Keeping children safe on the internet

Many parents are concerned about the sort of material which children can access over the Internet. Commonly this concern is addressed by adjusting the Content Filter on Internet Explorer, or by purchasing software that tries to recognise undesirable words and phrases, blocking the child from getting access to the URL (website address) in question. Examples of such software are well known and two of the most popular include Net Nanny and Cyber Patrol. However, the ultimate effectiveness of such programs has always been a moot point. It is easy to end up blocking innocent content – for example www.x-rate.com has nothing to do with adult movies but is in fact a perfectly legitimate foreign currency website. A variation on the theme has been the creation of some child friendly search services such as Ask Jeeves For Kids www.ajkids.com and Yahooligans www.yahooligans.com. The former site is, it seems, aimed at the under 10’s (unless your average teenager is truly interested in learning how to build a hot-air balloon using a disposable cup, Sellotape and string).

Website content monitoring is fine in so far as it goes, but there has been a growing realisation within the Internet community (for example www.internetcrimeforum.org.uk) and within governments around the world, that a greater and more insidious threat is posed by media allowing strangers virtually unsupervised contact with children, in a way that parents would never permit in “real life”. E-mail is relevant here but particular attention is now being paid to Internet relay Chat Groups. For the technical, Internet relay chat (IRC) consists of multiple servers connected to each other, and allows web-based “chat” which is as near as computers get to spontaneous exchanges of conversation between users. Chat facilities are either run on dedicated websites, or on individual home pages running a chat facility. IRC is not controlled by any organisation. It uses open standard software, which enables anyone with the requisite knowledge to write and operate an IRC program. At present it is estimated that there are over 150,000 IRC facilities available to UK users.

The media has now latched firmly on to the concept of “Internet chat grooming” by paedophiles and other undesirables pretending to be youngsters, the “at risk” group being mainly – though by no means exclusively – girls, between the ages of 13 and 17.

There are examples from around the world of legislative attempts to deal with the problem. For example the Canadian Criminal Code has been amended by a Bill that creates a new offence of “luring a child”. This criminalises the use of the computer system to communicate with a child for the purpose of facilitating a sexual offence against the child. The Bill also alters the Canadian court rules so that virtual appearances by counsel and parties are accepted in evidence together with the virtual examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Significantly (and especially relevant bearing in mind the efforts being made by the Law Society of Scotland in this regard) the Canadian Courts in such cases are now permitted to use and accept electronic documents and electronic signatures, including electronic affidavits and declarations made under oath or solemn affirmation.

In the United States, attempts to embody child protection provisions in legislation have encountered difficulty. The Child Online Protection Act was enacted in 1998 and prohibited any person from “knowingly, by means of the world wide web, making any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors [47 USC Section 231(a)(1)]. However, the definition of such material included the test of whether an average person “applying contemporary community standards would find that an image, taking the matter as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal or pander to prurient interests” [47 USC Section 231(e)(6)].  On May 13, 2002 the US Supreme Court overturned a ruling by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that the test rendered the Act unconstitutional under the First Amendment [Ashcroft v ACLU 535 US 2002 WL 970708 (2002)]. However, the reasoning applied by the various judges differed widely. But the court left in place a preliminary injunction, which barred the Government from enforcing the Act pending a final decision on the Plaintiff’s claims.

The House of Representatives also voted in July this year (by 318 votes to 8) to approve a revised version of the Child’s Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act, which in its revised version seeks to outlaw any computer generated image that is virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Justice Kennedy of the Supreme Court stated that the Act “also prohibits speech having serious redeeming value, describing the visual depiction of an idea (i.e. teenagers engaging in sex) that is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature for centuries.” Despite the enthusiasm of Congress for this sort of legislation therefore, further constitutional challenges are quite likely.

In the UK the extreme sensitivity of any matter involving the Internet and children was demonstrated during July of this year when it came to light that tens of thousands of English schoolchildren were being fingerprinted in school often without the consent of their parents, so that their fingerprints could be stored on computer and used for a library lending system. The makers of the technology, Micro-Librarian Systems say that it makes lending more efficient and less vulnerable to abuse. Simon Davies, of the campaign group Privacy International, on the other hand, has described the practice of fingerprinting children in this way as dangerous, illegal and unnecessary. Surprisingly, Peter Bloomfield, the Senior Compliance Manager at the office of the Information Commissioner (www.dataprotection.gov.uk), stated to the BBC:  “We don’t see there being an issue here – this is not all that different from having a photo library card except that in some respects it is safer as there is no danger at all of people accessing other people’s records.” According to the Data Protection Act, data processors can collect data that is “adequate, relevant and not in excess” of the purpose for which the data is gathered. However Davies remains unconvinced, claiming that it “Degrades children’s human rights and softens them up for initiatives such as ID cards and DNA testing – it is clearly a case of get them while they are young”.

Upon the view that self-help is often the best, it is with some pleasure that we can report Scotland to be at the forefront of efforts to make the Internet a safer place for children. With the assistance of funding from the European Commission under its Safer Internet Action Plan (www.qlinks.net/iap) a website entitled Safer Use of Services on the Internet (SUSI) has been established under the URL www.besafeonline.org. The website is multi-lingual and the “English” version is activated by clicking on the Saltire, lest there be any doubt about which jurisdiction is leading the way! Eleanor Coner of the Scottish Parent Teacher Association, which was involved in setting up the website, has stated “With so many scare stories in the press the reaction of some parents is not to let children use the Internet at all. However, we all teach our children to cross the road, even though it may be busy, so we decided to come up with a green cross code for the superhighway”.

The information contained on the SUSI website is parcelled up into bite sized chunks, and is written in commendably plain English. For example:

“Internet chat is a way for people to communicate live with each other by typing text messages which are seen immediately by everyone present in the online chat ‘room’. It is a sociable activity, and very popular with young people as a way of meeting and talking to friends and establishing relationships. It can be very positive for people who face discrimination in the real world, as those characteristics are not revealed online and they can deal with other people on an equal basis”.

Confused parents who are not so IT literate as their offspring may take advantage of the useful glossary as well.

Parents everywhere will echo that last sentiment. The subject of children and the Internet was due for discussion at the “Nothing but the Net” conference in early October and depending on reaction there may be a follow-up article on this important topic.

Paul Motion is a partner with Ledingham Chalmers and is the Convener of the Society’s Electronic Commerce Committee. This article represents a personal viewpoint.