browser.PNG

Browser for Autonomous Youth

This page contains the research, rudimentary visual design, and proposal I conducted and wrote for a class on technological ethics in 2016.

INTRODUCTION

Currently, when children browse the internet, the tools available to protect them from harmful content and interaction are inadequate and poorly designed. I am proposing a new browser made specifically for minors which promotes the ethical values of autonomy, integrity, and security through its function and limitation. Free use of the internet for communication, entertainment, and education aids in autonomous development, but safeguards need to be put in place to protect young ones from viewing content that is age inappropriate.

No desktop browser currently exists that succeeds as a well designed and safe place for kids to use the internet without supervision. The browsers meant to serve this purpose that currently exist are outdated or just a kid­safe search engine. There are Chrome extensions and tablet applications that serve the purpose of blocking content, but nothing for a desktop. Since computer skills are becoming increasingly important in the job market, a full desktop browser to aid kids in safely learning internet skills as early as possible should be implemented.

I am proposing a browser that will be implemented as part of a school’s learning system. The browser is bought and used by schools. It will be available through a download online or by local file transfer for students to use at home. This design serves to extend the learning environment past the school grounds to where the kids play and interact with each other on a daily basis.

CONCERNS TO HIGHLIGHT

One of the main concerns of people who would protest this proposal is concern for online safety from predators and harmful content. However, as Mathiesen argues, “No one can jump out of a computer and attack your child (Mathiesen, 2013).” I have implemented methods to safeguard the user from these threats.

Livingstone and O’Neill make the point that “Children’s rights are necessarily counterbalanced and limited by responsibilities—obligations requiring action by the state, including the allocation of resources, investment in education and careful negotiation when one set of rights are or appear to be in conflict with others (Livingstone and O’Neill, 2014).” Although children do deserve all the rights of a normal human, one must take into consideration that, by lowering their safety in ignoring their age, we may contradict our attempts to advance a child’s rights. The limitational and functional features presented in this proposal will help to resolve this.

Though popular press often encourages guardians to watch their child’s online behavior, Mathiesen argues that monitoring can do more damage than good: “Monitoring is not an effective method for protecting children, because one cannot reliably infer someone’s beliefs or intentions from what information exchanges that person engages in (Mathiesen, 2013).” To bolster that argument, Livingstone, Carr and Byrne argue that “Highly protectionist or restrictive policies are advocated for children in ways that may undermine their freedom of expression or that trade children’s particular needs off against adult freedoms online (Livingstone, Carr and Byrne).”

INTRINSIC VALUES TO ADDRESS

The primary intrinsic value this design addresses is autonomy, and the role that the internet plays in the social development of children toward autonomy is also worth addressing. According to Gross, Juvonen and Gable, “The internet may serve distinct functions for socially anxious and lonely individuals. At the same time, we find that normatively adjusted adolescents use the Internet as yet another tool in their communications repertoire (Gross, Juvonen, and Gable, 2002).” While for “normal” adolescents the internet is just another useful form of communication, lonely young people and those with social anxiety find the internet to be an especially useful tool in their development. In this design, through internet exploration and communication without monitoring page ­by­ page activity, autonomy is promoted.

Another intrinsic value this design addresses is integrity within the context of parenting. Parents want their children to be safe on the internet, but this can often manifest itself in negative ways, involving a breach of their child’s privacy. Mathiesen argues that, for children, having a right to privacy “respects their current capacities and fosters their future capacities for autonomy and relationships (Mathiesen, 2013).” A child is still a person, and has rights, including privacy, which scale depending on their age. With a method for children to use the internet without the risk of harm, parents do not have to compromise their ethical integrity to make sure their children are safe on the web.

A third intrinsic value considered in this design is security. When children use the internet, their security has the potential to become a large concern, as they do not always fully comprehend the sensitivity of the personal information they put on the internet. This browser can only be accessed if one has an account issued by the company itself, granted through the child’s school. Therefore, the child’s security is preserved and predators cannot use the browser’s built in functions to interact with them.

DESIGN

The browser has a colorful user interface with a variety of simple shapes integrated throughout to promote usability in adolescents and to retain interest. The browser also features a quick start homepage, age dependent content blockers, selective history logging, and built­ in communication features.

The quick start homepage is always available via the first icon in the tab bar. Tabs are represented by the site’s logo. When the tab has a blue border around it, that means that tab is the active page. The quick start homepage has nine portals, leading to the following:

  • The school portal, which leads to the school’s chosen site where students can access their grades and homework assignments, as well as important dates, teacher contacts, and other important school related information.

  • The peer portal, where one can access profiles of their peers and interact with each other in group environments such as forums and homework discussions.

  • The art portal, where one can learn about art, art history, artmaking and everything in between. As art continues to battle for its place in a curriculum in some parts of the country, external art education and instruction is increasingly important for sustaining autonomy through creativity.

  • The media portal, where one can access age ­appropriate music and video content. As children age, they begin to develop preferences, and allowing them to do so with media content will encourage development of those preferences, in turn encouraging development of autonomy. In addition, viewing and listening to media may encourage autonomy through creativity if one likes them enough to make their own media as a result.

  • The email portal, where one can access their email and learn how to use it. This is yet another tool which will promote autonomy through learning communication skills.

  • The tech portal, where one can discover information about new and old technologies. This portal will promote autonomy through expression and development of user interest. The research portal, where one can find sources for projects and papers, or learn new information for enrichment.

  • The game portal, where one can play games online, alone or in groups with their classmates. Games are another form of media which may promote autonomy through decision making as well as creativity.

  • The skill portal, where students can learn about hobbies and, in some cases, practice them online, with information on hobbies such as programming, CSS and HTML, the stock market, music production, art­making, sports, and outdoor activities available.

The content blocking feature will use an amalgamation of rating systems commonly used in America in order to censor content based on the user’s age. Users can browse freely without being at risk of exposure to inappropriate content. The content blocking feature also has another use: if a user types something to post online or to send to another user, that content will only send if it passes a cyberbullying/content check. Otherwise, the user will be prompted to reconsider their message. The same will happen if the user is giving out too much personal information online.

The selective history logging feature serves to protect the privacy of the user. When a page is visited, only its homepage domain name is stored in history, not the individual page. The user can find sites they have previously visited, but their guardian cannot see their history in full, preventing them from reading their interactions.

The built in chat function, activated by its button in the top right, allows the user to chat with other users in their grade who attend their school. The user receives an identification code from the company which is attached to a customizable profile which is linked to all the portals. The content blocker for cyberbullying and other inappropriate content is implemented here, so users cannot communicate about age ­inappropriate material or bully each other. Chats are erased after both users leave the chat so that their privacy is protected.

ANALYZING THE DESIGN

According to Mathiesen, children are less anxious and enjoy themselves more when they choose what they do on the internet (Mathiesen, 2013). This translates to: children are happier when they are autonomous. Several features promote autonomy through function: quick start, selective history logging, and built in chat. The quick start feature promotes autonomy in many ways ­ through creativity, through learning how to use internet features, and through communication. The history clearing feature promotes autonomy by allowing children to browse freely without their activity being monitored. The built in chat features allow autonomy by giving children the chance to interact with each other outside of school without their interactions being monitored or mediated by guardians. The site blocking feature promotes autonomy by allowing children to freely browse the internet without danger of being exposed to things that are inappropriate for their age group.

Using the browser as an educational tool also promotes autonomy. As Sugata Mitra put it, “Primary education can happen on its own, or parts of it can happen on its own (Mitra, 2007).” “Children can self­ organize and attain an educational objective (Mitra, 2007).” Mitra’s findings demonstrate that children are capable of benefiting from learning on their own and teaching themselves using the internet. In a collaborative environment such as the browser’s Peers feature, this is possible.

There are features that promote integrity in parenting through function, by limitation. The selective history logging and chat clearing functions promote parental integrity by eliminating the chance for a guardian to monitor the user’s social interactions. The security of the user is preserved by the content blocker feature as well as the identification code provided to the user by the company. The content blocker prevents the user from entering too much personal information online. The identification codes protect the user’s security by limiting who can use the communicational functions of the browser, eliminating the risk of predators using the service to communicate with children.

CHALLENGES

This entire proposal is highly idealized; in America today, we have far too wide of a range of ethical values for this to be implemented nationally. It may be difficult to initialize the user base for this browser, since it would ideally be picked up by schools starting at the elementary level and become fully integrated into the school system. In addition, once it is implemented in school, there is no way to enforce using this browser at home. Just as with any educational tool, the user ultimately has to want to use it for it to be effective.

CONCLUSION

Autonomy is a key element of the developmental process, and the internet can play a positive role in development if allowed. By implementing this browser into school systems, the autonomy and privacy of children as people with rights can be maximized, as well as integrity in the context of parenting. This browser’s features present a solution to the ever­present question of how to balance keeping a child safe online and how to let them use the internet for a developmental advantage.

Research

The Internet, children, and privacy: the case against parental monitoring. LINK

I chose this article because I believe a large part of my social development stemmed from interacting with people on the internet. In my case, it was Neopets and deviantArt specifically, and if my parents had intervened any more than they did, I doubt I would have had the same experience, and I would likely be a different person now. The allowance of meeting people (in a safe environment) without my parents’ knowledge and interacting with them unsupervised resulted in greater autonomy and my ability for relationship formation as an adult. I also think I was able to form my own opinions about the world around me, as skewed as they were, due to my time spent discussing them with other people who I shared age or interests with, online.

Though I think it is a good idea to keep children from accessing certain sites which may rob them of their childhood, I think letting them freely use sites which are safe and age-appropriate is absolutely essential. The topic of this article is parental monitoring of child internet use. The author argues that parents should not do so, because it violates the child’s right to privacy. Having a right to privacy, according to the author, “respects their current capacities and fosters their future capacities for autonomy and relationships.” The article also discusses the (overstated) risks for children online and ways to increase online safety without overstepping boundaries.

The main points that this author presents, though they seem more opinions than questions, are as follows: Parents intend to monitor their child’s internet use for protective reasons. However, monitoring may lead to harm more than a lack of monitoring - “No one can jump out of a computer and attack your child.” But monitoring can do damage by causing anxiety for children. “Monitoring is not an effective method for protecting children, because one cannot reliably infer someone’s beliefs or intentions from what information exchanges that person engages in.” Parents may see a certain behavior online and grill their child about it, causing trauma or bringing up a topic the child is not comfortable discussing with their parent yet. I learned that children are less anxious and enjoy themselves more when they choose what they do on the internet. By respecting a youth’s right to make their own decisions, we can respect their autonomy and allow that quality to grow and strengthen. What we do for children at a young age in regard to controlling their time affects their ability to do so for themselves later. Children have a right to privacy, even if it may put them in ‘danger’ of seeing something they are too young for in some cases. I would like to know statistics regarding how heavily a child is monitored and how it affects different facets of their behavior later on in life. However, this article covered a lot of basic topics that will be extremely useful in my research, so it didn’t necessarily leave me wanting more information.

Kids Can Teach Themselves: TED Talk LINK

The source I chose for this annotation is a Ted Talk by Sugata Mitra which discusses online youth autonomy and how they can teach themselves using the internet if left alone to do so. Since my previous sources have been about child rights on the internet and their online autonomy, I felt that this was an appropriate source that may also enable a more diverse argument in my final assignment.

I felt that this subject matter in this video was interesting and wanted to research it because the children involved in the ‘study’ of sorts that Mitra conducted had never been exposed to the internet before, and they figured out how to use it all on their own with no instruction, then used it to teach themselves. Mitra’s “four sentences” that serve as the main points for the Ted Talk are: “Remoteness affects the quality of education. Educational technology should be introduced into remote areas first, and other areas later. Values are acquired; doctrine and dogma are imposed ­­ the two opposing mechanisms. And learning is most likely a self­organizing system.” The topic of the Ted Talk is how children can teach themselves using the internet.

Mitra and his researchers theorized that “...children in groups can self­instruct themselves to use a computer and the Internet (2007).” They conducted many experiments across India with children who had not been exposed to technology and the Internet and reported their (astounding) findings.The children in a village called Madantusi, where there was no English teacher, picked up 200 English words and were able to use them correctly within three months of using a computer embedded in a wall with CDs whose contents were only in English (Mitra, 2007).

Mitra and his team then conducted similar experiments elsewhere in India, and found that “six­ to 13­year­olds can self­instruct in a connected environment, irrespective of anything that we (they) could measure (2007).” Regardless of outside factors, groups of children were able to teach themselves using the internet, displaying strong autonomy and the ability to learn.

Though education should certainly not be all self­ taught, as that ends in serious gaps in knowledge ­ “Primary education can happen on its own, or parts of it can happen on its own. It does not have to be imposed from the top downwards. It could perhaps be a self ­organizing system … children can self­ organize and attain an educational objective (Mitra,2007).” Mitra’s findings demonstrate that children are capable of benefiting from learning on their own and teaching themselves using the internet.

I would like to know if a newer version of this experiment has been done with updated technology since this Ted Talk is from 2007 ­ the America Online references are a bit dated, and with different variables this study may have gone differently. Also, I remember hearing a few years ago about children in Africa receiving cheaply made computers and using them to access inappropriate sites as opposed to learning, and I’m curious of the likelihood of that happening versus the likelihood of what happened in Mitra’s experiments occurring, as that may be something I need to address in my final project

Case Study – HUD’s Homeless Management Information System

Questions:

  • Boundary: Does the technique cross a personal boundary without permission?

  • Awareness: Are individuals aware that personal information is being collected, who seeks it and why?

  • Consent: Do individuals content to the data collection?

  • Negative effects on surveillors and third parties: Are there negative effects on those beyond the subject?

  • Appropriate vs. Inappropriate goals: Are the goals of the data collection legitimate?

Reasoning

I chose these questions because I think that they are the most applicable to this HMIS/EPIC Case Study. This program deals with the tracking of homeless populations, which I think involves treating the individuals involved a little less like humans and a little more like data - the system gathers, stores, and analyzes personal information about any individual who uses shelters, medical care, or other public services. I think there could be a personal element missing from this project, even with the ‘Continuum of Care’ included. Even though I may not be able to fully answer each of them with the information I have gathered so far about the case, I believe that answering these questions will allow me to take a look at both sides of the “Is it ethical?” discussion in regards to HMIS. Doing so will help me reach a conclusion.

Answers:

Boundary

From my research about this program, I have gathered that anyone who uses these public services will automatically have their information collected and used as data. The HEARTH act “requires that all communities have an HMIS with the capacity to collect unduplicated counts of individuals and families experiencing homelessness (HMIS).” I think that homeless individuals not having the option to remain anonymous when asking for help, which they may not know or understand when first coming to shelters or medical centers, crosses a personal boundary. By the time they may have received the help they need, they have no option to not have their data collected. Individuals who wish to remain anonymous may have a very legitimate reason such as attempting to avoid an abusive partner or home life.

Awareness

Given that the nature of the situation, I believe that the homeless individuals would be the ones providing information about themselves, as we don’t have much of a way to gather information about an individual without at least having a name, social security number, or a fingerprint. They may not fully understand who is seeking it or why depending on how much they have looked into or been informed about the program. EPIC’s fact sheet brings to light a few risks that could be posed if one enters the program – nationwide database, computer security risks, heightened risk of domestic violence, and potential for harm for any individuals living with HIV or AIDS. Were an individual to consent to their data being used (which is to say, if they were to come for help, since it seems all homeless individuals must give consent – though I do not know if they do it knowingly or not), they could be potentially at risk of these factors.

Consent

Though from my research I cannot tell for sure, I would hope that homeless individuals are informed that their information will be collected when they provide it. That would be the ethical thing to do in this context. The program does exist to essentially help homeless populations through “better inform(ing) homeless policy and decision making at the federal, state, and local levels (HMIS).” If I were in the position of a homeless individual – and I have been close to that position before – when weighing out needing help versus my information being collected, the scales tip toward needing help. The consent of individuals is pressured by needing this assistance, so they kind of have no chance but to give consent if they want help.

Negative effects on surveillors and third parties

Though I do not have a complete understanding of all aspects of this program I do not think that this program could produce negative effects for anyone involved outside of the homeless community. Living in a place where going downtown usually means getting catcalled and insulted by several homeless individuals just during my walk to get lunch has given me some perspective and also some personal opinions about the subject matter. From my understanding of the program, its intentions involve gathering data in order to better provide for homeless populations, so I think that this has the potential to benefit all parties involved if the program’s intentions are exactly what we see outlined on their website.

Appropriate vs. inappropriate goals

I believe that the goals of this program are legitimate and well-intentioned, albeit a bit inhuman. Though a national database of homeless individuals could be built with the data collected, EPIC’s website states that that has not yet been instated.

Currently, I think the goals are appropriate. However, were a few things to occur, I think that this program’s goals could easily be read as inappropriate. I think that if a database were to be created, this program’s goals would instantly be much more questionable. EPIC says they released a fact sheet about the HMIS, as if the HMIS website was not publicly accessible until after the fact sheet’s release. If the program was not public knowledge until it was ‘outed’ in a sense by EPIC, I think that’s another argument for the inappropriate argument.

Questions I still have:

Having read the entirety of the HMIS and EPIC resources, I still have a few questions. The resources do not go much into detail on an individual, human level. Though the intentions seem well, listing that the data gathered is used to better programs for the homeless population, the program outline does not discuss what happens to an individual who is inducted into the system – it just talks about the homeless populations as if they are one body. I felt as if I could not entirely answer some aspects of the questions I chose because I did not know more about the process of an individual’s data being gathered. So, these are questions I still have:

  • Is the individual informed of the HMIS program before they receive help? After? At any point? Or is it just automatically entered without their consent? Knowing this answer would absolutely alter my response to the consent question.

  • Do the people who instated this program intend on entering information gathered into a national database at a later point? That could pose a serious problem if law enforcement were to gain access to it. Leading into, are the intentions of this program exactly as they are listed, or are there other motivations we are not knowledgeable of? My answers mostly assumed the most positive intentions and outcome since it is a program seemingly designed to help the homeless, but the reality may be otherwise, which would vastly change my answers.

  • Was this information about HMIS immediately released into the public, or did it happen after EPIC released the fact sheet? EPIC says they alerted the public of the program, which makes me wonder if it was not widespread knowledge when it was instated. EPIC’s reaction to and coverage for this program paints a very negative and accusatory picture of HMIS, something that I don’t necessarily disagree with since I don’t know all of the facts.

Conclusion:

I do not have all of the information needed to make a conclusion that I am happy with. I have tried to be as objective as possible by not picking a side until the end of this study, and attempting to analyze for and understand both sides of the “is it ethical?” argument. Though I can understand both sides of it - ultimately, while I can appreciate a program that is intended to help the homeless population, and I think it is necessary, I do not think that this program in its current state is ethical. The purpose of public shelters and medical centers, first and foremost, should be to help people. That should not be a secondary concern under first getting their data. The fact that I don’t know the answers to my questions leads me to think that the answers are the worst possibilities, which is why I couldn’t find them. From what I understand, data is collected about homeless individuals, regardless of their actual comfort level (and maybe regardless of their consent to it), if they get help at all. To collect data about people in this manner, leaving them with the choice of either ‘get help and give data’ or ‘remain anonymous and un-helped,’ is not a grey area for me. I think that is wrong.

Internet Use and Well-Being in Adolescence

This article is connected to my first two articles in that it involves children online. However, unlike the other two, it does not discuss rights or ethics of the subject matter; it discusses how the internet affects the well­being of adolescents on the internet. I found this article interesting because I related to it personally, having used the medium of communication they discussed the most heavily ­ IMing ­ daily during my formative years. I was curious to read how this behavior might have affected me, and after reading the article, my notion that I was positively affected has been confirmed. I want to research this topic because I think it could be beneficial to consider the well­being of young people in relation to the internet while defending their internet privacy rights in my final paper.

The topic of this article is a study of “daily Internet use and psychological adjustment, with a specific focus on IMing (Gross, Juvonen, and Gable).” The participants were seventh­ grade students aged 11 to 13 in Southern California. There were 49 male and 81 female participants. Participants in this three ­day study provided twice­ daily information on daily after­school activities, loneliness, and what they did online. They were also asked about social anxiety, friendships and depressive moods. The researchers’ hypothesis was “on­line communication serves distinct functions for adolescents experiencing peer ­related distress. Although the most commonly reported motive for IMing was to “hang out with a friend,” the motive “to avoid being alone” was unique in demonstrating significant associations with psychological adjustment (Gross, Juvonen, and Gable).”

There were two main goals, or research questions of the study: “...first, to examine more closely what adolescents were doing on­line, and second, to examine whether distinctions among on­line activities and communication partners allow us to better understand the relation between Internet use and well­being. (Gross, Juvonen, and Gable).” I used this quote to infer the researchers’ questions because it is prefaced by “The aim of the present study was twofold:(Gross, Juvonen, and Gable)”. Though they might not have been phrased as questions, these two goals were certainly the questions they were asking. To paraphrase, the researchers wanted to see what the seventh­graders did on the internet, and they also wanted to see ifcertain online behaviors with certain people involved changed their perception of internet use in relation to well­being.

From this article I learned something that I think will strengthen my argument in my final paper. “... the internet may serve distinct functions for socially anxious and lonely individuals. At the same time, we find that normatively adjusted adolescents use the Internet as yet another tool in their communications repertoire (Gross, Juvonen, and Gable).” The study found that while for “normal” adolescents the internet was just another useful form of communication, lonely young people and those with social anxiety found the internet to be an especially useful tool. Though I could have guessed this given my adolescence, having researched proof gives me a strong basis to start my paper.

Since this article is from 2002, I would like to know how current day adolescents use the internet differently than in this study. The study focuses mainly on Instant Messaging, which in 2002 involved using a service made entirely for that function. We don’t call it that anymore, but texting and Facebook’s messenger serve the same purpose ­ though, they are missing the customizable notification sounds of AIM. Social Media, and the internet in general, have evolved so much, and more young people are using Twitter and Facebook instead of Neopets and AOL in the new generation. When so much information on these mostly uncensored social media sites, made for adults, is now so easily accessible to those who are not old enough to process it properly, the benefits outlined in the article may differ

Gross, E. F., Juvonen, J. and Gable, S. L. (2002), Internet Use and Well­Being in Adolescence. Journal of Social Issues, 58: 75–90. doi: 10.1111/1540­4560.00249

One in Three: Internet Governance and Children’s Rights LINK

WHY I CHOSE IT

I chose this paper because its main points help to answer several questions I had after previous annotations. The paper involves children’s rights, specifically online, and why it is increasingly important that we consider this topic. Not only does it answer several questions I had, but is is also much more recent than my other sources, and confirms several ideas suggested in the articles and video I annotated from ten or more years ago. In addition, Sonia Livingstone was also one of the authors of the article used for my second annotation.

WHY I FIND IT INTERESTING

This paper caught my attention for the titles of its sections at first ­ “Children’s Rights Are Largely Absent from Internet Governance” helps me find the answer to my question about activism from my second annotation. The section “One in Three: Children Are a Rising Proportion of All Internet Users” contains statistical data about this topic, something I was searching for after my first annotation. I believe that this paper presents many points I can use to argue my thesis in my final project.

THESIS/PRIMARY ARGUMENT

The topic of the article is Internet Governance in regard to Children’s Rights. The paper indicates that this topic does not have enough attention paid to it at the moment for several reasons.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS/QUOTES ARTICULATING QUESTIONS

The authors’ research includes questions about children’s rights online and how they translate to offline, as well as who is responsible for ensuring their rights. These questions are outlined in the names of the sections of this paper: “Children’s Rights Are Largely Absent from Internet Governance”, “One in Three: Children Are a Rising Proportion of All Internet Users”, “Children’s Rights ­ Legal and Normative Dimensions”, “Children’s Rights Extend Online As Well As Offline”, and “Responsibility for Ensuring Children’s Rights: Who Are the Stakeholders?”.

WHAT INFORMATION I LEARNED/IMPORTANT POINTS

I learned that, in different areas of the world, children can make up from one­ fifth up to one­half of the area’s population,­ yet their rights online are largely dismissed.