What do women get up to online? - UK housewives spend 47% of their leisure time on the internet – and it's not all cosy, mumsy surfing
I would never open my boyfriend's post. He wouldn't let me, for one thing. I'm not even allowed to open his copy of Paws – the Battersea Dogs Home newsletter – until he gets home. And I'd never open his emails either, but I don't have the same privacy taboo about emails that have already been opened. I have picked over the cobbles of past boyfriends' email trails. It starts with a simple over-the-shoulder visual eavesdrop. When you walk up behind somebody, and they're in the middle of an e-conversation, they hunch. Everybody does this, colleagues do it. It doesn't mean they're cheating on you, it just means it's personal. But this tension, the email that isn't a betrayal but is nevertheless private, is a micro-version of the surveillance debate – "Why do you want privacy, if not to commit crime?"
Click happy? Photograph: Illustration: Simon Schmitt for Guardian Imaging
Back to this hypothetical boyfriend who, if I'm honest, was actually a real boyfriend. He hunches when I walk past. So I want to see what he's writing. I can't, he's closed his browser. It does not feel evil to go into his inbox afterwards, although I would strongly dis-recommend that initial breach of couple-protocol. Of course, it's an email to a woman. What are the odds? Fifty-fifty, unless he's a mathematician, or a nitwit. Say it's someone you know (it was), it's probably an ex (it was). Say it's someone you don't know, then it's a strange woman. This is a mug's game; now I'm checking all the time. My nearly ex and his ex chat intermittently. Nothing incriminating happens, but the easy familiarity is annoying. And I'm reading everything I can get away with now, so naturally I catch stuff I'd rather not have seen. It's physiologically compelling (high risk, sweaty palms) and intellectually boring, like reading a Dan Brown novel. Unlike a Dan Brown novel, nothing happens, except I can't stop. I never got caught doing it. But we did split up, for maybe 1,000 reasons, some of which were: well, most obviously, this is an act of war. It also creates confusion – you're having your regular relationship with your regular boyfriend, and a secret, antagonistic relationship with the boyfriend as expressed in his correspondence. Those are two different people, not least because one of them doesn't know you're there.
Women snoop a lot more than men – a joint study by the LSE and Nottingham Trent University found that 14% of wives read their husbands emails, and 10% checked their browsing history (for men, those figures are 8% and 7%, respectively). I know what you're going to say, you'll say, "That's because men look at porn all the time. Women are just looking for evidence of porn, and maybe if they spent more time looking at their own porn instead of spying on their husband's, these figures might be reversed." That's what I'd say.
Still, we often talk about the nefarious things men get up to on the internet. You hear about porn addicts. You hear about men who lie to teenage girls on Bebo, men who sit on Chatroulette all day. The things you hear about men make them sound so profoundly primitive, you wonder how they hit the space bar without an opposable thumb.
There's no doubt the internet creates a new territory of misdemeanour, but not all of it particularly male. When people talk about predatory men, or naive and/or bullying teenagers, they miss the major UK demographic, the one in which we outstrip internet usage anywhere else in the world, which is among housewives. That definition is pretty loose, these days; you don't have to be married, and you're allowed to have a job. It just means women of a certain age. Any given woman who, 10 years ago, would have been out binge drinking: women like me, and possibly you.
UK housewives spend 47% of their leisure time online (according to a study by global market information group TNS), which is higher than the Chinese national average (overall theirs is the highest in the world). Our national average is 28%. Some of this is entrepreneurial (almost half of all UK housewives make some money online – one in 20 "mousewives" makes over £200 a week), but a lot of it is pointless messing about.
And because we're women, and many of us have children, this messing about is billed as an incredibly positive, cooperative force. Indeed, Mumsnet has become the byword for mothers on the internet, as if all we do is have warm, helpful conversations. It's true that Mumsnet has a lot of users (20 million monthly page impressions), and everything its founder, Justine Roberts, says about it makes perfect sense: "It's become a very handy, convenient and efficient replacement for real-life communities. People just don't have time for leisurely conversations over the garden fence any more. Women and parents in general don't have time to have a lot of social engagements in the traditional sense and Mumsnet fills that void."
There is an unspoken point, though, isn't there? Not having time for social engagements is the same as being lonely. Virtual conversations aren't really the same as real ones: they're so conditional, so easy to pick up and drop, they don't carry the weight of a concrete connection in the world. It's a community and yet the succour isn't real, the responsibilities users feel towards one another are quixotic, evanescent. It's suspended between life and a computer game.
Contrary to popular presentation, Mumsnet is not the only site women visit. There are acres of girly chat. Not very much chat-traffic is criminal or exploitative, but check out the Facebook groups for a flavour of how unpleasant some of the supposedly mumsy stuff is. There's a proliferation of vigilante rage directed at child abusers: "jamie bulger's killers should never have been released!"; "i bet i can find a billion people who are against jon venables and r thompson!!!!"; "Don't forget about Maddie"; "Justice for Baby P". The numbers of signatories are enormous – sure, at over 37,000 names, the Venables/Thompson page loses a bet with itself about finding a billion. But 37,000…
There are 245 groups calling for the death/life sentence/dismemberment of Vanessa George, the nursery worker who took pornographic photographs of her charges and exchanged them with a man and woman she'd met on Facebook. It is taken as a paradox of George's case that, when you track her Facebook history, before she got involved in online paedophilia, she would sign up to groups like Action Against Abuse. In fact, I don't think it's paradoxical. There's something zealous and savage about the anti-paedophile rhetoric on Facebook that doesn't seem to have anything to do with children, or sex with children – it seems to be about whipping yourself to a pitch of fury that is in itself arousing, it's like rage-porn. The comparison is instructive: like regular porn, this self-generated anger might be elemental, but previous to the internet, it was something you might glance past in the Sun; 37,000 people wouldn't be devoting their leisure time to hating paedophiles.
Which brings us back to Vanessa George. The first time she and her co-defendants met was in the courtroom. In her first police interview, George tells how she went from Facebook buddies with the man to sharing images of paedophilia. "I was, like, What would you do for me, if I done that for you? You'd have to put a ring on my finger to make me do things like that." The fact she already had a husband of 20 years standing is the least bizarre element of this self-presentation – as just another young woman, looking for love ever after, who'll do anything for a ring on her finger.
Apparently, members of the investigative team privately doubted all three when they claimed to have met on Facebook, thinking it too much of a coincidence that people with such depraved tastes would just chance upon one another on a mainstream networking site. It certainly pushes the boundaries of credulity that there are paedophiles ambling the corridors of Facebook, waiting to meet one another to scale up their perversion. But if you look at the Facebook application these three met on, Are YOU Interested?, you would have no trouble believing it to be just heaving with incredibly lonely, violently angry people, just sitting there, ripe for a toxic relationship with other incredibly lonely, violently angry people.
The Jihad Jane case in America, by contrast, could happen only now, with this timely confluence of global communication and a terrorist movement whose targets are international. Jihad Jane, whose real name is Colleen LaRose, was arrested last year over her plan "to do something, somehow, to help suffering Muslims": it stretched, in the end, to a conspiracy to murder the Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks. The 46-year-old has been accused of conspiring to provide material support to terrorists, and kill a person in a foreign country. She is also suspected of having trawled the internet looking for other women with US passports who could more easily go about the skirmishes of Jihad undetected. Her boyfriend of five years had no idea of these activities. "She was a good-hearted person. She pretty much stayed around the house," Kurt Gorman told the press. She was active on the site revolutionmuslim.com, and this is not a place you'd stumble into. What led her there is unknown, but behind the sudden veil-wearing and talk about eternal bliss, this looks like a sad story about grief. In 2005, following the death of her father, LaRose tried to commit suicide. Obviously the causal links are complicated, but she wasn't trying to kill cartoonists before then. If LaRose had conceived an irrational hatred against a neighbour, this would have been a containable affair. But there's an Alice in Wonderland effect on the internet, where a person taken out of his or her context can take on epic proportions in an unfamiliar landscape, usually not in a good way. When physical space is collapsed, people can find themselves a long way from home.
The main point is Morrissey's: the devil will find work for idle hands. There's nothing idler than people on the internet, wanting nothing in particular, just wanting to be nearer the centre of things. ( guardian.co.uk )
Facebook In Legal Showdown Over Privacy. Facebook has been hit by legal action in the US at the same time as Canadian authorities are examining the site to see whether it breaks privacy laws.
Concerns over Facebook's privacy policies are being investigated in Canada
A deadline for the site to comply with Canadian legislation expired on Monday.
The row could have implications for Facebook's 250 million users.
Canada's privacy commissioner wrote a report last month highlighting "serious gaps"in the way users' personal information is protected, and gave the site 30 days to respond.
At the same time the deadline passed, Facebook was hit with a civil lawsuit from five users in the US.
They claim the site breaks privacy laws by misleading them over how their information is used.
Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt said the company "see no merit in this suit and we plan to fight it".
If the site lost either battle, it could force it to change the way it operates.
Canadian authorities will review whether Facebook brought it the changes it called for before deciding if they will pursue it through the courts.
250 million use Facebook
A spokeswoman told Sky News Online it was too early to tell what action would be taken.
"We're hopeful that Facebook has responded to the concerns we raised in our investigation report, but we're not in a position to determine that at this time - we need to review their actions thoroughly," she said.
The commissioner's team were most worried by the difficulty users have in deleting their accounts, rather than just deactivating them.
"Apps", such as games and quizzes, may also leave accounts open to abuse, as they may be able to access more personal information than necessary.
The site unveiled more privacy controls in June to enable members to be more specific about what details can be seen or used.
Many users have joined groups calling for stronger safeguards on content. ( sky.com )
Hundreds Of Facebook Groups Are 'Hijacked' . An anonymous group has exploited a security loophole in the social networking site Facebook by 'hijacking' hundreds of groups. Taking control of the Facebook groups allows them to change the name of the group, bombard members with messages and edit details.
The 'hijackers', who call themselves Control Your Info, insist they will not misuse the data as they only want to raise awareness of the dangers.
'Control Your Info' leave messages on hundreds of Facebook groups
They found if the administrator of a Facebook group leaves, any user can appoint themselves as a replacement.
Hundreds of groups have been affected, all receiving the same warning: "Hello, we hereby announce that we have officially hijacked your Facebook group.
300m use Facebook worldwide
"This means we control a certain part of the information about you on Facebook.
"If we wanted we could make you appear in a bad way which could damage your image severly (sic).
"For example we could rename your group and call it something very inappropriate and nasty, like 'I support paedophile's rights'. But have no fear - we won't."
The renegade group's website claims the security side of social media has been "more or less neglected".
They have posted a YouTube video which warns while gaffes made in real life can be repaired, "your online mistakes will be there forever".
Facebook said in a statement: "There has been no hacking and there is no confidential information at risk.
"The groups in question have been abandoned by their previous owners, which means any group member has the option to make themselves an administrator in order to continue communication to the group.
"Group administrators have no access to confidential information and group members can leave a group at any time.
"For small groups, administrators can simply edit a group name or info, moderate discussion, and message group members.
"The names of large groups cannot be changed nor can anyone message all members.
"In the rare instances when we find that a group has been changed inappropriately, we will disable the group, which is the action we plan for these groups."( sky.com )
Has The Facebook Photo Mystery Been Solved? . Three men who claim to be the mystery holidaymakers at the centre of a Facebook sensation have told Sky News their story is not a hoax.
These pictures were posted on a Facebook group called Needle In A Haystack
More than 210,000 Facebook users are following Australian Danny Cameron's hunt to find the owner of a camera he found on Mykonos.
He hoped the theory anybody in the world can be contacted within "six degrees of separation" would lead him to find the tourists whose pictures were saved on the memory card.
And three friends have come forward to claim they can end the intrigue.
Pierre Paoli, Edouard Hostein and Julien Kopp have told Sky News Online they are pictured in the holiday snaps.
"It's not a hoax, it is absolutely real," Mr Paoli, who works in London, insisted. "We were on holiday and our friend Marie Cecile lost her camera."
He only discovered the group when a friend stumbled upon it.
Is this Marie Cecile?
Mr Hostein, who separately named Marie Cecile as the owner, described it as an "amazing story, unbelievable".
"I confirm that the camera's owner is one of my friends and I am on a picture with two other friends, Pierre Paoli and Julien Kopp."
When the Facebook group was first created on October 17 it attracted just 40 people. Within days membership had spiralled to nearly 250,000.
Mr Cameron told Sky News Online: "It is a total long shot and could have died in the water, but it looks like the world loves honesty... It's good to see so many people believing in the idea."
He said he was keeping some details secret to help him identify the camera's real owner. He has not commented on the friends' claim. ( sky.com )
Facebook Alibi Saves Jailed Teenager In US. A New York teenager accused of armed robbery has been cleared of all charges after his Facebook page provided him with an alibi.
Rodney Bradford spent 12 days in prison after being arrested on suspicion of holding up two people close to his home in Brooklyn.
Rodney Bradford at his home. Picture: New York Post
But the 19-year-old was eventually released after an update on the social networking site placed him at his father's flat across town in Harlem.
The message posted one minute before the robbery occurred on October 17 asked "WHERE MY IHOP?", a reference to a popular US pancake house.
It was intended for his pregnant girlfriend, who he hoped would cook him breakfast.
Instead, it provided proof that Mr Bradford was nowhere near the robbery when it happened.
Prosecutors dropped the charges after experts confirmed the message was typed from his father's keyboard.
It backed-up witness statements claiming the teenager was at his dad's house at the time of the incident.
Mr Bradford could have been jailed for 25 years if he was convicted.
Speaking to the New York Post, he said: "They had me on Rikers Island (New York jail) for 12 days. It was really miserable."
He added: "If it wasn't for Facebook I'd still be on Rikers Island."
His stepmother, Ernestine Bradford, added: "Facebook saved my son.
"Normally, we yell at our kids, 'Oh, you're on the computer!" It's completely different. If it wasn't for Facebook, my son wouldn't be here." ( sky.com )
One In Five Kids A Victim Of Cyber Bullies . One in five children has been targeted by cyberbullying.Children are being taunted, threatened and insulted via the internet and their mobile phones, according to the poll by the Anti-Bullying Alliance (ABA).
Parents are being urged to supervise their children's internet access after the study revealed 20.5% of 10 and 11-year-olds had been subjected to abuse.
More than a fifth (22%) said they did not know how to protect themselves against cyber bullies.
Tips On Cyberbullying From ABA
Know which websites your children are visiting and help them find the "report abuse" and "block sender" options.
Make sure your child "acts thoughtfully" online, and understands that images and messages posted online stay there and that mobile phone texts can be forwarded.
Tell your child not to reply to unpleasant messages and to keep any evidence.
Tell children never to give out personal details and to protect internet passwords.
Anyone who is being bullied should tell an adult they trust
And six in 10 (61%) said they thought a good way to stop cyberbullying would be for parents to know how to deal with it.
The survey reveals two-fifths (40%) of the more than 200 10 and 11-year-olds surveyed said they used social networking sites "sometimes".
Almost a fifth (19%) said they used them "a lot", despite many sites specifying that users should be over 13.
The figures were released to mark the start of National Anti-Bullying Week.
A second survey of more than 1,000 parents found that almost a quarter (23%) said they had, or would, allow their child of 10 or under to have unsupervised web access.
It is crucial that we ensure they know how to stay safe online, and that their parents know how to help them. Clearly more research is needed on this emerging issue.
Christopher Cloke, ABA chair
The ABA recommended that parents know which websites their children visit, and help them find the "report abuse" and "block sender" options.
ABA chair Christopher Cloke said: "Parents and schools need to be aware that cyberbullying is affecting younger age groups as more children get mobile phones and have computer access.
"It's crucial that we ensure they know how to stay safe online, and that their parents know how to help them. Clearly more research is needed on this emerging issue."
The ABA advice came as Victims' Champion Sara Payne said parents should snoop on their children's internet use to protect them from paedophiles.
She called for adults to install monitoring software on computers used by youngsters and admitted she checked up on her own children.
The ABA Stay Safe in Cyberspace report questioned 227 10 and 11-year-olds in October, and a BMRB (British Market Research Bureau) poll questioned 1,163 parents of children aged eight to 14 in England during October. ( sky.com )
