There are New Digital Rules but children still need to learn that courtesy, kindness and good citizenship come first in the physical and digital world but cyberbullying can occur 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

“Digital Citizenship: Breaking the Culture of Mean,” is a 30-minute DVD produced by TIE, a professional development association as a tool for teachers. It explores how to identify, address and stop bullying and cyberbullying in a variety of settings, and it suggests that students need to be trained in how to leave a “digital footprint” that will have positive, not negative, effects on their futures.

Check out Ollie Bray – some great images and messages.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/unfriend-t

http://twitter.com/#!/UnfriendStudy

http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/843221-facebook-unfriending-caused-by-endless-boring-updates

AVG Study Finds a Quarter of Children Have Online Births Before Their Actual Birth Dates

Also read these posts

http://blog.mydigitalfootprint.com/creepy-fear-doubt-harm-and-damages-from-your

http://blog.mydigitalfootprint.com/why-print-with-never-die-by-a-digital-evangel

Great data, but not sure we have thought through why we are doing it or how we keep the data.

----

Uploading prenatal sonogram photographs, tweeting pregnancy experiences, making online photo albums of children from birth, and even creating email addresses for babies - today’s parents are increasingly building digital footprints for their children prior to and from the moment they are born. AVG surveyed mothers in North America (USA and Canada), the EU5 (UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain), Australia/New Zealand and Japan, and found that 81 percent of children under the age of two currently have some kind of digital profile or footprint, with images of them posted online. In the US, 92 percent of children have an online presence by the time they are two compared to 73 percent of children in the EU5.

According to the research, the average digital birth of children happens at around six months with a third (33%) of children’s photos and information posted online within weeks of being born. In the UK, 37 percent of newborns have an online life from birth, whereas in Australia and New Zealand the figure is 41 percent.

Almost a quarter (23%) of children begin their digital lives when parents upload their prenatal sonogram scans to the Internet. This figure is higher in the US, where 34 percent have posted sonograms online, while in Canada the figure is even higher at 37 percent. Fewer parents share sonograms of their children in France (13%), Italy (14%) and Germany (15%). Likewise only 14 percent of parents share these online in Japan.

Seven percent of babies and toddlers have an email address created for them by their parents, and five percent have a social network profile.

When asked what motivates parents to post images of their babies on the Internet, more than 70 percent of all mothers surveyed said it was to share with friends and family. However, more than a fifth (22%) of mothers in the US said they wanted to add more content to their social network profiles, while 18 percent of US mothers said they were simply following their peers.

Lastly, AVG asked mothers how concerned they are (on a scale of one to five with five being very concerned) about the amount of online information available on their children in future years. Mothers were moderately concerned (average 3.5), with Spanish mothers being the most concerned (3.9) and Canadian mothers the least (3.1) worried.

According to AVG CEO JR Smith, “It’s shocking to think that a 30-year-old has an online footprint stretching back 10-15 years at most, while the vast majority of children today will have online presence by the time they are two-years-old - a presence that will continue to build throughout their whole lives.  (mdfp comment - however this has already been deleted, forgotten, not indexed, lost or old format)

“Our research shows that the trend is increasing for a child’s digital birth to coincide with and in many cases pre-date their real birth date. A quarter of babies have sonogram photos posted online before they have even physically entered into the world. It’s completely understandable why proud parents would want to upload and share images of very young children with friends and families. At the same time, we urge parents to think about two things: First, you are creating a digital history for a human being that will follow him or her for the rest of their life. What kind of footprint do you actually want to start for your child, and what will they think about the information you’ve uploaded in future? Secondly, it reinforces the need for parents to be aware of the privacy settings they have set on their social network and other profiles. Otherwise, sharing a baby’s picture and specific information may not only be shared with friends and family but with the whole online world.”

Key results

1 - Mothers with children aged under two that have uploaded images of their child
Overall - 81% USA - 92% Canada - 84% UK - 81% France - 74% Italy - 68% Germany - 71% Spain - 71% (EU5 - 73%) Australia - 84% New Zealand - 91% Japan - 43%

2 - Mothers that uploaded images of their newborn
Overall - 33%  USA - 33% Canada - 37% UK - 37% France - 26% Italy - 26% Germany - 30% Spain - 24% (EU5 - 28.6%) Australia - 41% New Zealand - 41% Japan - 19%

3 - Mothers that have uploaded antenatal scans online
Overall - 23% USA - 34% Canada - 37% UK - 23%  France - 13% Italy - 14% Germany - 15% Spain - 24% (EU5 - 20%) Australia - 26% New Zealand - 30% Japan - 14%

4 - Mothers that gave their baby an email address
Overall - 7% USA - 6% Canada - 9% UK - 4% France - 7% Italy - 7% Germany - 7% Spain - 12% (EU5 - 7%) Australia - 7% New Zealand - 4% Japan - 7%

5 - Mothers that gave their baby a social network profile
Overall - 5% USA - 6% Canada - 8%  UK - 4% France - 2% Italy - 5% Germany - 5% Spain - 7% (EU5 - 5%) Australia - 5% New Zealand - 6% Japan - 8%

The research was conducted by Research Now among 2200 mothers with young (under two) children during the week of 27 September. Mothers in the EU5 (UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain), Canada, the USA, Australia, New Zealand and Japan were polled.

Some interesting correspondence following yesterdays post about "Being a professional and having social anonymity is a crime"

These images are my response to "How to 'hang' yourself in public and why we should hide"

• You can do it your self (or with the aid of some enemies)
• You can present your achievements in a public place
• You can do something stupid
• You can misunderstand the term

Within the context of a digital footprint why is this important.   Digital footprints are about what you say about yourself and what others say about you.

You can control what you say about your self

You probably are unaware of what data you have provided about yourself and to who and who they will use it

You don't control what others say about you (unless they break the law)

You have no idea what data there is out there that links to you from your network

Given this, behave like a professional and you will probably have a digital footprint to be proud of which describes you and your digital interactions and create value for you and for others.  

http://myfootprintsd.com/index.html

I am delighted that “Digital Footprints” is a common conversation in the world of teaching.  Most of the material, as with this one, are focussed on asking our kids to take care with what they say about themselves.   I would like to see this conversation extend to help them understand that this is the data that they control.  What others say about you, you cannot control; but what others say also contributes to your digital footprint. 

I understand that conceptually it is hard to teach that digital footprints also include data that describes what you are doing and your behaviour (location, attention, purchases, key strokes, search terms, clicks, time, activity …) but this hidden data is as important, and in many cases more important)

I believe that those teaching need to understand that the model of “public” has shifted.  Digital natives have grown up with the internet and the presentence of data; it is us old guys who harp back to the days of broadcast TV and newspapers where yesterday’s news is already forgotten. 

Going viral is the part of a digital footprint that provides the opportunity and threat.  You want it if your content is fabulous but not to become infamous!

Close to dark side thinking I believe and it starts from the wrong point. They question again is why regulate storage of data.  All data should be thrown away. Regulate collection and maybe what can be done with analysis.  My view is that the existing framework is broken and is not suitable for adaptation.

However, I expect it will all happen and have passed by the time the regulator catches up.

Parliament would like more privacy and security in relation to the internet of things

The European Parliament welcomes the development of the internet of things (IoT) but asks the Commission to set up a clear legal framework on the security, safety, privacy and protection of personal data in relation to the IoT. It also points out concerns on other issues not directly related to the IoT, including on the legal uncertainty surrounding cloud computing.

The resolution adopted on June 15, 2010 also proposes that the Commission should carry out a detailed assessment of a number of issues linked to the use of RFID technology, including the protection against cyber attacks, guarantees on the personal data protection and the right to remove or disable tags after purchase (the so-called right to „chip silence‟).

The IoT refers to applications where physical objects become connected through complex networks and provide information about themselves and their surroundings. Examples are for instance fridges able to inform the consumer on any product past its use-by date or cars equipped with chips connected to web-enabled mobile phones to convey information in real time on traffic jams.

1. Background

The resolution follows the adoption exactly one year ago by the European Commission of an action plan, which explains how the Commission will assess and regulate the emergence of the IoT (see EU Ecom Tracker 27). The action plan identifies six main areas of actions to ensure trust and safety for all citizens in the context of the IoT: governance, privacy and protection of personal data, security, standardisation and interoperability, research and development, and awareness-raising and international cooperation.

2. The resolution

The resolution stresses that the IoT requires safe, transparent and multilateral governance as well as a clear legal framework related to data protection and security. It supports the Commission focus on safety, security, governance, privacy and protection of personal data but asks for some complementary measures, including to:

 adapt the current data protection directive to the digital environment (see EU Ecom Tracker 23);

 clarify the concept of „data owner‟ and „data controller‟ related to data automatically collected and processed;

 assess the impact of IoT applications on the current internet network infrastructure in terms of network congestion and data security;

 ensure the development of a transparent system preventing fraud and allowing device identity authentication and traceability;

 strive to establish international standards for IoT applications to facilitate interoperability as well as infrastructure openness, transparency and technology neutrality;

 coordinate the actions on IoT with the work on the Digital Agenda (see EU Ecom Tracker 1);

 give more consideration to the objective of building an inclusive IoT to which all European citizens should have access;

 raise European citizens‟ awareness of new technologies and their applications and promote digital literacy and e-skills.

On the use of RFID technology (e.g. chips and tags), Parliament asks the Commission to:

 give consumers the right to privacy by opt-in and/or by „privacy by design‟ (tag disablement at the point of sale should be automatic unless consumers agree otherwise);

 reflect on the right of citizens to choose products that are not equipped with IoT applications or to be disconnected from their networked environment.

The resolution also asks the Commission to take the following additional actions, which are not directly linked to the IoT:

 to analyse, with the help of operators, aspects related to Wi-Fi security systems;

 to assess the possibility of further lowering data roaming costs.

On cloud computing, Parliament stresses the potential “danger” related to the legal uncertainty surrounding cloud computing, but does not ask the Commission to take any specific measure.

NB. The Commission Digital Agenda foresees the development of a European strategy on cloud computing.

Finally, the Commission is asked to publish by the end of 2010 a timetable with its proposed actions to improve the safety of the internet of things and RFID applications.

There are four common interpretations of the phrase "digital footprint" and
they all share two common characteristics which are that digital footprints
are about an individual's interaction with a digital world and that the data
created from the interaction can be exploited. The differences depend on
how deep, or prepared, you want to look.

The most common definition of a digital footprint is the content you leave
about yourself in the web. This is content you create for a blog, comments
you leave, photo's you up load or your profile and content you create on a
social networking site. There is little difference between your
professional profile and your personal profile. This is used as a
definition in education circles to help children understand that what they
say provides a representation of them what is "Your Digital Footprint?" This
definition introduces the ideas of reputation.

The second definition is created by adding the interactions you have with
the web, with content you create. This is where a users activities are
captured, the types of details captured include web pages viewed, the
frequency of visits along with the intervals between them, clicks, IP
address, the time spent on each page, interactions with forms, landing pages
and downloadable content. In reality every interaction with the web can be
captured and stored. This definition introduces the ideas of attention.

The third definition is that a digital footprint is the content and captured
interactions you leave and the content that others leave about you in the
web. This is the move from you as a single person to you as part of the
social group. This is what you say about yourself and others about you.
This definition introduces the new idea of the social graph.
The forth definition extends the web to other devices and services including
mobile, TV, iPod and m2m (machine to machine)

The forth definition is the most complete and in reality this is what is
happening. It is possible that every interaction with every digital device
is captured and stored. The value from the analysis of this captured data
can be very high; indeed Google and Facebook are built on this data and the
willingness of users to provide data. User benefit in an exchange of data
for free services, and increasingly user don't have to complete forms as the
data is collected as they go about their routes and routines. "My Digital
Footprint" This extremely personal and private data is subject to strict
privacy laws which provide strong protection for the user. The analysis of
this data is where the value lies and that value can come from behavioural
analysis, profiling, targeting, prospecting, normalising, group profiling,
feature profiles, benefit trades and determination of who influences you and
who you influence. 

Finally the phase "Digital Footprint" is also used in two further context,
the first is by companies or individuals trying to show which geographies or
markets their digital services is offered "Our Digital Footprint" and by
companies taking about the size of a digital device, where footprint means
area.
June 2010

image - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/09/ukcrime-facebook

The response from Facebook to the tragic story of Ashleigh Hall today highlights a growing sense of unease about a digital world.  I am under no illusion that education and care play an important, if not critical, part in protecting those who will inherit our digital present. 

In the opening to my book I said that a “digital footprint” is like marmite; some like it and some don’t.  Reading the responses to the Ashleigh Hall story, it is clear that this is a sane view. Facebook and other social network supporters are out in strength and waving the banners about benefits and this is contrasted with the stark reality from others who have been harmed and violated.  There is common ground about education and ensuring that you follow well published and sensible guide lines about your information and how to behave.  

I am however worried about the view that somehow we should look to processes and technology to save us from our social failing and responsibility.  Technology, be it a knife, car, laser, stun gun, pepper spray, Facebook or mobile can be used in anyway that the holder of the technology sees fit.  Processes are unfortunately only as good as the people who run them.  We can clearly see how technology can make it easier, both to commit crime and solve crime, but neither bring accountability or responsibility.

Digital footprint data, if you opt in can deliver reputation and other benefits, but this digital world suffers from the same real issues as our physical life, some decide to opt out, lie and deceive.  We have been unable to solve the real, so why should a single button solve the digital?

image from the BBC

Words are both a blessing and a curse; phrases are fashionable, colloquial and always misinterpreted.  Today at the dentist I was told I had a “communication” and that got me thinking about how we use the same word in different professions and how the same phrase communicates different things depending on location and intent.  My interest here is “Digital Footprint” and here are the most common interpretations I found today….

1. Digital Footprint is an term that helps educate our children about the dangers of being on-line; followed by the following advise; if in doubt don’t do it and if you do it will be found (probably the most popular use)
2. Digital Footprint describes the data you leave in the Internet from your keyboard and mouse.
3. Digital Footprint is the data you leave in the cloud from you all your interactions, creating and consuming, passive and active with all digital devices.
4. Digital Footprints describe your digital identity and digital reputation.
5. A Digital Footprint is your history of financial transactions.
6. A Digital Footprint in the area that an integrated circuit/chip/silicon occupies
7. Digital footprint is the footprint (area) that a digital device occupies when placed on a surface (least Popular)

My insight from this is that more is needed to gain common ground and bring about insight.