CRINmail 1436
In this issue:
Problems viewing this CRINmail? Click here.
CHILDREN AND DIGITAL RIGHTS
The revelations by former CIA contractor Edward Snowden of the extent of internet and telephone surveillance by the US and British intelligence services brought home the gravity of threats to the human rights of ordinary citizens, including children, in the digital realm. These span the right to privacy, freedom of expression and even the right to life and liberty, depending on how the information gathered is used. Some of these issues were central concerns at a recent event on civil freedoms in the digital age attended by the UN expert on the right to freedom of expression and opinion, David Kaye.
Of concern, however, is that the human rights debates around such questions are often divorced from those around child-specific threats, such as online abuse. This is in spite of the fact that child protection arguments rank alongside counter-terrorism as a justification for censorship. This separation in advocacy efforts is apparent in the clash in timetable of a debate held on 12 September 2014 by the UN Human Rights Council on the right to privacy in the digital age and another with the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on digital media and children’s rights. As human rights advocates we need to mount a joint defence.
To start this conversation, we have compiled a breakdown of pressing digital rights issues, including those that affect the population as a whole - and their relevance to children and their advocates - and those with child-specific dimensions, and how they relate to all of us.
We welcome comments and information about campaigns at [email protected]
Free and equal access
Fast lanes, slow lanes
Addressing any children's rights issue in the digital realm first and foremost requires that citizens, including children and their advocates, have free and equal access to the internet. This means we should be concerned not only about physical and economic barriers, but also about who controls access to the internet. For instance, some companies are attempting to restrict free and equal access to the internet by lobbying to abolish the principle of “net neutrality” on which it was built. This principle means that all data should be treated equally whether it comes from a big company or a small NGO. Without net neutrality, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) would be free to create so-called “fast lanes”, which would allow fee-paying websites to offer their users a faster connection, meaning websites that cannot afford to pay would load so slowly as to be unusable. Not only would this create a system of preferential treatment based purely on fee payments; it would also affect internet users’ access to all websites, including those of small or local NGOs.
Take action:
Trading away digital rights
Leaked details of a draft international trade agreement reveal ominous provisions on the free flow of information - the cornerstone of our work as children’s rights advocates. The Trade In Services Agreement (TISA), which is currently being negotiated by 24 members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) - including the European Union and United States, will establish global rules on the internet, circumventing transparency and accountability of national parliaments. The latest draft indicates that the TISA would prohibit democratically-elected parliaments from enacting limits on the "free flow of information" to protect the privacy of their citizens, says the Electronic Frontier Foundation. It would prohibit laws that require service providers to host data locally, which some countries have used to protect sensitive personal information, such as health data, from being snooped on in foreign jurisdictions. It would stop countries from enacting free and open source software mandates. And it would establish a set of global rules on net neutrality - the principle on which the internet is based (as defined above). There are arguments for and against some of these provisions, but the fact that they are being decided behind closed doors (not to mention their incomprehensible language) stifles essential public debate. Take action.
The 'fishbowl' version of the internet
In a related development, in 2014, Facebook launched Internet.org - a project that brings together technology companies, NGOs and local communities to create and distribute a set of free basic tools and services to parts of the world where they are less affordable. So far this initiative has been rolled out in a number of African, Asian and Latin American countries. While this may sound like a great project, in practice it curbs the right to information. The zero rating proposal means that people with fewer economic resources will have free access to only a fraction of the internet's resources - a fraction decided by the companies involved, with the backing of the governments they work with. Any additional services carry a charge. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation puts it: this cuts people off from the vast "ocean" which is the internet, confining them to a "fishbowl" version. This approach has specific implications for children as the internet is increasingly relied on for their education and development. Alternatives include building the infrastructure for high speed internet in remote areas, providing assistance with computer equipment and internet access costs, and ensuring children have the space and time to use the internet. Read European Digital Rights’ open letter to Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook.
The right to privacy
Surveillance
We are all increasingly being told we are living in a surveillance society - ostensibly to ensure our security. But schools in some countries are using the same protection rationale to hire software monitoring firms to collect sensitive information on their students, with the idea that this will prevent another school massacre. In doing so they are putting children’s personal data in the hands of for-profit companies, with no guarantees about how this information will be used. Examples in which schools have installed software to collect and retain data on their students include “anti-radicalisation” software which flags up certain trigger words such as “jihadi bride” and “YODO”, short for you only die once, laptop cameras which have been used to detect drugs, and for unspecified reasons (para. 50). Not only does this breach children's right to privacy, it instils a culture of self-censorship because students perpetually feel like they are being watched. Children's online activities are also monitored by parents with concerns about their safety. However, a study by the Royal College of Psychiatrists cautions against this, suggesting such tactics can exacerbate the situation of children who self-harm, conveying that they are not to be trusted. The Institute instead recommends the benefits of building trust through open communication and support. See the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance.
Right to be forgotten
Children may not be aware that information they post is available worldwide, out there forever, with consequences in the immediate or long-term. Children should as far as possible have control over this information, with their informed consent obtained before any transfer of data is made. It should be possible to have information removed from a given site on request, with respect for confidentiality. This is in line with the ‘right to be forgotten’ as determined by the European Court of Justice. This means a person can request Google to remove their name from a particular name search, although the associated document will still be available. This is currently only an option for Google search results within the European Union (EU), except in cases of ‘revenge porn’, for which Google has said it will consider requests worldwide. A broader draft EU regulation, which builds on the 1995 Data Protection Act, provides that individuals should be able to request companies to remove the original data, and includes special protections for children (see the general approach and European Parliament's first reading). The age of a person at the time of posting should be a criterion in all requests to remove information. It is also questionable whether decisions about these requests should be in the hands of private companies.
Limits on tools for protecting online communications
The internet is the way many people, including children, develop ideas, explore aspects of their identity, and push for change in their society. But censorship, targeted surveillance, digital attacks on and repression of civil society, journalists and individuals persecuted for any number of reasons, all necessitate the use of anonymous expression and encryption tools (these scramble data so that only the intended recipient may access it). However, the use of these tools is often restricted to enable governments to access data on individuals or groups to combat criminality and terrorism. Many States also provide no general protection in law of anonymous expression, requiring users to register their real names with online platforms, or imposing responsibilities on third parties like Internet Service Providers to regulate online activity by anonymous users. All these restrictions enable governments to collect and retain personal records and conduct surveillance. This increases the potential for theft and disclosure of all individuals' information. In a new report, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and of expression has confirmed that the use of encryption tools and anonymity are protected under the right to privacy and freedom of expression.
Tools:
Freedom of expression
Children are producers as well as consumers of content, and are using the internet as a tool to campaign for democracy and human rights, whether by joining existing actions or taking the lead. But in many places they have been repressed with the same force as adults in these efforts. In addition, there are cases in which children have been punished by schools for posting harmless information about themselves in jest, even when this takes place off school grounds, and involves the school in no other way. For instance two high school girls in Indiana, US, were suspended from their volleyball team and other extracurricular activities for posting photos of themselves with 'phallic-shaped rainbow colored lollipops' at a slumber party. A federal judge found that the photos and the girls’ behaviour were protected by the First Amendment. In addition to refraining from violating children's right to freedom of expression and assembly online, States have positive obligations to encourage children to develop their own media, and to ensure that all forms of media are accessible to children. This should include their participation in online public consultations on matters of public policy.
Access to information
Firewalling children's rights
Much of the controversy around children and the internet is rooted in a genuine desire to protect children. But some countries such as the United Kingdom are responding to online risks by pressuring Internet Service Providers to institute blanket filters which block websites containing material they consider unsuitable for all under-18s. These 'family friendly filters' require subscribers to actively opt out. They go beyond illegal material to encompass “objectionable” material and are widely reported to block all kinds of websites, including those with material on sex education, politics and advocacy, support groups for alcohol and suicide. It is the ISPs making the decisions about how and which sites to block. Not only do these filters cloud transparency, they provide a false sense of security to adults who wish to avoid awkward conversations. They also ignore the fact that the age group 0-18 covers a wide range of skills and competencies. Furthermore, these filters carry certain privacy risks for adults, for instance, the parent is recorded as opting out of a filter that also blocks pornography. Moves are now afoot to spread this practice throughout Europe.
Separate online platforms for children
Some countries have proposed creating separate online platforms for children, cordoning off their access to large areas of the internet. In 2012, the Russian parliament proposed creating a “filtered internet” for children which would only host content provided by certain types of organisation - state and public organisations, manufacturers and sellers of children's products and services, and those whose work relates directly to children. Turkey has proposed creating a “Children’s Twitter” for children aged 5 to 13 and discourage them from using other sites. However, children will need their parents’ permission to register, and parents can control their children’s online activities - and all real-time conversations, digital games, messaging, written and visual materials will be monitored by a pedagogical team. Critics of the project have asserted that children must be provided with the skills to analyse content and instead target abusive behaviour by adults.
Child protection
Cyberbullying
Cyberbullying has triggered concerns because of its inescapability - it does not abate when children are in the privacy of their own home - and its potential anonymity, both of which have been factors in child suicide cases. Data from EU Kids Online's study of 33 European countries suggests that 21 percent of 11-16 year olds have been exposed to one or more types of potentially harmful user-generated content: hate (12 percent), pro-anorexia (10 percent), self-harm (7 percent), drug-taking (7 percent) or suicide (5 percent). The risk of cyberbullying has been presented as a reason to limit children’s access to the internet, but such limits are not necessarily the most effective response. For example, children distinguish bullying from other forms of online conflicts they describe as "drama", a nuance not necessarily picked up on by parents, which could suppress children's ability to deal with what they see as a normal social situation themselves. Where problems are encountered, experts recommend that parents never threaten to restrict children's access to technology, as it may prevent them from starting a dialogue and reporting abuse. They instead suggest supporting children with knowledge about how to protect themselves online, by changing their privacy settings and reporting abuse. In addition, it should not be forgotten that many adults are also victims of online harassment and bullying. (For more on children who carry out cyberbullying, see the section on criminalisation of children’s online activities below.) Read CRIN’s forms of violence page on bullying.
Sexual violence
Children’s heightened vulnerability to sexual abuse in the online environment as a result of the challenges of regulating constantly evolving technologies, the blurring of traditional boundaries of privacy, and a lack of knowledge. has understandably attracted attention at all levels. Data suggests that 1 in 12 children in Europe have met an online contact offline, though this is rarely harmful according to children. Children should be protected online. They should be able to access information appropriate to their age and circumstances about options to report anything illegal or harmful, and receive support from the adults around them to manage their risks online and off. This should involve drawing on children's own views and experiences. Attempts to protect children should be balanced with their right to access information: they should not be seen as opposing goals.
Internet 'addiction'
Concerns are emerging over the amount of time children spend online to the detriment of their wellbeing and offline relationships (e.g. South Korea and China). But some of the solutions practised have instigated more rights abuses than they have addressed: these have included long periods in rehabilitation centres, electroshock therapy and surveillance, for instance in 2010 the government of South Korea announced it would require gaming companies to monitor the national identity numbers of their players, which include the age of individuals, with the option for parents to be notified when their child’s number was used. To ensure respect for all children's rights, efforts should be made to encourage children’s well rounded development, ability to form relationships offline and ensure their right to play - indoors and out - from a young age. Some commentators have pointed out that children's heavy use of the internet in the first place is partly a response to limits imposed on their outdoor activities by adults - curfews, because of fear of predators, pollution or a lack of consultation with children in urban planning, among other reasons.
Criminalisation of online activities
Children may find themselves criminalised for their online activities. The phenomenon of 'sexting' is seeing teenagers being prosecuted and treated as sex offenders for manufacturing and possessing child pornography. This may happen even in the context of a relationship and in some cases, where they are over the age of consent, but have not yet reached the age of majority. This may include being registered as a sex offender for life, truncating their development. Children who carry out cyberbullying may also be dealt with through criminalisation rather than through anti-bullying policies which encourage probing the causes of their behaviour (often learnt from adults, who may play a role in bullying or encourage it through discrimination or failure to intervene), and working with children to manage their use of technology, with the aim of encouraging, rather than diminishing, their respect for themselves and other people. Read tips for dealing with cyberbullying effectively.
Conclusion
We do not have all the answers: there are very real risks associated with websites spurring children - and adults, for that matter - into self harming, terrorism and suicide (in fact the mainstream media has strict guidelines on how to report suicide because of fears of its contagious effect), but blanket censorship is not the answer. It is not the role of States, parents or schools to stifle or spy on children, but instead to guide them to think critically. This supports, rather than suppresses, their ability to play a role in their own protection. We have become apostles to sensationalist media reports of 'stranger danger', but as children's rights advocates we need to address the full range of children's rights in the digital context, of which protection is one element. Ensuring children's rights online is not only fundamental to guaranteeing all other civil and political rights for children; it is the foundation of the rule of law and democracy for all.
Back to top
NEWS IN BRIEF
Juvenile justice
Discrimination and equality
Privacy and education
Immigration detention and transparency
Freedom of expression & access to information
Exploitation and child poverty
Back to top
ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR CHILDREN IN JAMAICA
Jamaica has ratified but not incorporated the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) into its domestic law, and courts do not directly refer to the CRC in their rulings. Nevertheless, children, with the assistance of their "next friend", can bring cases to court challenging violations of their rights, including actions for redress for breaches of their constitutional rights, judicial review of administrative decisions, civil claims, and private prosecutions. The Office of the Children's Advocate, and other groups or bodies with a sufficient interest in the matter, may also bring proceedings on behalf of a child or in the public interest. Several obstacles to access to justice exist in Jamaica. The testimony of children under the age of 14 is only admissible if they are deemed to be of "sufficient intelligence" and, in criminal trials, must be corroborated by "other material evidence" to convict the accused. The Jamaican court system also suffers from a growing backlog of cases, and trials in many cases are delayed for years.
Read the full report on access to justice for children in Jamaica.
This report is part of CRIN's access to justice for children project, looking at the status of the CRC in national law, the status of children involved in legal proceedings, the legal means to challenge violations of children’s rights and the practical considerations involved in challenging violations.
Back to top
UPCOMING EVENTS
Equality: Consultation on the future Welsh Government funding framework for equality and inclusion
Organisation: Welsh Government
Deadline: 10 July 2015
Location: N/A
Armed conflict: Call for papers - ‘Child soldiers - an early warning indicator of mass atrocities’
Organisation: Roméo Dallaire Child Soldiers Initiative
Submission deadline: 15 August 2015
Child labour: The Nairobi Global Conference on Child Labour
Organisation: African Network for the Prevention and Protection against Child Abuse and Neglect
Date: 23-25 August 2015
Location: Nairobi, Kenya
Child indicators: ‘From Welfare to Well-being - Child indicators in research, policy & practice’
Organisation: International Society for Child Indicators
Date: 2-4 September 2015
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Education: E-course on on the right to education
Organisations: HREA and the Right to Education Project
Dates: 2 September-13 October 2015
Location: Online
Child abuse: European Regional Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect
Organisation: International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect
Dates: 27-30 September 2015
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Monitoring: Training workshop on monitoring children’s rights
Organisation: Human Rights Education Associates
Dates: 15-17 October 2015
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Health: Conference on child rights and sight
Organisation: Distressed Children & Infants International
Dates: 24 October 2015
Location: New Haven, United States
Asia Pacific: 10th Asian Pacific Regional Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect
Organisation: International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect
Dates: 25-28 October 2015
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Course: Child participation
Organisation: Human Rights Education Associates
Dates: 28 October - 8 December 2015
Location: Online
Course: Children’s rights (Foundation Course)
Organisation: Human Rights Education Associates
Dates: 28 October-8 December 2015
Location: Online
Back to top
EMPLOYMENT
CRIN: Communications Intern (French-speaking)
Application deadline: Rolling deadline
Location: London, United Kingdom
CRIN: Legal research internships (Arabic-speaking)
Application deadline: Rolling deadline
Location: London, United Kingdom
Coram Children’s Legal Centre: International Research Assistant
Application deadline: 27 July 2015
Location: London, United Kingdom
European Roma Rights Centre: Legal Trainee
Application deadline: 31 July 2015
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Save the Children Sweden: Area Manager for Darfur - Sudan
Location: El Geneina, Sudan
Application deadline: 7 August 2015
GOOD NEWS
The good news is that Amos Yee, a teenage blogger from Singapore who was convicted of uploading an obscene image of the country's first prime minister and of upsetting Christians online, has been released from prison after a four-week sentence.
The not so good news is that his convictions, which the UN called "disproportionate", still stand. But Yee's lawyer confirmed that his client intends to appeal against his convictions and sentence.
In the meantime, we'll leave you with Yee's Facebook post from 2 June:
"I know that my views can influence people, I know that my voice is powerful, and I should never be afraid of using it, especially when the primary aversion to my voice is formed by an unjust and corrupt Government. But really my fellow viewers, you have a voice too, you always had a voice, and I urge everyone to never doubt the power of what a voice of just a single individual can hold."
Back to top
|
|
