Abstract:
Identities of owners of electronic communication aliases are collected from a plurality of client computers across a parental control system. Each collected identity corresponds to an electronic communication aliases used by at least one child associated with the originating client computer. The collected identities and the corresponding electronic communication aliases are stored. Response to receiving a collected identity, previously stored identities corresponding to the same electronic communication alias are retrieved, and compared to the received identity. The more previously stored identities match the received identity, the more likely the received identity is to be accurate. Therefore, based upon the comparison results, it can be determined whether the received identity is accurate or not. If it is determined that the received identity is false, the relevant parents are automatically notified.

Description:
RELATED APPLICATIONS 
     This application is related to patent application Ser. No. 12/118,621 titled “Verifying Instant Messaging Aliases via Online Parental Control Accounts,” filed on May 9, 2008 and having the same assignee (the “First Parental Verification Application”). This application is also related to patent application Ser. No. 12/130,820 titled “Verifying Instant Messaging Aliases via Online Parental Control Accounts, without Disclosing Identity to Unverified Parties,” filed on May 30, 2008 and having the same assignee (the “Second Parental Verification Application”). 
     TECHNICAL FIELD 
     This invention pertains generally to instant messaging and online chatting, and more specifically to enabling parents to verify the identity of their children&#39;s instant messaging, voice and/or video chat friends based on their aliases. 
     BACKGROUND 
     Instant messaging (“IM”) between children is very popular today. Although IM can be a great vehicle for children to establish and maintain friendships, it also puts children at risk for exposure to bad influences and even electronic predators. Because the communication is electronic in nature, it is easy for people to pretend to be who they are not, and very hard for parents to keep track of with whom their children are communicating. Other communications mechanisms such as voice and video chat present similar issues. 
     Online-based parental control systems exist today. A key aspect of online parental control is the ability for parents to control with whom a child communicates online. Such systems enable parents to require that children receive permission to add friends to the list of parties with whom they can communicate. Unfortunately, even with such systems, the only mechanism parents have for actually determining the true identities of their child&#39;s online buddies is to ask their child. The response of children is not reliable in this context, as children can be dishonest or themselves the victims of other&#39;s dishonesty. Without being able to determine with whom their children are really requesting permission to communicate, the power to approve or deny the requests is not sufficient. 
     The related First Parental Verification Application discloses methodology according to which an online-based parental control system is used to verify the identity of children and their parents, based on children&#39;s instant messaging aliases. This way, a child&#39;s instant messaging buddies can be limited to children whose parents have been securely identified. More specifically, the online-based parental control system maintains a plurality of verified parental accounts, each of which includes the identity of the parents and their children, including the children&#39;s instant messaging aliases. When a first child wishes to electronically communicate with a second child, the first child makes a request which includes the second child&#39;s instant messaging alias. The system searches the plurality of parental accounts for one containing the second child&#39;s alias. If the alias is not found, instant messaging between the children is not allowed. If a parental account containing the alias is found, an identity verification request is transmitted to the parents of the second child. The identity verification request discloses the identity of the first child&#39;s parents, and requests reciprocal verification of the identity of the parents of the second child. Only if the second child&#39;s parents respond by disclosing their identity is the instant messaging between the children permitted. 
     The subject matter of the First Parental Verification Application represents a big step forward in the provision of security in the IM context. However, in the methodology disclosed therein, the first child&#39;s parents need to disclose their own identify to the second child&#39;s parents, before the identity of the second child&#39;s parents has been confirmed. The related Second Parental Verification Application discloses methodology according to which an online-based parental control system is used to verify the identity of children and their parents, based on children&#39;s instant messaging aliases, in such a way that neither parent has to disclose their identity to an unknown party. 
     More specifically, when a first child wishes to electronically communicate with a second child, the first child makes a request which includes not only the second child&#39;s instant messaging alias, but also additional information identifying the second child&#39;s parents. The online-based parental control system searches the plurality of parental accounts for one containing the second child&#39;s alias. If the alias is not found, instant messaging between the children is not allowed. If a parental account containing the alias is found, the system attempts to verify the additional information provided in the request. If this information cannot be verified, instant messaging between the children is not allowed. Only if the additional information can be confirmed is an identity verification request transmitted to the parents of the second child. 
     The subject matter of the Second Parental Verification Application represents another step forward in the provision of security in the IM context. However, in the methodology disclosed therein, a parent still needs to take a proactive step in order to initiate a workflow to verify an identity behind an online alias. It would be desirable to eliminate that shortcoming. 
     SUMMARY 
     Identities of owners of electronic communication aliases are collected from a plurality of client computers across a parental control system. Each collected identity corresponds to an electronic communication aliases used by at least one child associated with the originating client computer. The collected identities and the corresponding electronic communication aliases are stored. Response to receiving a collected identity, previously stored identities corresponding to the same electronic communication alias are retrieved, and compared to the received identity. The more previously stored identities match the received identity, the more likely the received identity is to be accurate. Therefore, based upon the comparison results, it can be determined whether the received identity is accurate or not. If it is determined that the received identity is false, the relevant parents are automatically notified. 
     The features and advantages described in this summary and in the following detailed description are not all-inclusive, and particularly, many additional features and advantages will be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art in view of the drawings, specification, and claims hereof. Moreover, it should be noted that the language used in the specification has been principally selected for readability and instructional purposes, and may not have been selected to delineate or circumscribe the inventive subject matter, resort to the claims being necessary to determine such inventive subject matter. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
         FIG. 1  is a block diagram illustrating a system for verifying the identity of online aliases, according to some embodiments of the present invention. 
         FIG. 2  is a flowchart illustrating steps for verifying the identity of online aliases, according to some embodiments of the present invention. 
     
    
    
     The Figures depict embodiments of the present invention for purposes of illustration only. One skilled in the art will readily recognize from the following discussion that alternative embodiments of the structures and methods illustrated herein may be employed without departing from the principles of the invention described herein. 
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION 
       FIG. 1  illustrates a system for verifying the identity  105  of online aliases  103 , according to some embodiments of the present invention. It is to be understood that although various components are illustrated in  FIG. 1  as separate entities, each illustrated component represents a collection of functionalities which can be implemented as software, hardware, firmware or any combination of these. Where a component is implemented as software, it can be implemented as a standalone program, but can also be implemented in other ways, for example as part of a larger program, as a plurality of separate programs, as a kernel loadable module, as one or more device drivers or as one or more statically or dynamically linked libraries. 
     As illustrated in  FIG. 1 , aspects of the present invention are built on top of an online-based parental control system  101 . Such a  101  system provides both parental control enforcement at the user computer  113  level, parental control management via the Web, and workflow management to allow children  109  to request permission to communicate with specific online (e.g., IM or voice/video chat) aliases  103 . 
     As noted above, IM has become a primary communication mechanism for kids  109  today. Most children  109  add everyone they communicate with, even casually, to their buddy list. Over time this will also extend to voice and video chat, as well as to more immersive online environments such as Second Life®. Because of the prevalence of this type of electronic communication, any given parental control application  101  that has even moderate market share has an opportunity to collect reported identities  105  associated with particular online aliases  103  from many different children  109 . 
     Where many children  109  use the same identity  105  for a given alias  103 , it is likely that identity  105  is accurate. On the other hand, if an individual child  109  uses an identity  105  for an alias  103  that differs from that reported by other children  109  for the same alias  103 , it could well be false. Thus, by comparing a reported identity  105  for an alias  103  to the previously reported identities  105  for the same alias  103 , the likelihood that a given reported identity  105  is accurate can be determined. This makes it possible to spot a child  109  who misrepresents the identity  105  of the owner of a given alias  103 . 
     As illustrated, a parental control client agent  111  runs on each of a plurality of client computers  113  utilizing the parental control system  101 . Although only three client computers  113  running parental control client agents  111  appear in  FIG. 1  for the sake of simplicity of illustration, it is to be understood that typically a much larger number would be deployed in practice. Each parental control client agent  111  is responsible for client side processing of parental control system  101  related activities, including gathering information concerning the online aliases  103  with which a child  109  (or multiple children  109 ) using that computer  113  communicate(s). The parental control client agent  111  interfaces with the alias identification component  117 , to glean the identities  105  behind aliases  103 , as described below. 
     The alias identification component  117  collects the identities  105  behind aliases  103  with which a given child  109  communicates. The alias identification component  117  can collect this information directly from a child&#39;s  109  buddy list, by monitoring IM and other relevant network traffic to and from the child&#39;s  109  computer  113 , by detecting workflow requests from the child  109  asking his parents  107  for permission to communicate with a given alias  103 , and/or simply by allowing the child  103  to manually enter the relevant information. The alias identification component  117  can reside on the server  115 , accessible from a Web browser, or it can reside on the client  113 , reporting the collected information to relevant components running on the server  115 , as illustrated. Either way, the alias identification component  117  sends the collected aliases  103  and identities  105  to a centralized identity verification engine  121 . In addition, such information can but need not be stored locally on the client  113 . 
     The identity verification engine  121  receives identities  105  gleaned by the alias identification component(s)  117 , and determines whether the received identities  105  are accurate. To do so, when the identity verification engine  121  receives a reported identity  105  for a given alias  103 , it compares that reported identity  105  to all identities  105  previously reported for the same alias  103 . More specifically, the identity verification engine  121  retrieves all the identities  105  for that alias  103  that have been previously reported from the various parties using the parental control system  101 , and checks the currently received identity  105  against each of them for a match. Because a large number of users are reporting gleaned identities  105  for a large number of aliases  103 , it should often be the case that the identity verification engine  121  has access to a large sampling of previously reported identities  105  for a given alias  103  to which to compare the current identity  105 . Typically, the data is normalized for the comparison process, to account for short name forms (e.g., Jon for Jonathan, etc.), misspellings, and the like. 
     For each match, the likelihood that both the current identity  105  and the matching previously reported identity  105  are accurate increases. For this reason, the identity verification engine  121  increases an associated validation score. It is to be understood that the format to use for the instantiation of the validation score is a variable design parameter. For each mismatch between the current identity  105  and a previously reported identity  105  for the same alias  103 , the validation score is decreased. If the validation score drops below a set threshold, the identity verification engine  121  adjudicates that the current identity  105  is not accurate (and thus any previously reported identities  105  that match it are also false). In response to so determining, the relevant parent(s)  107  are notified, as described below. In any case, the identity verification engine  121  stores the currently received identity  105  in the alias identity database  119 , thereby adding it to the set of received identities  105 . 
     It is to be understood that the threshold to use in determining whether a given identity  105  is accurate is a variable design parameter, that can be set by, for example, an administrator, a parent  107 , the publisher of the parent control system  101 , etc. In some embodiments the threshold can be adjusted up or down as desired, depending upon the level of sensitivity desired in detecting potentially false identities  105 . 
     Reported identities  105  are stored in an alias identity database  119  (or other suitable storage mechanism), for later retrieval. For each reported identity  105 , the database  119  typically stores the alias  103  handle, the service (e.g. YIM, Skype) that the alias  103  resides on, any identifying information about the owner of the alias  103  (such as name, address, etc.), and a reference back to the parent  107  of the child  109  with which the reporting of the identity  105  originated. The identity  105  can simply comprise the first and last name of the owner of the alias  103 , but can also include other identifying information such as email address, phone number, high school attended, etc. 
     Where the relevant functionalities are executed on the server  115 , the association between alias  103  and identity  105  can be stored in a common server side database  119 . Where the identity  105  is collected and/or stored at the client  113 , gleaned identities  105  are reported to the server  115  for processing and storage, in addition to any local storage activity at the client  113 . 
     As explained above, once the validation score for a current or previously reported identity  105  falls below the threshold, the identity  105  is considered to be false. When a reported identity  105  is determined to be false, a notification component  123  informs the appropriate parent(s)  107 . The notification  125  can take the form of an event in the parental control system  101 , an email, an IM, a facsimile, an automated phone call, etc. The notification  125  typically includes the alias  103 , the contents of the false identity  105  (name, address, school, etc.), and the child  109  from whom the false identity  105  originated. The notification component can notify just the parent  107  of the originating child  109  for the current identity  105  adjudicated to be false, or the parents  109  of all children  103  from whom that identity  105  has originated at any time. Notifications  125  can be triggered by determining that a reported identity  105  is false and/or by attempts by children to report or otherwise use known false identities  105 . In any case, the true identity  105  is typically not reported to the parent(s)  107 , to protect the privacy of the alias&#39;s  103  owner. 
     In some embodiments, parents  107  may also view validation analysis data for each alias  103  with which their children  109  communicates, either through a parental control system  101  user interface, or via a password protected web site, etc. This allows a parent  107  to get a sense of whether an identity  105  is likely to be accurate, simply not known to be false, likely to be false, etc. Parents  107  can view validation level analysis data at any level of granularity: e.g., sense of certainty level, whether enough data to make a determination, etc. 
       FIG. 2  illustrates steps for detecting the use of a false identity  105  ( FIG. 1 ) by a child  109  ( FIG. 1 ), and the subsequent notification of the child&#39;s  109  ( FIG. 1 ) parents  107  ( FIG. 1 ), according to one embodiment of the present invention. As illustrated in  FIG. 2 , a child  109  ( FIG. 1 ) issues  201  a request to his parents  107  ( FIG. 1 ) to exchange IMs with a given alias  103  ( FIG. 1 ). The request includes the alias  103  ( FIG. 1 ) and what the child  109  ( FIG. 1 ) claims is the identity  105  ( FIG. 1 ) of its owner. This alias  103  ( FIG. 1 ) and associated identity  105  ( FIG. 1 ) are gleaned  203  by the alias identification component  117  ( FIG. 1 ) and passed  205  to the identification verification engine  121  ( FIG. 1 ). The identification verification engine  121  ( FIG. 1 ) retrieves  207  all previously reported identities  105  ( FIG. 1 ) for this alias  103  ( FIG. 1 ) and compares  209  them to currently received identity  105  ( FIG. 1 ). In this instance, the currently reported identity  105  ( FIG. 1 ) does not match the majority of previously reported identities  105  ( FIG. 1 ) for this alias  103  ( FIG. 1 ), so the identification verification engine  121  ( FIG. 1 ) adjudicates  211  that the currently reported identity  105  ( FIG. 1 ) is false. In response, the identification verification engine  121  ( FIG. 1 ) transmits  213  a notification  125  ( FIG. 1 ) to the parents  107  ( FIG. 1 ) of the child  109  ( FIG. 1 ) from whom the false identity ( FIG. 1 ) originated. 
     The present specification discusses embodiments of the present invention using the examples of parents  107  governing the IM activities of their children  109 . The terms parents  107  and children  109  as used herein are not limited to that specific literal relationship, but can encompass any two parties in which one party is responsible for controlling the electronic communication of the other (e.g., teachers and students, counselors and charges, employers and employees, etc.). Additionally, the electronic communication being governed is not limited to IM activity, but in other embodiments can comprise other formats, such as electronic chatting, e-mailing, etc. 
     As will be understood by those familiar with the art, the invention may be embodied in other specific forms without departing from the spirit or essential characteristics thereof. Likewise, the particular naming and division of the portions, modules, agents, managers, components, functions, procedures, actions, layers, features, attributes, methodologies and other aspects are not mandatory or significant, and the mechanisms that implement the invention or its features may have different names, divisions and/or formats. Furthermore, as will be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art, the portions, modules, agents, managers, components, functions, procedures, actions, layers, features, attributes, methodologies and other aspects of the invention can be implemented as software, hardware, firmware or any combination of the three. Wherever a component of the present invention is implemented as software, the component can be implemented as a script, as a standalone program, as part of a larger program, as a plurality of separate scripts and/or programs, as a statically or dynamically linked library, as a kernel loadable module, as a device driver, and/or in every and any other way known now or in the future to those of skill in the art of computer programming. Additionally, the present invention is in no way limited to implementation in any specific programming language, or for any specific operating system or environment. Furthermore, it will be readily apparent to those of ordinary skill in the relevant art that where the present invention is implemented in whole or in part in software, the software components thereof can be stored on computer readable storage media as computer program products. Any form of tangible computer readable storage medium can be used in this context, such as magnetic or optical storage media. As used herein, the term “computer readable storage medium” does not mean an electrical signal separate from an underlying physical medium. Additionally, software portions of the present invention can be instantiated (for example as object code or executable images) within the memory of any computing device. As used herein, the terms “client computer” and “server computer” simply mean one or more computers executing the described functionality. Accordingly, the disclosure of the present invention is intended to be illustrative, but not limiting, of the scope of the invention, which is set forth in the following claims.