1 / 20

Child protection or online censorship? Australian responses to Internet content regulation

Child protection or online censorship? Australian responses to Internet content regulation. Lelia Green Professor of Communications Edith Cowan University Western Australia. The take-home message for Australia. Use of EU Kids Online logo = EU Kids Online input

thaddeus-nicoli
Download Presentation

Child protection or online censorship? Australian responses to Internet content regulation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Child protection or online censorship? Australian responses to Internet content regulation Lelia Green Professor of Communications Edith Cowan University Western Australia

  2. The take-home message for Australia • Use of EU Kids Online logo = EU Kids Online input • Livingstone & Haddon 2009, p.40 • (* = Australian focus) • (*) No single ‘silver bullet’ to solve the challenges • ‘Road safety’ rules for kids’ internet use require: • Highway code rules for drivers, • Careful road builders, • *Law enforcers, • *Protective interface design, • Committed content and service providers, • *Online safety aids

  3. Australian Govt.’sNetAlert TV ad (Sept, 2007)

  4. Australian 2007 internet safety campaign • Building and responding to a ‘moral panic’ • Booklet to every household in Australia • Branded as from then-Prime Minister (John Howard) • Treated as if a solvable problem • Launched September 2007 • Election held November 2007

  5. 2007: Four major approaches ($183M) • National internet filter scheme ($84.8M) • Law enforcement and prosecution, mainly of predators via Australian Federal Police’s Online Child Sex Exploitation Team (ie chasing paedophiles) ($47.7M) • Increased regulation: investigation of sites complained about; challenging of material hosted overseas ($7.6M) • Program of support, education and awareness ($42.9M)

  6. Stranger danger focus • Australian cyber-predator legislation in 4 (of 6) states and 2 territories (NSW 2007) allows police ‘entrapment’ powers (Durber 2006) but ... • Finkelhor’s view (2008) is that “the -53% change in reports of sexual offences against children from 1992 to 2006 […] is both significant and real.” (Schrock & boyd 2008, p. 10)

  7. Kids’/Adults’ perspectives • Adults’ worries: porn; stranger danger; differ from ... • Kids’ worries: cyber bullying; identity abuse; spam (p. 51). • Risks are sometimes user-generated: users need education to be co-, self- and peer-regulators, and appropriate support to develop greater internet literacy (p.39). • (Bracketed page refs from Livingstone & Haddon, 2009)

  8. Lessons Australia could learn • Research gaps identified include evaluating different styles of mediation: • not just parents, • also technical solutions, • media literacy, • safety and awareness measures, and their impact on risk reduction • Complex variables in terms of age/county/culture (p.44) • Australia like: i) Northern Europe (early/extensive adoption); and, ii) Southern Europe (legislation rather than self-regulation)

  9. Kids’ reactions to parental and other controls EU Kids Online research argues that “children’s lives are often lived in the interstices of adult spaces and timetables, and that children may be expected to circumvent, evade or subvert adult expectations or norms for their behaviour” (Lobe et al 2007, p.17) Some kids will challenge restrictions.

  10. One young Australian’s response to NetAlert 16 year old Tom Wood began a public career as an online filter adviser by cracking the Australian Government’s Aus$84 million dollar NetAlert filter in just over 30 minutes, while leaving the filter bar intact to give the impression it was working. He also cracked the upgrade in 40 minutes. (Higginbottom & Packham 2007)

  11. Disabling Auatralia’sNetAlert: YouTube video

  12. Parents’ response • The Australian government estimated that 2.5M households would take up the NetAlert filters within 12 months • However, only 144,088 copies were downloaded • 6 months after launch there are estimates that only 29,000 copies are in use: less than 2% target (Gilmore 2008) • 80% of Australian parents ‘sometimes’ trust their children’s judgement on internet use (ACMA 2007, p.13): 60% ‘usually’ do.

  13. Critically useful information from EU • Kids’ coping strategies and longer consequences of exposure to risk are unknown (p.43) • Identification of Conduct, Content and Contact risks, and risk- behaviour linked to gender (boys more conduct risk; girls more content and contact risks) (p.3) • Research rarely focuses on the benefits to children of internet access and use (p.18)

  14. Changes in risk over time (diagram = teens) • Indications that perceptions of risk change with length of exposure eg growing awareness of conduct risks and cyberbullying in Northern Europe, which achieved mass internet access earlier than elsewhere (p. 17) (Is Australia stuck?) • Ranking of risk incidence (p. 23), eg teens: revealing personal info (50%); seeing porn (40%); exposure to violence/hate (33%); being bullied (20%); meeting strangers (9%) • 15-20% teens = distress, discomfort, threatened

  15. Australia’s current $125.8M cybersafety plan • Announced May 2009 (Conroy 2009a) • 305-person Youth (11-17) Advisory Group • Law enforcement, including 91 extra Australian Federal Police officers • Education and information measures • Resources such as help-lines and websites • ISP-level content filtering • Consultative arrangements with industry, child protection bodies, and • Research to identify possible areas for further action.

  16. New cyberbullying research focus • Mainly an international literature review at this stage • Includes online predator risk & disclosure of personal info • Commissioned by Australian Government , February 2009 (Conroy, 2009b) • Led by Professor Donna Cross, Edith Cowan University

  17. ISP-level filtering • Stephen Conroy: “Unfortunately, many parents do not have the technical skills or knowledge to install and manage PC-level filters. ISP-level filtering could provide important protection for those families with limited technical expertise.” (Crozier 2009) • 90% of Australians oppose ISP internet filters (Carlisle 2009) • Live trials progressing

  18. GetUp! campaign

  19. Review of Australian response to online risks • Little evidence of networking with other countries and groupings, eg EU, US, to address an international problem • Blurring of boundaries around online child pornography, child victims of sexual abuse & concerns re kids’ online activities • Evidence of evolving agenda, eg. SNSs, cyberbullying focus, but maybe also evidence of a fixed response (filter it)? • Willing to break new ground: but at what price? “In the name of protecting children, the government plans to build a machine which will make us the first Western democracy to censor the internet.” (Crozier 2009)

  20. Civil libertarians are concerned about ISP-level filtering: but some teens and satirists can’t wait

More Related