But all those episodes of 48 Hours say otherwise
You don’t say: Online predation is an exaggerated problem.
5 Responses to “But all those episodes of 48 Hours say otherwise”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
November 6th, 2008 at 11:01 am
It’s only exaggerated if it doesn’t happen to you… It is still out there, maybe less than some think – but I have two daughters that are going to be on the ‘net pretty soon. Numbers are WAY up there for me. I am not saying that it isn’t a scare tactic and a way for someone to make buttloads of money by playing on people’s fears (car insurance, mold-in-your-house testers, Al Gore…) but I think it might be a tad irresponsible to say, “Ah, it isn’t as bad as we thought.” I hope that people don’t read the article and somehow think they don’t need to continue to monitor what their kids are doing online, that’s all.
November 6th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Same for those struck by meteors, i suppose.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Using just a standard of probability to decide whether it is worth preparing for a risk then I have no reason to train in martial arts or train with and carry weapons. I live in a relatively low crime state and in the one of the most low crime cities in that state. My chances of being in a violent encounter much less a lethal encounter are small. This standard of probability is what the majority use and what they want you to use to be just like them. It is the equivalent of saying “It can never happen to me.”
But along with probability you also need to factor the cost of mitigating the risk and the value of the loss.
The cost of a civilian preparing for a violent encounter that may never come is quite high. It takes a lot of my time and money. Some of that is offset by the friends I have made in martial arts (easily the best and most reliable friends I have ever had) and the fun of shooting holes in paper targets. However, the value of the loss is huge. Too loose any one of my family when I could have done something about it would be too much for me to bare. The probability is low, cost is high, but value is much higher, so I train hard in case the day comes.
Using this formula it would seem while the probability is low, the cost is also low to defend against online predators. The value of the loss is high enough to justify the cost.
The probability is low for meteor attack. The cost to defend is high since The only defence I can think of is to build my house under a mountain. The value of the loss is high, but my resources do not allow me to buy an underground mountain house so the cost is higher.
In general I think you should identify and mitigate risks where the probability is highest, the cost lowest, and the value highest first. So if you don’t have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen and keep your swimming pool locked up so unsupervised kids can’t get in then you may not have done a proper job of risk assessment. But once high probability risks have been dealt with, there is no reason not to work your way through lower probability risks too. At the very least you’ll have something to do besides watch TV on Saturday afternoon.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I should mention though that the exaggeration of risks is a real problem. People frequently want to make their pet cause everyone else’s cause and they do that by artificially inflating the risk, masking the cost, and inflating the value. To make a proper risk assessment (probability, cost, value) you definitely need to have as accurate view of all three factors as possible. It is impossible to make a good judgement if that data is wrong; much less if it has been purposefully inflated or deflated.
November 6th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Maybe the chances are the same as being struck by a meteor – I don’t know the numbers. KA puts it out there (and right on the money) that the cost of me walking by my kid’s computer that is intentionally set up in the kitchen and putting some protective software in place is pretty low compared to having to live my days out in prison for gutting some child molester in my front yard for messing with one of my girls. At least if I get struck by a meteor, I won’t have any real regrets for not moving my house under a mountain bc I’d be dead.
Yeah, that’s a little harsh, but my overall point is this – I don’t mind people saying that online predators are all over the place. Maybe it gives a parent pause to actually speak to their children or another opportunity to be a parent and warn their children about those dangers. Maybe making such a big deal about it keeps kids from being so open online and helps them think about being safe. Saying it isn’t such a big deal might give a parent just the excuse he or she needs to just let ’em go on the family computer and well, if it turns out bad…