I’m happy to be a member of a recently formed Internet Safety Technical Task Force, but it has caused me to feel a bit of a disconnect. One of the major goals of the task force is to explore whether it’s possible to use technology to verify the age of people signing up for social-networking sites like Facebook and MySpace to give parents more control over whether their kids can use these services and to avoid inappropriate online contact between kids and adults. Yet, the first four experts to address the task force painted a picture that causes me to wonder if such technology would be helpful even if it could be employed.

The task force was formed in February as a result of an agreement between MySpace and 49 state attorneys general. The group consists of representatives of major Internet and social-networking services including MySpace, Facebook, Bebo, AOL, Google and Yahoo, along with officials from companies that offer age- and identity-verification technology. Several non-profit organizations are also represented, including ConnectSafely.org, which I co-founded with Anne Collier. (Disclosure: ConnectSafely receives financial support from several social-networking companies.)

The task force is a welcome intervention into what has been a nasty war of words. For the past couple of years, several attorneys general, lead by Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Roy Cooper of North Carolina, had been hammering at MySpace and other social networks because of the perceived danger of predators using the sites to contact children.

But that’s not what the task force heard from a panel of experts who actually know something about how kids can be harmed online. At its meeting in Washington on Wednesday, members heard from researchers Michelle Ybarra, from Internet Solutions for Kids; Janis Wolak, from the University of New Hampshire Crimes Against Children Research Center; Amanda Lenhart, from the Pew Internet & American Life Project; and Danah Boyd, a Ph.D. candidate at the School of Information at the University of California-Berkeley and a fellow at Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society.

Drawing from several surveys and studies, all of the researchers said the risk of a child being forced into sex from an online predator is almost non-existent. And in the relatively few cases where a youth does engage in sex with someone they first met online, the young person is almost always compliant in some fashion.

That doesn’t excuse the adult - having sex with someone under the age of consent is rightfully a serious crime. But as part of what we need to know to better protect kids, it’s important to realize that deception is rarely involved. Most teens are aware of the approximate age and intentions of the adults who contact them. Only 5 percent of the offenders pretend to be teens. In some cases, the kids themselves are being aggressive and sexually suggestive and pose in ways to make them look older than they are.

When unwanted sexual solicitations do occur, most youths deal with them appropriately. Two-thirds of youths didn’t view the solicitations as serious or threatening and “almost all youths handled unwanted sexual solicitations easy and effectively,” according to data reported by Wolak.

Researchers reiterated that the overwhelming majority of kids who are sexually exploited are victims of people they know from the off-line world. And they pointed out that children have a far greater chance of being harassed or “cyberbullied” by peers than by adults, and that nearly half of the cases of sexual solicitation were teen to teen.

Please don’t interpret these findings as being soft on predators or oblivious to the dangers on the Internet. Everyone in the room was deeply committed to protecting kids from the very real harms that do exist. But in the interest of safety it’s important to not confuse the perceived risks with the likely ones. To do so would be like worrying about some horrible but rare disease while failing to wear seat belts, washing your hands and flossing your teeth.

The task force’s main mandate is to explore age-verification technology that would make it a lot harder to claim you’re 14 when you’re actually 12 or that you’re 17 when you’re really 40. Social networks have age restrictions (typically kids have to be at least in their teens) but they now rely on user-supplied birth dates.

Some attorneys general want to see the electronic equivalent of showing an ID at the door. There are companies represented on the task force with tools that might be able to accomplish this including Aristotle, IDology and Sentinel Tech. But Sentinel Chief Executive John Cardillo told me age- and identity-verification schemes typically rely on credit reports and other data that is accessible for most adults but generally not available for people under 17. One could, in theory, access school, birth or Social Security records, but for a variety of good reasons, these databases are off-limits to private entities.

Though the task force has yet to hear from any age-verification vendors, I’m keeping an open mind about the efficacy of the technology. Yet, even if age verification is possible, I still question whether it’s desirable. I worry about some teens - including victims and youths questioning their sexual identity - being harmed because they’re denied access to online support services that could help them or even save their lives.

Listen to Larry’s CBS News Podcast with Google Sr. Scientist Shumeet Baluja and National Center for Missing and Exploited Children President Ernie Allen

Working with law enforcement, analysts at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) in Alexandria, Va., spend their days doing something no one should have to do. They look at what is called “child pornography,” but the photos and videos are actually evidence of children - in some cases infants - being sexually abused.

They do this work to help rescue children who may still be in the clutches of a predator, to help catch and prosecute perpetrators and to send a message to would-be child abusers that exploiting children will not be tolerated. The online locations of suspected child pornography are reported to NCMEC via the CyberTipline by Internet service providers and members of the public. Images are submitted by law enforcement agencies across the country.

The work is emotionally draining and challenging. But thanks to some new technology from Google, these analysts now have a tool that could greatly enhance their effectiveness.

A disclosure: I serve as an unpaid member of NCMEC’s board of directors. When it comes to NCMEC’s work, I’m not objective. I passionately share the non-profit organization’s commitment to protecting children. I’m also a strong free-speech advocate, but the images they deal with are not protected by the First Amendment. Production, distribution and possession of “child porn” is illegal in the United States and many other countries.

The concept behind Google’s software is simple, but the implementation took four engineers thousands of hours over the better part of a year, according to Google’s senior research scientist Shumeet Baluja, who is the technical leader of the project.

The software allows an analyst to highlight a pattern somewhere in an image. It could be a calendar on the wall, a logo on a T-shirt, a prominent tattoo or perhaps the pattern of the carpet. It then looks for that pattern in other images and when it finds a match or a likely match it presents those images to the analyst. In some cases it will analyze the entire image to look for matches or near matches. NCMEC President Ernie Allen said the organization reviewed 5 million images and videos in the past year and more than 13 million since 2002.

Without this software, the only ways to make a match is to depend on the memory of analysts or to find an exact copy of the image with a file’s “hash mark.” But the hash mark - the digital fingerprint of a file - doesn’t follow all images. If an image is edited or compressed, for example, the hash mark changes.

We humans may be more perceptive than computers and better able to distinguish similar or unique characteristics. But computers have much better memories. As a NCMEC board member, I have heard amazing stories about analysts and police officers who have matched photos based on characteristics they remember from pictures they may have seen months ago. But I think that they all would appreciate a little help from machines.

Baluja says the technology will work even if the images are modified, if a photo has been changed from color to black and white, or if the pattern is at a different angle or position in the photo or video. It can also pick out a single pattern in a video, even if it’s a compilation of many shorter videos.

Google engineers and scientists were able to work on the project using what the company calls “20 percent time.” Google allows all of its employees to dedicate 20 percent of their work time to projects they initiate. Some of those projects benefit Google stockholders, some benefit end-users and some might wind up not benefiting anyone. This project has the potential to benefit thousands of children.

The engineers didn’t have to start from scratch. The technology is an outgrowth of the anti-piracy software Google developed to help its YouTube division ferret out videos suspected of being posted without the permission of copyright holders.

Google representatives are quick to point out that they don’t always take down copyrighted video flagged by software because in some cases there is a legitimate “fair use” case for it being posted. But what I find interesting about this is that a technology developed to protect intellectual property rights could be applied to protect children.

I’m sure that most people share Google’s motto of “do no evil.” But there are some people on this planet who are very evil toward children. Let’s hope that the efforts of these Google staffers and the hard-working people at NCMEC result in more of these evil people being sent to a place where they can no longer harm children.

If you come across videos or images of child pornography, don’t save them - that’s against the law. But do report their location to NCMEC’s CyberTipline at www.cybertipline.com

By Larry Magid

San Jose Mercury News

The online gossip site JuicyCampus.com carries this slogan: “Always Anonymous . . . Always Juicy.”I’m a strong advocate of free speech, and I recognize that there are legitimate reasons to protect people’s ability to be anonymous on the Internet. But JuicyCampus.com is exercising these rights in ways that are hurtful and possibly dangerous. I also understand the interest in gossip. But there’s a difference between gossip among friends, or published gossip about celebrities, and spreading nasty rumors about private citizens.

The site, which was reportedly founded by a 1995 Duke graduate, encourages students at selected colleges ranging from the Air Force Academy to Yale to anonymously post “juicy” comments about other students. And some of these comments can be downright vicious.

All of this is under the veil of anonymity. In support of its slogan “Always Anonymous . . . Always Juicy,” the site’s privacy and tracking policy states that “it is not possible for anyone to use this website to find out who you are or where you are located.” It further warns people who want to be “extra-cautious” that “servers do, as a matter of course, keep logs” that can include geographic information and IP addresses, the string of numbers that identify a computer on the Internet. It goes on to recommend ways to find free services that shield IP addresses.

A quick look at the site revealed a number of posts that use derogatory terms to out people as homosexuals, whether true or not. There were also posts suggesting that specific women students are sluts, often giving details about their supposed sexual activities. In some cases, these posts contain a phone number or even a dorm address, encouraging others to seek contact with the person. Other comments are sexist, racist, hateful and downright mean. Many mention names of what appear to be real students. Some postings might be best described as virtual terrorism. One posting implied a certain named female student was available for sex with strangers and included her cell phone number and dorm information. If not terrorism, this is at the very least cyberbullying. Posting false information about people, impersonating others or simply being mean are all classic examples of cyberbullying.

There is nothing new about Web pages that contain rumors or lies about people. ConnectSafely.org, a Web forum I help run, receives regular reports about such postings on legitimate social Web sites.

In some cases there is nothing that can be done - free speech does give people the right to say what they think. But if the postings are libelous, defamatory, hateful or otherwise contrary to the site’s terms of service, we are typically able to get them taken down. The same is true if there is evidence that the posting or profile is impersonating someone else.

Michael Fertik, CEO of ReputationDefender.com said the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects the owner of the site against prosecution or civil action for user postings but doesn’t protect individual users. In other words, if you post something libelous or defamatory, you can be sued by the victim.

Trouble is, says Fertik, it’s a “right without a remedy” as there is often no practical way to find out who did the posting. It might be possible to find someone from their IP address, but that doesn’t always work. Besides, as JuicyCampus points out, there are ways to hide your IP.

Ironically, said Fertik, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides victims of copyright infringement greater protection than the Communications Decency Act gives victims of libel or defamation. A record company has a better chance of getting a judgment against a college student sharing music than a college student has against someone jeopardizing his or her reputation, privacy or even safety.

It’s tempting to argue there ought to be a law against sites like this. But before reacting too quickly, we need to think about the unintended consequences of going after this type of site.

I don’t think we want to outlaw all forms of gossip, nor do I think it’s a smart to require authentication before anyone can post anything online. That could have negative consequences on political dissidents, whistle-blowers and others for whom anonymity can be vital. But just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. As a parent, I would discourage my kids from using a site like this, and I think it’s reasonable for college campuses to at least discuss what they ought to do about sites that encourage hateful comments.

About the only good thing I can say about JuicyCampus is that on the two days I tested it last week, access was extremely slow. Perhaps it was overwhelmed because of all the press coverage. Whatever the reason, it’s the first time I’ve ever been happy about a site being hard to reach.

This is a trend deserving parents’ and, for that matter, everyone else’s attention - especially teens’. The Associated Press report of Utah middle-schoolers taking and sending nude photos on their cellphones joins similar reports from Alabama, Pennsylvania, and Georgia in the past few months. And in 2007 the child-porn-distribution convictions of two Florida teens were upheld in a state appeals court (they’d taken sexually explicit photos of themselves and sent them to the boy’s personal email account).

In the Utah case, the prosecutor told the AP that police expect to see more cases like this - they were in fact dealing with “several other similar unrelated cases” - and he is not alone in his struggle to figure out how to handle cases involving teens distributing photos that in effect constitute child pornography depicting themselves and their peers. They cover a full range of behavior, from impulsive to developmentally fairly normal adolescent risk assessment to outright harassment and bullying. For example, here’s what investigators discovered in the Georgia case, as reported by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children:

“Some girls were peer-pressured into taking inappropriate images of themselves and sending them to the boys. Others complied with the boys’ requests for pictures because they had crushes on the boys. Many of the girls suffered from low self-esteem or did not understand the seriousness of the situation because ‘everybody is doing it.’ Few realized their images were being circulated throughout the school and, in one case, traded with a suspect in the United Kingdom. In another case, one of the boys was charging students at the school $25 to view graphic images of one of the female victims. As of this writing, investigators have tracked down hundreds of images, and at least one video, involving these victims.” [A partial report is under the second heading on this page at NCMEC.org.]

It’s important for teens and parents to know that these cases, which could technically be treated as federal felonies (child-porn distribution), are posing a real challenge to prosecutors. Det. Frank Dannahey, a youth officer in Connecticut for 17 years, agrees that this is a growing problem. A member of our Advisory Board, he emailed me last week in reference to my item on the Alabama case (and kindly gave me permission to publish his email, which describes a local case that struck him and offers teens some things to consider if they’re ever tempted to share intimate photos online or on phones):

“I have to agree that it would not be in the best interest of the kids to have them charged with a federal crime,” Detective Dannahey wrote. “I really don’t believe they understand the implications of what they are doing. You and I have been talking about this topic for a long time [see his description of a 13-year-old Connecticut girl’s ordeal in “Teen photos and a police officer’s story,” January 2006].

“I can’t tell you how many of these cases I have had to deal with or assist other agencies with,” he continued. “The long-term implications for these kids can be serious - not to mention the initial humiliation and embarrassment. I see these photos becoming an instrument in online bullying/harassment.

“I just recently closed a case in which a middle school girl shared nude photos of herself to males she met through IM sessions. In a different twist, the girl told me that she gave them (sent) the photos after being ‘intimidated’ online by the boys,” he wrote. “This is a very shy girl one would not expect to do this sort of thing. The girl told me that the boys she communicated with had a sort of ‘power’ over her in manipulating her to do something that she never thought she could do [which sounds to me like the Georgia case]. She was highly embarrassed by it. This was something that I had not heard before. When kids do this sort of thing it is usually meant to be a private thing between boyfriends/girlfriends. Of course we all know that teen love doesn’t last forever and, when the breakup happens, these types of photos get ‘out there.’ This is certainly an issue that I address in programs with parents and teens.

“In cases where a teen sends a ‘private’ photo to someone and it ends up being leaked to other people, the teen’s question to me is always the same - will anyone else see the image? Unfortunately, my answer to that question is always the same: ‘I don’t know’,” Dannahey continued. “Years ago, if a paper photo was taken from someone, they could possibly get it back, rip it up, and destroy the negative. Today in the digital age, getting a photo back that has been sent electronically is difficult at best and more likely improbable.

“I will usually tell teens the following when considering the sending of ‘private’ digital photos/videos to people online: Because digital media is so easily shared and reproduced, you need to consider several things before hitting the Send button:

Last year a person who works for a psychiatric hospital and specializes in adolescent care posted in our forum at ConnectSafely.org asking if anyone had developed screening for “Internet addiction.” No one in the forum had, and I suspected this person was pioneering something, pointing to a challenge for social services and the health care profession for which there is little research. It has since occurred to me to put this question to Dr. Jerald Block, a psychiatrist in Portland, Ore., who has worked with patients on game addiction.

Here’s our email conversation, illustrating the challenges this question poses to the medical profession (but stick with him, parents, because below the challenges is some helpful thinking for you):

NetFamilyNews: “Have you ever put together a screening list for ‘Internet addiction’ and ‘online porn addiction’ - what a parent or caregiver might look for to decide if a child needs help toward a better balance of activities? I’m sure there’s the usual sleeplessness, suffering grades, etc., but I’d appreciate a comprehensive list if you have one. ‘Game addiction’ too - all three would be great, but especially this blanket term we’re hearing, ‘Internet addiction’.”

Dr. Block: “I’ve given this a lot of thought and it is more difficult than I’d like to admit. I have made my own ‘testing instrument’ to detect ‘Pathological Computer Use,’ but it has not been ’standardized.’ That is, essentially, the issue.

“Lacking clear diagnostic criteria, we also lack a scientific test. Also, even using proposed criteria, we still need to compare the test to the gold standard - a clinical interview. You have to do this with a great many people, and that many interviews cost money. It also takes effort to find the representative patients.

“The only people that have done this that I trust are the South Koreans, who have spent bundles on the issue, and some psychiatrists in Taiwan. Their clinical test has been standardized against and compared to the clinical interview. And, they have a variant that is meant to be used by the parent. However, the test is culture-specific and would not translate well to computer use in the US. [For a solid look at cultural differences in social Web use between the US and Korea, see this article about Korean social networking in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication.]

“That being said, I use a mnemonic to identify ‘SIGNS’ in at-risk people (kids or adults):

S = Sleep cycle is consistently advanced. Goes to sleep later and wakes later or is tired in the morning.
I = Irritable when not on the computer. Preoccupied thinking about the computer and their activities there (sex, gaming, browsing, tuning the system up, etc.). Can become enraged if told to stop using.
G = Guilty about his/her computer use so tries to hide evidence of 1) game/porn purchases, 2) online activities (deletes cache, uses encryption/passwords, etc.), and 3) logs on secretly, etc.; 4) defensive when confronted.
N = Nightmares. Dreams about his or her gaming/computer use.
S = Social dropouts - people who become more isolated by their computer use. This is seen when there is a consistent pattern of sacrificing real-life relationships to preserve virtual ones. Alternatively, seems to prefer living in virtual worlds more than their real one. These people become NEETs: ‘Not in Employment, Education, or Training.’

“If one or more of these questions are answered ‘yes’ AND the person is having interpersonal problems, he/she is at risk.”

NetFamilyNews: Following up, I asked Dr. Block, “Would you say the SIGNS mnemonic is for both ‘computer addiction’ and ‘Internet addiction’?”

Dr. Block: “Yes. I consider Internet addiction a subset of PCU (pathological computer use), and the mnemonic screens for PCU.”

NetFamilyNews: “Would it cover videogames and social-networking sites as well?”

Dr. Block: “Yes, I believe so.”

NetFamilyNews: “If kids are at risk for one of these types of addiction, what do you recommend a parent do? Consider taking the child to a clinical psychologist or family therapist?”

Dr. Block: “I really don’t know. I don’t think anybody does. I would suggest that parents try to handle the situation themselves, initially. If that fails, I would consult a professional. The problem is that most professionals do not know what to do and are unacquainted and unequipped to manage the issue. In my experience, PCU is underdiagnosed, hard to treat, comorbid with other disorders, and often subject to relapse. Treatments tend to be long-term and, frankly, expensive. And clinical results are less than stellar. That is the international experience, not just the US’s. It is a serious clinical problem, from many perspectives.

“An easier question is what NOT to do. DO NOT “cut the cord” unless in the context of an extended rehab-like setting. Cutting the child/adult off [from the computer, game, social-networking activity] can produce far worse outcomes (drug use, violence, depression, etc.). I differ in this from some practitioners who advocate for setting such firm limits. [See his commentary on this in the Rocky Mountain News or full-length analysis in "Related links" below.]

“Incidentally, probably the most effective treatment would be a ‘retreat’ or rehab-like setting for a minimum of 2 weeks. I think a full month is better [see this New York Times piece about a South Korean Internet addiction rehab camp]. But that is expensive and many would see it as overkill.”

NetFamilyNews: “What do you think of applying the word ‘addiction’ to these non-chemical activities, or can they have a chemical impact on the brain?”

Dr. Block: “There is the concept of ‘positive addictions’ - people like ‘workaholics,’ avid readers, or model railroaders. At times, PCU might be more productive and be considered in that way (like for people employed in the industry, i.e., video game programmers).

“More generally, I think there is a common pathway with substance abuse. The issues around craving and the later phases of withdrawal appear to be very similar.

“That said, I avoid the use of the word ‘addiction.’ It is just too explosive, political, and packed with other meanings. I prefer to think of this as a compulsive-impulsive spectrum disorder, much like compulsive eating, gambling, pyromania, and trichotillomania.”

Related links

Imposter profiles are one form of cyberbullying or online harassment certainly not restricted to youth. Tweens, teens, and adults create profiles that impersonate the people they want to harass, putting them in an embarrassing or defaming light. There are also simply fake profiles of imaginary people aimed at tricking the real people who “befriend” the imaginary people in the fake profiles, which is what happened in the Megan Meier case (see “Extreme cyberbullying: US case comes to light.” In a well-reported article, ConsumerAffairs.com describes a few actual imposter-profile cases and how hard it is to make them go away. Part of the problem is that, online, it’s much easier to set up a profile than it is to prove its harmful intent or impact. Some people who click the “Report Abuse” buttons in sites are actually being abusive - of the site as well as their peers. “MySpace includes a link at the bottom of every profile to report abuse, but many people misuse this to harass someone who has posted a legitimate profile,” ConsumerAffairs reports. The article includes no solutions to this growing problem because there simply are no known ones besides better, more civil behavior on everybody’s part and education aimed at that and at the fact that we’re not as anonymous online as we all think we are. ConsumerAffairs also goes into the law and how little it can do in these cases.

Parents, don’t just talk with your kids about social networking - chat sites and instant messaging really need to be in the conversation too. Despite the news media’s focus on social-networking sites as the locus of online child exploitation, it turns out chat sites and instant-messaging are where most sexual solicitation and cyberbullying is happening. But even in those “places” online, “only 15% of children [aged 10-15] experience unwanted sexual solicitation and only a third report being harassed online,” reports HealthDay News, citing a new study in Pediatrics. Here’s the difference found between social sites and IM or chat: 4% of the nearly 1,600 children surveyed “reported experiencing an unwanted sexual solicitation and 9% reported being harassed while on a social networking site. Solicitations were reported 59% more often in instant messaging and 19% more often in chat rooms than social networking sites.

More surprising, harassments were reported 96% more often in instant messaging than in social networking sites,” say the study’s authors - Michele Ybarra of Internet Solutions for Kids and Kimberly Mitchell of the University of New Hampshire - in the study’s press release. Their advice for parents: “Internet safety is not just about whether your child is on MySpace or not. You should know what your children are doing on MySpace and Facebook. But you also need to know what your children are doing in school, after school, at parties, at the mall, online - basically all environments in which they engage

The case of Megan Meier screams out for justice. But to be truly served, justice must based on rationality, not just revenge and emotion. It was disclosed in November that the 14-year-old Missouri girl committed suicide after an adult neighbor - the mother of one of Megan’s friends - allegedly carried out a cruel hoax. That mother, Lori Drew, reportedly set up a fake MySpace profile that appeared to belong to a hot-looking teenage boy named Josh Evans. The fake “Josh” initially befriended Megan but later cruelly told her he didn’t want to be friends with her. Megan, who had a history of taking antidepressant medication, responded by hanging herself.

She isn’t the first child to take her own life as a result of cyberbullying, but this case is bizarre in that the main perpetrator was an adult mom rather than a fellow teenager. Drew’s purpose in helping to create the fake profile was reportedly to determine whether Megan had said mean things about Drew’s own daughter.

No charges were filed against Drew. In announcing his decision not to prosecute, Charles County, Mo., prosecutor Jack Banas said, “There’s no way that anyone could know that talking to someone or saying that you’re mean to your friends on the Internet would create a substantial risk.”

That decision prompted outrage from Megan’s parents and many others.
Officials from Megan’s town of Dardenne Prairie wasted no time unanimously passing a statute that makes Internet harassment a local misdemeanor.

Others have called for state and federal legislation to make it a crime to post comments anonymously or under an assumed identity. While I understand the intentions behind the proposed legislation, I worry about such laws in the hands of overzealous prosecutors. What concerns me is the knee jerk reaction to a tragic but extremely infrequent occurrence.

The Megan Meier case, according to Nancy Willard, author of the book “Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats” is exceptionally rare. “The vast majority of situations involve teens harassing or bullying other teens.”

The case reminds me how many in the media, along with lawmakers and regulators, reacted to the handful of Internet predator cases reported over the past couple of years. A couple of tragic cases prompted attorneys general from several states to threaten lawsuits against MySpace, Facebook and other social networking sites. There have been media reports about an “epidemic” of predator attacks, yet very few substantiated cases.

Congress held numerous hearings, including one heavily publicized Senate Judiciary committee meeting last fall where teenage victim Alicia Kozakiewicz testified that “the boogey man is real. And he lives on the Net - he lived in my computer and he lives in yours. While you are sitting here, he is at home with your children.”

I don’t blame Alicia for saying those words. She suffered terrible atrocities at the hands of a brutal rapist. But what happened to her was extremely unusual. In the vast majority of cases, sexual perpetrators and their teenage victims know each other from the offline world. And in the few Internet related exploitation cases we do know about, the teen engaged in some form of risky behavior.

Cyberbullying is not so rare but as we combat the problem, we need to approach it with some common sense. Studies from both the Pew Internet & American Life Project and the University of New Hampshire Crimes Against Children Research Center have shown that about one-third of teens have been victims of cyberbullying and an equal number have bullied or harassed others.

What we need is a national school-based education program that targets this problem head on. Technology experts, psychologists, police, teachers and - most of all - teens themselves need to work together to make it clear to teens that bullying, whether in person or online, is unacceptable and may be dangerous.

Kids need to know it’s not cool to act as co-dependents to bullies; if they see it, they should intervene. And everyone needs to be aware that bullying can sometimes lead to tragedy, as in the case of young Megan or 13-year old Ryan Halligan, who took his own life in 2003 after being bullied by classmates.

As we begin a national discussion about bullying and harassment, it’s important that we avoid unintended consequences.

We need to be careful to draw the line between harmful harassment and constitutionally protected speech. Just as in the fight against terrorism, those lines can easily be blurred.