Qik - a new software application which can be downloaded onto your phone - allows for real-time web streaming of whatever you’d like to capture.  This means that anyone else can see exactly what you see as it is happening.  The software is being ported for different platforms and will soon be available for the iPhone.  I think that it’s a neat tool that can be used to get people to a certain location to promote a grassroots movement or to simply see something fascinating or unique.

I’m sure there will be future functionality to alert individuals when their peers are currently posting a new stream so that they can tune in.  With an increasing number of web-enabled cell phones, they won’t need to run to the nearest desktop or laptop machine - they can just connect to the Internet and watch the stream on their handheld device and then make a decision if they want to go personally check it out.  Furthermore, with optics continuing to improve and flash media capacities and data speeds continuing to increase on cell phones, we will soon have clear, non-jittery streams to watch.

As with any new communications technology, though, the potential for abuse is rife.  For example, an unsuspecting student can be tricked into saying or doing something he wouldn’t normally do while his behavior is video recorded and broadcasted to distant peers tuning in.  Though a stretch, blackmail and extortion can also happen in this setting, with a kid being bullied into compliance under the threat of being “outed” or publicly humiliated through this real-time video streaming.  Gang violence or riots can also be mobilized as the beginnings of fistfights or looting can be broadcasted to summon friends to come and participate.  These are just a few examples; I’m sure there are more.

An article was published in the Washington Post over the weekend describing one teacher’s harrowing introduction to sexting. As they are known to do, parents and prosecutors evidently jumped to some conclusions and misinterpreted the actions this teacher was taking in investigating and dealing with a case of sexting about a year ago.  As a criminologist, I am keenly aware that the Court of Public Opinion does not operate under the assumption that one is “innocent until proven guilty.” These are very difficult situations to deal with and one can easily get caught up in assuming the worst.  As the author points out: “…my experience is a warning for all educators who find themselves trying to negotiate the slippery terrain where rapidly advancing technology intersects with risky adolescent behavior.”  Interesting read but scary story…what do you think?  What could he have done differently?

As you know, today is the 10th anniversary of the Columbine High School massacre.  It was a horribly tragic but markedly defining event in the history of American public schooling.  You can research it on your own, but evidence pointed to school administrators condoning bullying and harassment among students rather than dealing with it strictly and severely.  It is plausible that such bullying victimization contributed at least partially to the perpetrators’ murderous actions.  While we have not seen a school shooting resulting directly from cyberbullying, the possibility becomes increasingly real with the stories we are hearing from school administrators across the nation.  Without using scare tactics and promoting unsubstantiated fear, I think it’s critically important for school personnel to recognize that peer harassment - offline and online - can and does lead to devastating consequences, and to create a climate that actively counters such behavior.

We have been discussing the issue of cell phones in classrooms a lot lately.  Most schools have a clear policy prohibiting the use of cell phones in classrooms and standard practice seems to be “if I see it, you lose it.”  Some policies specify that the phones will be confiscated for the day, others say it can be detained for a longer period.  One question that comes up quite frequently is whether or not educators can search the contents of the cell phone.  We have discussed this issue before on this blog.  I wanted to take this opportunity to highlight a recent federal district court ruling that speaks to this issue.

From Klump v. Nazareth Area School District:

“The Supreme Court has held that a student search must nevertheless satisfy the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment. In the context of searches conducted by school officials, this means that the search must be justified at its inception and reasonable in scope.  To be justified at its inception, there must be ‘reasonable grounds for believing that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school.’  Here, defendant Kocher was justified in seizing the cell phone, as plaintiff Christopher Klump had violated the school’s policy prohibiting use or display of cell phones during school hours. In calling other students, however, defendants Grube and Kocher were conducting a search to find evidence of other students’ misconduct, which they may not do under the standard articulated above.” (p. 36)

So basically, our interpretation of this ruling is that, unless educators have reason to believe that a law or policy of the school has been violated, they cannot search the contents of student cell phones.  While simply displaying the cell phone may be a violation of the school policy, it appears that it is not enough to justify a more thorough search of the contents of the phone.  Of course educators could always obtain consent from the student’s parent(s) to conduct a search of their phone.  What are your thoughts? Respond to our poll or leave us a comment.

You’ve probably heard about the proposed law in New Jersey that would require social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook to police their users.  This is so frustrating for me to hear, as well-intentioned but oft-misguided legislators propose solutions to overblown online fears.  Social networking sites are not responsible for actively surveilling and censoring the content that users post within their web-based environments because of the federal Communications Decency Act (Section 230).  This 1996 law has been interpreted to state that Internet service providers are not legally liable for user content because they do not hold the role of “Publisher” or “Speaker” of that material.   Providers will, however, quickly respond if Terms of Service violations (in the form of cyberbullying, pornography, or hate speech) are brought to their attention, but they are not legally required to self-regulate offending content created by a third party.

This proposed law tickles the ears of politicians and the general public, but is largely useless since federal law will trump state law and so much Internet-based communication crosses over state and national lines - leading to jurisdictional issues.  It is also problematic in the way it attempts to restrict free speech.  It defines “harassing communication” as “any communication which is directed at a specific person, serves no legitimate purpose, and a reasonable person would believe is intended to threaten, intimidate or harass another person.”  That is tremendously vague and would likely open the door to hundreds of frivolous claims that do not approach accurate conceptions of “cyberbullying.”

It is not an effective use of taxpayers’ money and everyone’s time to pass these types of bills, as they will fall far short of their intended impact.  Our colleague Nancy Willard has been spearheading an initiative to bring researchers together to discuss these types of issues in front of more major public policy officials, so that those officials are equipped to come up with solutions that can actually make a difference.  As Justin and I get more face time with state officials across the nation, we’ll keep you updated.

This article from British Columbia refers to a high school principal who bought a cell phone signal jammer from an online dealer in China in order to thwart students from using their phones at school in violation of district policy.  First off, hats off to the resourcefulness of the principal in this situation - even though what he did was later deemed unlawful.  He was probably fed up with abuse and misuse of cell phones on his campus, and his decision may have been prompted by cases that severely compromised the learning environment he was trying to create.  It’s disheartening, though, that it came to this - that educational efforts, deterrent strategies, formal policies in place, and vigilant monitoring and sanctioning did not decrease the problem enough.  I’m not sure of the extent to which they were implemented.  Students are going to use cell phones at school if there is not a complete prohibition against it (and likely even still unless the accompanying penalties are heavy).  Secondly, maybe we can reduce the amount of texting students do between each other during the school day.  That said, we’re finding that parents are often contributing to the problem.  Parents are so used to reaching their children easily and quickly through cell phones.  This convenience is extremely valued, and even if you request them to relay messages through the school front office, it probably is not going to happen.  This is further reason why parents should perhaps formally agree to a policy at the beginning of the school year detailing the penalties their child will face if caught using their phone on campus - and maybe that will dissuade them from contributing to the problem.  Better yet - and as we’ve mentioned in a previous post - make it so the parents are meaningfully inconvenienced when their child breaks the rules.