Online safety has been the focus of much discussion for several years now. The excellent PBS Frontline report on “Growing Up Online” really brought some of these issues to the forefront of the American consciousness. As an educator or parent, it really is hard to know sometimes what steps to take to help protect our students and children from the legitimate dangers they may encounter in the digital world.

Google recently offered its own insight on the situation by releasing the Google Family Safety Center (GFSC).  The GFSC provides educators and parents with specific information about making several of Google’s many Web 2.0 services into a safer environment for children.  It also includes several short video interviews with Google employees who are parents, and the steps they themselves take to keep their own children safe online.  Links to and advice from various Google partners are included also.

A handy feature of the GFSC is the ability to choose from one of five locations (US, UK, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand).  You will see different partners and Google parent videos based on this selection.

Google also included links to online safety activities and curricula (again, location based).

All in all, I see the GFSC as a very useful resource and I hope that Google continues to expand upon it in the future.

From an educator’s standpoint, it is very convenient to have safety information for the major Google services consolidated in one handy location.  It’s also very nice to see Google working with experts in the field of online safety to provide tips and learning materials for both parents and schools.

The GFSC is free and you’ll need a computer with a broadband internet connection, a modern Web browser, and the Flash player to access it.

Google Earth can be downloaded for Windows 2000 and up, Mac OS X 10.4 and up (PowerPC G4/G5 or Intel), and Linux with kernel 2.4 or later (only Ubuntu and Red Hat are officially supported).  What all of this means is that most computers made in the last 10 years or so that you’re likely to encounter at home or school are capable or running Google Earth to some degree.  Google Earth also requires an active connection to the Internet and this is definitely a case where a faster connection is better.

Performance in Google Earth can vary based on the number of overlays, layers, and other features you have enabled.  It is also highly dependent on the speed of your Internet connection, because Google Earth downloads much of what it displays as it is needed.  This is especially noticeable when zooming in on an area especially if you have many layers or the 3D features enabled.

If you want to use Google Earth in your classroom, I highly recommend using a digital projector or another large display that can be seen by everyone in the room.  Google Earth also works exceptionally well with interactive whiteboards.

So, what can you use Google Earth for?  Google Earth is a great way to expose students to geography and historic locations.  For example, below is a screenshot I took of the Giza complex in Egypt (click the image to see the full size).

In the above image, you can see several Google Earth features, most noticeably, the 3D pyramids and Great Sphinx.  These are part of the 3D buildings option.  You can also clearly see the topography of the area, due to the “elevation exaggeration” feature.  Basically, Google Earth can be set to overemphasize elevation changes to highlight topography.  You might also notice the little yellow boxes in the image.  Clicking on those in the Google Earth program will open up a comment window that contains basic information about a feature in the current view.  This can be images from one of several communities, web links, etc.  Google Earth also includes a basic “mini-browser” that will allow you to follow links without leaving Google Earth.

Another great Google Earth activity is asking students to take a look at their communities.  Here’s what Rockford, Illinois looks like from 17 miles up.

In this image, I have just enough information displayed to provide some basic landmarks without cluttering the image too much.  The green outlines are area parks and nature preserves.  Students will likely find it interesting to discover just how much of what humans have built can be seen from a great height.  It’s also interesting to be able to see how spread out their community might be.  In the case of this image, I increased the apparent altitude until I could see all of the city and its suburbs.

The above examples are likely best suited for history or social studies classes, but what about other courses?  An friend of mine who teaches English suggested the following idea.  Pick a location in Google Earth like the Eiffel Tower (the Eiffel Tower area actually has some of the highest resolution images in Google Earth) and then ask students to describe what they see around it.  This is best done as a thought exercise, asking students to imagine themselves in the given location.  This can be an excellent way to practice reading and storytelling skills by working on describing setting and atmosphere.

A handy feature for the science or math class is the ruler.  In Google Earth, you can measure both a distance and heading from one location to another.  You can also use the ruler to measure the distance of a path.

Google Earth also allows the user to explore things besides the planet Earth.  Clicking one button takes you to a view of the sky above your current map location.

And just as with the Google Earth view, there are numerous overlays and layers available in the Sky view.

You can similarly visit both the Moon and Mars from Google Earth.  The program even contains a basic flight simulator.

So far, we’ve just barely scratched the surface of what Google Earth can do.  I highly recommend that if you are interested in using it in your class, you block out a few hours to experiment with all of the features of this amazing program.  I also think that we’ll be taking a look at some of the other features of Google Earth in an upcoming Web 2.0 Weekly.

One of the best things about Google Earth is the communities that have grown up around it.  The Keyhole.com site is just one of many such communities that is devoted to locating and analyzing interesting places in Google Earth.

It seems like there is some confusion about just what CIPA requires, so I’m posting the relevant information from the FCC’s CIPA Consumer Facts page here:

Schools and libraries subject to CIPA may not receive the discounts offered by the E-rate program unless they certify that they have an Internet safety policy that includes technology protection measures. The protection measures must block or filter Internet access to pictures that are: (a) obscene, (b) child pornography, or (c) harmful to minors (for computers that are accessed by minors). Before adopting this Internet safety policy, schools and libraries must provide reasonable notice and hold at least one public hearing or meeting to address the proposal.

Schools subject to CIPA are required to adopt and enforce a policy to monitor online activities of minors.

Schools and libraries subject to CIPA are required to adopt and implement an Internet safety policy addressing: (a) access by minors to inappropriate matter on the Internet; (b) the safety and security of minors when using electronic mail, chat rooms, and other forms of direct electronic communications; (c) unauthorized access, including so-called “hacking,” and other unlawful activities by minors online; (d) unauthorized disclosure, use, and dissemination of personal information regarding minors; and (e) measures restricting minors’ access to materials harmful to them.

CIPA does not require the tracking of Internet use by minors or adults.

CIPA doesn’t actually mandate the way in which these requirements are met, that is left up to the individual schools and/or districts to determine.  CIPA also does not require the tracking of specific student’s internet usage (in fact, doing that may be a violation of other laws).  Google’s new Secure Search actually acts to protect the personal information of minors by preventing a third party from determining their search habits.  My understanding of this problem is that administrators are acting preemptively to block access to Secure Search before Google Image Search is added because it is feared that students will be able to use that to access thumbnails of pornographic images.

There is so much that I could say about this situation, that it’s actually been difficult for me to write this article.  Before I get too much farther in to this, I want to stress that I think schools do need to take steps to protect students, especially younger ones, while they are using the internet at school.  Having said that, I do have some serious concerns about how that protection is being implemented.  In my opinion, content blocking and filtering are not a good substitute for having a staff member physically present to monitor student computer use.

If you haven’t delved too deeply into this issue before, let me clarify the two primary methods of access restriction that CIPA mentions: blocking and filtering.  Content blocking is a method that denies access to a specific list of internet sites.  Because the internet is always expanding, these lists are periodically updated through subscriptions to a service, oftentimes, bundled with your firewall.  These lists are sometimes called “blacklists” because they only deny access to the sites they contain.  Any site not on the list is accessible.  The obvious failing of content blocking is the impossibility of including every inappropriate site on the blacklist.  There will always be some that are missed for whatever reason (which is why filtering exists).  The other failing is a subtle one, but I feel it is the most important.  Namely, who determines which sites are “inappropriate” and how is that determination reached?

Content filtering, on the other hand, doesn’t rely on a predetermined site blacklist.  Instead, it makes use of a list of keywords that are forbidden.  A filter scans the content of each page that is being requested and, if it detects one of the key words, it blocks access to that page.  As a basic example, consider the word “cat”.  If “cat” were in the filter’s list, this page would be blocked.  However, what if the word “catalogs” was not an inappropriate word?  This page would most likely still be blocked because the string “cat” is contained in “catalogs”.

I’m sure that you can see the negative educational implications for each of these methods.  Blocking may prevent access to valuable sites and getting those sites unblocked may require a great deal of effort on your part depending a specific schools’ policies.  Filtering can be extremely annoying to work with, most especially if partial word matching is enabled.  And the even sadder thing is, that many students have figured out ways around these blocks and filters.  I don’t want to go in to a great deal of detail on ways to defeat filters, but one very common way is through the use of an internet proxy.  A proxy is an unblocked site that acts like a middleman for content.  A request for a site is sent to the proxy, then the proxy accesses that page and serves it to the computer.  Because the connection is being made to an allowed site, that content is passed.  Of course, access to these proxies can be blocked, but that means another list (and some proxies are a bit more difficult to block than others) and more time spent.  Additionally, it’s not too hard to set up a proxy service, so more show up every day.  In other words, it’s an endless arms race between IT staff and students.

The best method to ensure students are making appropriate use of computer time is to have a staff member physically present and aware of student actions whenever students are using the computer.  This can be challenging, too, especially in large classes, and it also requires that the staff member is knowledgeable enough about computer security and the internet to tell when students’ actions are inappropriate (that’s another topic in itself).

My other concern with automated access restrictions is that it is an extrinsic motivator.  Students aren’t able to access inappropriate content because the blacklist or filter won’t let them.  The students are learning why those sites are inappropriate or why they may not mesh with a Christian worldview.  It’s as though a wall, hung with “Do Not Enter” signs was built around those sites.  If students don’t have an internalized motivation to not visit those sites, building a wall around them only increases their appeal.  Students are curious and forbidding them to go somewhere often only increases that curiosity.  Also, what happens when the students go home or go off to college and those artificial blocks are removed?  Now, the external motivator is gone and, if the students didn’t develop an internal motivation, nothing prevents them from access all of those inappropriate sites.

Obviously, this is a complex issue that demands discussion.  Hopefully, the high-profile of this incident will foster some.  Is internet access control an issue at your schools?  I love to hear your thoughts on it.