safe and responsible online citizens.20

Learning that there are dark streets on the Web and in real life is a necessary lesson in the education of today's modern student. Regrettable as is it may be, this lesson is an integral part of becoming a learner in today's society.

ENDNOTES
1. Reprinted by permission of Random House, Inc.
2. Consumers Union. Captive Kids: A Report on Commercial Pressures on Kids at School. 1995. http://www.consumersunion.org/other/captivekids
3. Gray, R. Keith, Fred McCrea, and Russell Bacon. e-Education: ".com Meets .edu." A White Paper on the Internet and Education. Thomas Weisel Partners. 1999. http://www.tweisel.com
4. National Institute on Media and the Family. Children and Advertising Fact Sheet. http://www.mediafamily.org/research/fact/childadv.shtml
5. Willard, Nancy. e-Testimony to the Web-based Education Commission. August 21, 2000. http://www.webcommission.org/directory
6. Ibid.
7. United States. Federal Trade Commission. Online Profiling: A Federal Trade Commission Report to Congress. http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/06/index.htm#13
8. Business Week Online. Business Week/Harris Poll: A Growing Threat. March 20, 2000
9. Turow, Joseph and Lilach Nir. The Internet and the Family 2000. Annenberg Center for Public Policy of the University of Pennsylvania. 2000. http://www.appcpenn.org/finalrepor_fam.pdf
10. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Online Victimization: A Report on the Nation's Youth. 2000. http://www.ncmec.org/download/nc62.pdf
11. Ibid p. 35.
12. Aidman, Amy, Center for Media Education. Testimony to the Web-based Education Commission. September 14, 2000. http://www.webcommission.org/directory. See also Aidman, Amy. "Children's Online Privacy" Educational Leadership. October 2000. http://www.cme.org/children/privacy/amy_comments.html
13. Christie, Robert S., Thomson Learning. Testimony to the Web-based Education Commission. September 14, 2000. http://www.webcommission.org/directory
14. Association of American Publishers. e-Testimony to the Web-based Education Commission. August 16, 2000. http://www.webcommission.org/directory
15. Ibid.
16. SAS in School. e-Testimony to the Web-based Education Commission. August 19, 2000. http://www.webcommission.org/directory
17. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. 2000. op cit. endnote 10.
18. NetSchools Corporation. e-Testimony to the Web-based Education Commission. August 24, 2000. http://www.webcommission.org/directory
19. For more information, see http://www.icra.org
20. For related information, see http://stiftung.bertlesmann.de/english/projekte/bereiche/index.htm