A recent USA Today article discusses the emerging trend of teenagers sending nude photos of themselves to one another via cellphone or the internet, a phenomenon known as “sexting.” Now, as the courts are stepping in with charges of child pornography, adults and students are being forced to once again educate themselves about the real world dangers of “harmless” online activities.

A growing number of teens are ending up in serious trouble for sending racy photos with their cellphones.

Police have investigated more than two dozen teens in at least six states this year for sending nude images of themselves in cellphone text messages, which can bring a charge of distributing child pornography. Authorities typically are notified by parents or schools about so-called “sexting.”

This week in Spotsylvania, Va., two boys, ages 15 and 18, were charged with solicitation and possession of child porn with intent to distribute after an investigation found they sought nude pictures from three juveniles — one in elementary school.

“It’s absolutely becoming a bigger problem,” says Michelle Collins of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

Finding appropriate penalties for this behavior is also a concern for judges, teens and parents:

 

In Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Juvenile Court Judge Thomas O’Malley struggled to figure out what to do with eight teens, 14 to 17, caught trading nude cellphone pictures of themselves. He says the father of one of the girls found the images.

If the 17-year-old who sent the nude photos to an ex-boyfriend were convicted of a child-porn charge, he says, she would be a registered sex offender for 20 years.

“These kids have no record, not even a parking ticket,” says O’Malley, a father of four teens.

He required each to do community service and to ask peers if they knew sexting was a crime. They told O’Malley they surveyed 225 teens; 31 knew.

Reputation.com encourages parents to educate their children about practicing safe online behavior.

Courrier International has a nice piece about Reputation Management, Michael Fertik and Reputation.com.

The article is in French, but speaks to the emerging industry that Reputation.com pioneered, Online Identity Management.

Interested readers who do not parlez francais, can check out Babelfish to get the international buzz on Reputation.com.

  [image via]

Gizmodo has a great write up of a clever business card idea: the Google me business card.

[image]

The piece asks, in this age of internet reputation, do you want to be Googled?

With MyEdge from Reputation.com, you can help control your Google results and manage your online reputation.

One of the best things about the Internet is the ease with which individuals can access information. What was once only publicly available at the local court house or government office, is now accessible with a quick Google search. Of course, this convenience is changing the way that organizations and industries are dealing with digital transparency. A recent Washington Post article discusses a tiff between the District of Columbia Bar Association and Avvo.com, a web directory of attorneys.

According to the report, the D.C. Bar is upset with Avvo for posting information that they feel breaches copyright laws and privacy rights. Avvo claims that the information is publicly available, so there is no harm in posting it online for consumers to make educated decisions when hiring an attorney. The ability to post lawyer reviews appears to be at the heart of the matter.

From the article:

“This has nothing to do with obstructing access to information,” said the bar’s spokeswoman, Cynthia Kuhn. “It has to do with a commercial company taking this information without authorization and in some cases perpetuating misinformation” by not updating the data frequently enough.

Avvo.com, the site posting the profiles, says it’s simply using public data to help consumers find lawyers and their track records.

[SNIP]

The dispute is the latest in an escalating debate over how private Web sites can use public information. It also underscores the tension around a growing number of sites that allow clients to publicly critique any professional, from doctors to plumbers.

As we’ve discussed on the Reputation.com blog previously, consumer review sites, such as Yelp, have become some of the most frequently used websites on the Internet. Unfortunately, they have also become some of the most abused websites on the Internet. Because of the often anonymous nature of these review sites, it is easy for people to be unfairly critical of businesses. In many cases, because the Internet is the first place people now turn to for information, one or two negative reviews of a company can be enough to substantially decrease the amount of new customers a business attracts.

In the same article for the Washington Post, Reputation.com CEO Michael Fertik explained the effect of negative reviews further.

“Some of the sites that began as restaurant review sites are becoming repositories for professional reviews, as well,” he said. “Now five negative reviews are reducing their client growth by half, even though there’s not enough data on these review sites to get good results.”

It is interesting to note that, for all of the problems the D.C. Bar seems to have with Avvo, the site operates at a far greater level of accountability than other consumer review sites. For instance, rather than allowing users to post reviews anonymously, Avvo requires that posters provide a full name and contact information. Additionally, Avvo provides lawyers with an opportunity to claim their profile and add additional information to make them more attractive to potential clients, a key step in proactively managing your online reputation.

The Associated Press is reporting today the sad tale of a Wisconsin man whose ex-girlfriend placed a profile of him on the popular San Francisco-based community website CraigsList indicating he wanted to engage in “dirty” talk with other men.

According to police in Eau Claire County, the woman allegedly posted a profile of her ex-boyfriend on Craigslist under “casual encounters.” The “casual encounters” section of CraigsList is commonly used for illicit sexual hookups, and the woman reportedly set up the profile on the Internet indicating (falsely) that her ex-boyfriend wanted other men to call him at work and “talk dirty.”

When her ex received such a call from an unknown male who proceeded to do the dirty talking the ex-boyfriend immediately questioned what was going on. When he got home the ex went on online where he saw the Craigslist personal ad beckoning dirty talk, complete with pictures of himself. Then he called Altoona police to report the false profile.

With a little digging authorities were able to locate the man’s ex-girlfriend, and she is now charged with causing harm through identity theft, which could send her to prison for three years if convicted.

Reputation.com has seen these identity spoofing sorts of attacks occur in the past. It pays to be civil in real life, and it pays dividends to remain diligent online when it comes to your personal online profile.