Many admitted to piracy, trolling, and inciting violence:
Has a generation that grew up with the internet become normalized to risky, delinquent, and criminal online behavior? A new study among young people suggests this is the case, with just under half of participants admitting to conduct that could be considered illegal in most regions.
As reported by The Guardian, the EU-funded study carried out in collaboration with the cybercrime center at Europol covered 8,000 people in the 16-19 age group in nine European countries.
Digital piracy was a widespread practice that one in three survey participants admitted to. Elsewhere, one in four said they had tracked and trolled people online, one in eight have engaged in online harassment, and one in 10 have engaged in hate speech or hacking.
Other criminal activities the teens admitted to include posting revenge porn and hate speech, non-consensual sending of intimate images, and money muling, which involves receiving money from a third party and passing it on for a commission. More than 90% of these transactions are linked to cybercrime, meaning the mule is an accomplice as they are laundering the proceeds of the crimes.
Almost three-quarters of males admitted to some form of cybercrime or online risk-taking. The figure was slightly lower among females (65%). Forty-four percent of people said they had watched online pornography.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07, @10:35AM
"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."
Quote from a movie containing at least one pirate, and probably copyrighted.
Aaarrrr! Ain't I a scurvy rascal!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ShovelOperator1 on Wednesday December 07, @10:37AM (1 child)
For community disbehaviours, unfortunately, the example comes from the top, from the authorities. Many years ago we had a netiquette describing how to properly and productively collaborate using the Internet, how to exchange data and information, how to talk to be understood, how to discuss and argue. Most if it was made to maintain communication clear and culture in norms. Some rules were made to make the communication technically better, searchable easier and obtainable quicker. Corporations never adhered to these rules, and now corporations have won, so there is no netiquette anymore. Sorry, they asked for it. Wanted ads everywhere and for everything regardless of technical aspects of the bandwidth, introduced artificial scarcity of digital goods regardless of cheaper and cheaper hardware and open software, finally, by pushing consume-only devices, they negated the idea of "everyone can be publisher". This is purely intentional because loud things sell better, and fighting with them would be fighting with marketing as we know it and fight with a whole corporation-driven government.
So what? Tracking people by corporations and trolling them to buy a product is OK, while tracking a school colleagues and trolling them is not?
Inciting hate to sell more products by dividing communities to brand-based fighting camps (while having both brands in control) is OK, while pointing the finger at the corporations themselves is suddenly not?
Sorry, that's the intended way to put even more control in the Internet.
And now corporations want to piggyback the"piracy" into it. Corporations who invented the "intellectual property" made the one side of the contract significantly weaker and exploited the lack of lawmaker's knowledge for it. So if we assume their ill-minded thinking about licenses is true, when my DVD gets scratched, or VHS gets bars on the picture I should be able to get a refund or copy? I still have the contract. Well, not. So let's not mix piracy there. This is a manipulation.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday December 07, @11:05AM
Crying Indian (now native American) for pollution, Only you can prevent forest fires, conserve water with legally mandated low flow shower heads and toilets, plastic and all recycling, and on and on: marketing pushes for individual responsibility traceable to corporations and industry that mostly also argue for self regulation. The corporations doing the pushes for individual responsibility are themselves usually directly responsible for more of the problem than the sum of all the people they serve. [wikipedia.org]
China is way out in front on this one, with reeducation camps for problem behavior on the internet.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Wednesday December 07, @10:45AM (7 children)
Study Suggests Normal Online Behaviour Among Teens Has Become Criminalized
i.e. governments have made stuff that is normal criminal to suit the "think of the children" crowd.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07, @10:54AM (3 children)
Gotta mold those children into non-deviant, compliant subjects as early as possible. In North Korea, fear of "being sent to the Mountains" is what keeps people in check; in the US, the prison is in our heads.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 07, @03:01PM (2 children)
From the story,
And finally, you finished with
So you lead by example? How else to explain why you thought it relevant to whine about US head prisons in a story about EU-funded studies and a thread about generic government misdeeds.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 07, @04:07PM (1 child)
Well, this study may help to get the US out of the lead, in percentage of population in prison. Send all the Euro and UK kids to prison, where they belong! Then we can sit back, and tell all the Euros that they should be more like us, more tolerant and understanding of criminals.
Yeah, there's a trace of sarcasm in there.
What I'd really like is for the US to stop incarcerating every asshole just for being an asshole. Only send the dangerous assholes to prison. Make the rest work, to pay fines and restitution.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07, @06:51PM
One of the inequities is that poor kids are essentially sent in the ring to fight the lions, while richer kids fret over violin lessons and ski vacations then walk into a prestigious scholarship or internship at daddy's friend's law firm. The poor ones need to do what it takes while at the ringside a mob of braying conservatives yell foul and nitpick form. It's hardly an even contest getting ahead in the world.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday December 07, @12:57PM (2 children)
I'll also note that the most widely committed "crime" is piracy, which isn't a crime, it's a civil violation.
As far as online harassment campaigns go, I'm guessing that to a large degree what's happened is that the bullying, stalking, and harassment that has been regularly a part of teenage life in America has moved online. Although most of it isn't criminal.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday December 07, @01:54PM
I think in UK they are making/have made "trolling" illegal, although I am not familiar with the details.
(Score: 4, Informative) by janrinok on Wednesday December 07, @02:23PM
In the USA. The study wasn't done in the USA.
(Score: 2) by MIRV888 on Wednesday December 07, @10:46AM (5 children)
'Forty-four percent of people said they had watched online pornography.'
Seems legit.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday December 07, @11:10AM
This isn't a study of actual behavior, it's self reported data from 16-19 year olds... It's a gauge of attitudes about what they think is acceptable or cool.
A similar poll of US youth in the late 1970s would have found high approval among teenagers for use of illegal drugs, and now that those kids have grown up and are getting into higher office...
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 4, Touché) by Thexalon on Wednesday December 07, @12:53PM
Yeah, that's 44% who admit to it. I'm guessing the actual percentage is between 95 and 100.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by stormreaver on Wednesday December 07, @03:24PM (2 children)
And the other sixty six percent were lying.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday December 07, @04:43PM (1 child)
That's 110% of which people? :-)
(Score: 5, Funny) by stormreaver on Wednesday December 07, @09:59PM
It's a weighted calculation to account for years of denial.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday December 07, @11:21AM
>money muling, which involves receiving money from a third party and passing it on for a commission
Isn't that what cryptocurrency is for?
Thomas Cook [google.com] was a travel agency, but as a traveling American they were famous to me as a traditional (overpriced) money changer... When their bankruptcy was announced I was surprised that the loss of money changing revenues wasn't listed as a significant cause...
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 5, Informative) by rigrig on Wednesday December 07, @12:56PM (2 children)
From Are two thirds of young people “cyber-deviants”? A dive into a dodgy study [anotherangrywoman.com]:
No one remembers the singer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 07, @03:06PM (1 child)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 07, @03:10PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Wednesday December 07, @02:36PM
Effective law follows the will of the population.
When most the population agrees something should be illegal, then laws are easy to pass to bring most of the the objectors into line - theft, murder, and rape all being good examples that almost everyone agrees should be banned.
But when most of the population disagrees with a law, then it exists purely as as an exercise of authoritarian power, and only until such time as the population forces the law to change - which should happen fairly quickly in a healthy democracy. Prohibition and the war on drugs are some obvious examples. With the incredible resistance to ending them demonstrating that we do NOT live in a healthy democracy.
Seems to me that copyright as it exists today falls into the second category, and we now have multiple generations that have spent their entire lives with internet access providing cheap, easy access to whatever information they want, including entertainment. Just as the intelligentsia of the generations before designed it to do.
I dare say it's long past time to tear down the authoritarian overreach of a copyright regime that no longer serves anyone but a few publishers. Let's return to the original compromise and make everything much older than a decade freely available to everyone from safe, legal sources.
Let the publishers try to figure out how to convince people to pay for new releases when they can't lock away the the vast library of our own cultural heritage behind the same paywalls. There's no reason we should continue to subsidize their exploitative business model with our money and safety.