Sometimes a high risk position results because we don’t correctly asses asset values, threats or vulnerabilities. Sometimes the cost of implementing a safeguard exceeds and expected loss, and the decision to accept risk is a logical one. And sometimes we simply make mistakes.

But there are other reasons that we Canadians are often too polite to point out: Laziness, denial, rationalization and risk decisions based upon emotion rather than logic.  The H1N1 ‘flu gives us plenty of examples.

We’re in the midst of an influenza pandemic.  Fortunately we know how to create ‘flu vaccines — we do it every year to combat the seasonal flu. So we have a vaccine, and every credible organization from the World Health Organization down to our local medical officers are recommending that we vaccinate ourselves and our families.

The risk is clear: pH1N1 is a nasty virus that, at best, will make you sick for a week or two.  At worst, it could kill you. The threat is real and much of resulting risk can be mitigated by a simple vaccination.  The Public Health Agency of Canada advises that, “without interventions like a vaccine and antivirals, close to 25 to 35 percent of the population could become ill over the period of a few months.”  Other health organizations have released similar estimates. The vaccine has been tested in Canada as well as other countries, and we know that approximately 1 in 100,000 people will have a serious reaction to it, as with any other vaccine.  (Source: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/alert-alerte/h1n1/vacc/options-eng.php)

From a risk management perspective it doesn’t get much simpler than this. The benefits of the vaccine clearly outweigh the risks, and the cost (a few hours of our time at most) is minimal compared to the potential loss.  And that doesn’t take ethics and social responsibility into account.   Those who choose not to be vaccinated not only may become ill, but could also pass H1N1 on to more vulnerable family, friends and colleagues — including those who can’t be vaccinated due to alergies.

As a result, we continue to see people announce on the Internet that they’re not getting vaccinated. Some quote “facts” that are uninformed myths at best.  Some focus on the 1 in 100,000 serious reaction rate and completely loose perspective.  Others ignore a century or so of medical science and proclaim that they don’t need a vaccination because they are “healthy and take their herbs and vitamins.”

Chances are that you’ve already seen the writings of otherwise intelligent parents who are incapable or making good risk management decisions. Their blog posts usually start with how much they love their kids.  Then they latch on to the one quack that chargers people $50 each to attend a seminar to learn “the truth” and rationalize that “the medical community don’t all agree”.  They focus on the danger of mercury in vaccines, even though the exposure is less than you’d get from eating a can of tuna.  Or they repeat silly claims like suggesting that the vaccine is “untested”.

Some of these people obviously have other agendas.  It’s clear from their writing that they’re simply anti-vaccination shills. They write clever “balanced” articles pitting fact against laughable fiction and seek to “support” others who share their defective logic.

Some see themselves as rebells, not “giving in” to the experts who tell them they should be vaccinated.  The old phrase, “Rebells without a clue” comes to mind.

In others, the barrage of H1N1 information creates neurotic behaviour and they operate on a completely emotional level. They “agonize” (often at length and in writing) about how “difficult” the decision was.  They loose all perspective, and should you dare point out the flaws in their reasoning their feelings are hurt. How dare you suggest that they don’t know what’s best. They behave as if the act of conceiving a child instantly made them more knowledgeable on vaccines than the WHO, CDC, and the medical experts of countless countries, including their own. They have “the right” not to vaccinate themselves and their children, and as emotional people often do, they confuse having a right with it being the right thing to do.

According to Jody Gibney, Group Product Manager of OnlineFamily.Norton, many parents don’t understand what their children are doing online and only about 20% of parents with kids aged 6-18 use technology to help.

It should be no surprise to parents that kids do a lot online:

• They consume, create, and share web content.
• They socialize one-on-one and in groups.
• Kids who use social media have an average of 145 online friends.
• They often have multiple complex online identities.

It’s no surprise that parents have a hard time keeping up.

Parents also may not realize where the real dangers lie.  While pedophiles have lured children across the Internet, such occurrences are very rare. Much more common is, as Jody put it, “plain kid-on-kid meanness.”  Social media sites allow kids to post hurtful words, images and videos that can result in real-world embarrassment. Parents need to know what sites their kids are using and decide if and how they should monitor it. Rather than simply prohibiting access to sites, Jody suggests that parents negotiate age-appropriate solutions with children.  For example, a teen may be allowed to use Facebook on the condition that they ‘friend’ Mom so that she can see what is being posted.  If the child sets up a second Facebook account, it’s important that Mom have a way of finding out about it.

Some elements of Norton’s approach, like categorizing web sites and reporting on use, are similar to other products, but their philosophy is different.  Norton’s service is designed to encourage dialog and negotiation between parents and children. For example, Norton encourages parents to log in to OnlineFamily’s web-based interface with their children and discuss the various choices and options. The selections made for each child become “house rules” and include web site categories as well as rules relating to the use of instant messaging, what times the Internet can be used, for how long, and what happens when rules are violated.

Most rules and limits can be configured as hard or soft. Hard time limits log the child out after giving a 15 minute warning, while soft time limits simply report the activity. Similarly three options exist for web sites: Monitor use but don’t block, warn the child first but let them proceed to blocked sites, or actively block access to sites that violate the house rules.

Norton’s approach, Jody explained, is to “understand intent, guide online behavior and discuss online activities.” When a web site is blocked, OnlineFamily gives the child options that include “Oops, I made a mistake! Let me go back.” and “I want to tell my parents why I tried to go to this Web site.” There is also an option to dispute the categorization of the site. When a child researching a homework assignment is prevented from accessing a site, he or she can explain why they want access and the request is sent to parents in real-time.

I’m often concerned about the ethical implications of monitoring software and I believe that spying on family members can erode trust and damage relationships. OnlineFamily avoids that issue completely. Not only does it display a notification every time the child logs on, but the child can also click on the application’s icon and display a summary of house rules, including information on what types of activity is being monitored.

Last week I created an account on OnlineFamily.Norton.com while it was still in beta. I downloaded the program and installed it on our family computer. Then I logged into the OnlineFamily web site, added my daughter as a family member, identified which computer account she used and sent an invite to my wife giving her ‘parent’ access. Next I set the rules and explained the system to my daughter.  Overall, I’m impressed. I did run into a few rough edges with the beta, but by the time you read this they will have been fixed.

OnlineFamily.Norton is the first product in this space to actively involve parents and that makes it a winner. It officially launches today at http://Onlinefamily.Norton.com and is free until January 1, 2010. Norton hopes to receive feedback from parents and say they will consider it carefully before deciding on the future pricing model.

1. Place the family computer in a central location where the whole family can use it and where parents can easily see the screen. Do not place computers in children’s bedrooms.
2. If you don’t know much about the Internet, take the time to learn the basics. Don’t be embarrassed to ask your child to show you what they do online and how it works. Turn it into time spent with your child.
3. Develop and enforce your own ‘Acceptable Use Policy’, making it clear what is allowed and what is not.
4. Do not allow young children to use the Internet by themselves. With older children, check what they are doing frequently.
5. Use filtering software in addition to, not in place of, parental supervision.
6. Teach your child to tell you immediately if anyone they don’t know tries to communicate with them online.
7. Insist that your children never send or post personal information such as their photo, name, age, address, phone number, email address, passwords or the name or location of their school.
8. Teach children to tell you if the see or read something frightening, threatening or offensive.
9. Discuss what your children read on the Internet, and help them to understand that what they read online may or may not be true.
10. Find out what safeguards are in place at your child’s school, friend’s homes, and the public library and decide if it’s okay for your child to access the Internet from those places in your absence.
11. Pay particular attention if you child minimizes windows or exits programs quickly when you approach.
12. If your child is behaving suspiciously or if you suspect something is wrong, talk about it.

For some children the Internet is a valuable tool to help with homework, for others its entertainment and, unfortunately, for some it’s also the babysitter. As a parent, what do you need to know?

When it comes to email, instant messengers, and chatrooms, the technology varies, but the safety issues are much the same: Do you, or your children, actually know who they are communicating with? Talking to friends from school, who they already know in person, is generally safe. However, the other ‘twelve-year-old’ that your child ‘meets’ in an online chat room may in fact be someone playing a practical joke or a pedophile intent on luring children.

Some online games are great for kids, but others aren’t. Parents need to take the time to understand what the game is about, how it is played, who the other players are, and how these other players interact with their children.

Downloading music and videos presents two problems. First — although not the issue that strikes fear into most parent’s hearts — a lot of the music floating around the Internet is there illegally through copyright violations. Second, most of these files are traded using so-called ‘peer-to-peer’ software. These packages have been known to contain viruses, trojans, and other malware. And that’s a problem.

People who wouldn’t even consider permitting their child to play with the contents of their filing cabinet do precisely that electronically. Allowing your child to use the same computer that you use for work or to manage your personal finances is just asking for trouble. If you think that you’re saving money by not buying a family computer, consider this: If your child accidentally deletes your accounting files or other important business information, it could easily cost you upwards of two thousand dollars to have your data recovered, if it is even possible.

Then there’s the Web. Is it an amazing source of educational information on just about every topic you can imagine, or is it a cesspool of ignorance, hatred, obscenity, and misinformation? The answer, of course, is ‘yes’. Compared to print media, publishing on the Web is dirt cheap. Just about anyone can set up their own Web site and publish their own version of reality. For parents and educators, this is both a curse and an opportunity. On one hand, we need to exercise constant vigilance to ensure that our children are getting credible and correct information. On the other hand, it’s also an opportunity to help children understand that, just because it’s been written, doesn’t mean it’s true. These lessons apply equally to television, radio, books, magazines and newspapers.

So what can parents do? First and foremost, supervise your children. Explore the Internet with them. No piece of hardware or software takes the place of a parent sitting beside their child, using the Internet together. Second, consider content filtering software like NetNanny or CyberPatrol. While it’s true that these applications won’t catch everything that your child shouldn’t see, they certainly help. Third, set limits and enforce rules. Whether you should do that with a signed agreement, a written set of rules or verbally depends on your child and parenting style. However, as a parent, it’s your child and your responsibility.

Next Monday, I’ll post my Internet Safety Tips for parents.