THE INTERNET: PROTECTING YOURSELF AND YOUR SERVICE USERSDavid Niven

Twitter: @DaveNivenwww.socialworldpodcast.com

DNA SURVEY: SOCIAL NETWORKING AND CHILD SAFETY

The past decade has been witness to the increasing popularity of contemporary communication tools; social networking sites.

Social networking is becoming increasingly part of everyday life, with the number of users continually growing and spanning a wide age range. Although positively providing a new means of communication the innovative nature of the service creates a number of new challenges, particularly within a social work/child protection setting.

We commissioned a survey which aimed to gain an insight into current attitudes towards the use of social networking sites with relevance to safeguarding issues.

METHOD An on-line survey was constructed using a typical Likert response

scale to measure respondents’ attitudes by asking the extent to which they agree or disagree with a particular question or statement.

The survey was distributed via the company’s extensive network of contacts in order to attract individuals with an interest or investment in the topic area. This involved various channels including the DNA Associate network, newsletter mailing list and Linked-in groups.

We deliberately stopped the snapshot survey at 100 responses, which we estimated to be approximately a 20% response rate. 82% of respondents work involved contact with children and 18% did not. The survey was completed entirely anonymously, as such no further demographic details were collected.

QU. 1: ONLY LAW ENFORCEMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO

INVESTIGATE SOCIAL NETWORKING ACCOUNTS FOR

EVIDENCE.

Agreed or strongly agreed = 40% Disagreed or strongly disagreed = 39%

QU. 2: SOCIAL SERVICES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO INVESTIGATE

SOCIAL NETWORKING ACCOUNTS FOR EVIDENCE.

Agreed or strongly agreed = 63% Disagreed or strongly disagreed = 23%

LESSONS TO LEARN An interesting point was the behaviour of Peter Connelly’s mother,

Tracey, who according to a Guardian Newspaper report regularly shared on social networking posts that, instead of nurturing Peter she spent her days drinking vodka, watching pornographic films and having sex” with her new boyfriend, Steven Barker.

She also stated that she was “madly in love with the most amazing guy ever” and that “her fella is nuts.”

Given that many professionals were unaware of Steven Barker’s presence in the house, or the nature of their lifestyle, accessing posts on social media sites might just have tipped the balance and provided clearer, important information.

[The Guardian Newspaper, Tuesday 11 August 2009, ‘Tracey Connelly: the story of a woman defined by abuse’]

QU. 3: CHILD ABUSE PROFESSIONALS, SOCIAL

WORKERS, TEACHERS, POLICE AND HEALTH PROFESSIONALS SHOULD NOT HAVE PERSONAL SOCIAL NETWORKING PAGES THAT ARE OPEN TO PUBLIC

ACCESS.

Agreed or strongly agreed = 60% Disagree or strongly disagree = 22%

“VILE' HATE SITE FACES LEGAL ACTION FOR NAMING SOCIAL

WORKERS” Social workers and professional bodies have condemned a 'vile' and

'offensive' website that threatens to 'expose' UK social workers by publishing their names and photographs online.

The website, called UK Social Workers Exposed appeared online in August 2012, features Nazi symbolism and claims to be exposing social workers' identities in the best interests of parents and children. “Here on this website we will expose the social workers that have stolen and continue to steal the children of the UK,” the site’s mission statement reads.

The names and photographs of around 20 social workers and Cafcass guardians have already been published on the site and a related Facebook page, with the site's creators asking web users to share more names. Some photographs include further details, such as the number of children the social worker is believed to have taken into care.

[From: Community Care Online,]

QU. 4: MANY MORE RESOURCES SHOULD BE CREATED BY SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES TO PROTECT THE VULNERABLE.

Agreed or strongly agreed = 90% Disagree or strongly disagree = 6%

QU. 5: ON-LINE SAFETY SHOULD BE ENTIRELY DOWN TO PARENTS.

Agreed or strongly agreed = 16% Disagreed or strongly disagreed = 65%

QU. 6: THERE SHOULD BE NO AGE LIMIT TO HAVING A SOCIAL

NETWORKING ACCOUNT.

Agreed or strongly agreed = 8% Disagreed or strongly disagreed = 83%

WHAT CAN BE DONE? Age limits should be protected. We do it for alcohol, cigarettes,

driving, sex, marriage, joining the army, voting, cinemas etc. Why is this different?

A registration delay with proof of identity and age?

A well funded education programme for parents and carers?

Comprehensive research programme for technological improvements?

Clear universal, national guidance for all people working with children (BASW already has developed a policy for social workers).

And . . . . . ?

AGE LIMITS Serious rumours exist about Facebook reducing

the age of account holders from 13, which it currently is, to allow any age of child to have, own and operate a Facebook account. This move to allow younger children to own accounts highlights what analysts say will be a recurring problem for the newly publically floated Facebook as it needs to find a way to increase revenue and please its shareholders. As children expose themselves on these social networks with pictures, location information and details about their personal lives advertisers and others who wish to take advantage of children will find it easier to do so

(Washington Post).

Many parents falsify the age of their children anyway, according to Facebook (at a Bath Spa University Conference, 2012)

The accuracy of information has always got to be in doubt as there is no guarantee of honesty.

In a recent declaration by Facebook, 82 million profiles exist today that are false. There are a whole variety of reasons for this - many people just don’t like exposing all of their own information, others create false personas for spamming purposes and then there are the most worrying and that is those who wish to perpetrate criminal activity in one form or another.

The conclusion therefore is that there are more dangers that have to be taken into account when making professional judgments about social networking.

THE ONLY WAY IS ETHICS. . . ?

Twitter: @DaveNivenwww.dnivenassociates.co.uk