IPcentral Weblog
  The DACA Blog

Friday, March 7, 2008

Young kids and rational messaging about online safety
(previous | next)

The debate over online child safety is just as heated abroad as it is here in the States. Over in the UK yesterday, according to this London Times article, Conservative Shadow Home Secretary David Davis...

attacked the Government for not doing enough to raise awareness among children of the dangers posed by cyber-crime, at a time when the threat was growing and criminals were using increasingly sophisticated methods to target their victims. “From e-mail to file-sharing, social networking to shopping, the internet is part of our lives. But we’re not the only ones to have migrated to this new communication platform,” Mr Davis told delegates at an e-crime conference in London. “The internet is a shopping mall for criminals, and for many of us it’s in the home that cyber-crime strikes. These days our real valuables are the personal details that are measured in megabites, rather than our belongings.”

Apparently, Mr. Davis and fellow conservatives have also argued that children as young as 5 years of age should be taught about the dangers of putting their personal details on the internet.

A few thoughts on this... First, I’m all for online safety education and media literacy, but shouldn’t we be teaching our kids basic literacy first? My six year old doesn’t even know how to spell “Internet” yet!

Second, as I argued in my book on parental controls and online child safety, for children below 6 years of age, parents generally have the media / Internet experience under much tighter control. At that age, parents have much more say over how and when kids use media or access the Net. In many cases, they need our help logging on or just using a keyboard. Those are wonderful “teachable moments,” of course, and we could use them to teach children to be careful online.

But we should also not go overboard and tell 5 year old kids, as Mr. Davis suggests, that “The Internet is a shopping mall for criminals.” That would make my kids OVERLY paranoid about both the Internet and shopping malls! There is a world of difference between teaching smart, savvy thinking about safety—both online and off—and engaging in fear-mongering and paranoia. Our messaging to kids needs to be based on rational, reasoned risk analysis—not the psychology of fear.

That being said, I applaud those in the UK who are focusing on education strategies--as opposed to regulatory policies--as the first, and most sensible, approach to addressing online child safety concerns.

posted by Adam Thierer @ 12:41 PM | Online Safety & Parental Controls

Share |

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly


I recently gave a talk before the Liverpool Safeguarding Children Board - it did not go down well. It appears that a Lawyer must either be an apologist or go along with the mainstream culture of fear.
Many in the audience did not seem concerned that they did not know what a blog was or had a SNS account.
It is time, I think, to 'constitutionlise' online child safety.
Adam - your book is on our module: Violation of Children in Cyberspace. The twist here is whether the violence is perpetrated by those who deny children access and privacy!

Posted by: JOSEPH SAVIRIMUTHU at March 14, 2008 2:10 PM

Post a Comment:

Blog Main
RSS Feed  
Recent Posts
  EFF-PFF Amicus Brief in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court Videogame Violence Case
New OECD Study Finds That Improved IPR Protections Benefit Developing Countries
Hubris, Cowardice, File-sharing, and TechDirt
iPhones, DRM, and Doom-Mongers
"Rogue Archivist" Carl Malamud On How to Fix Gov2.0
Coping with Information Overload: Thoughts on Hamlet's BlackBerry by William Powers
How Many Times Has Michael "Dr. Doom" Copps Forecast an Internet Apocalypse?
Google / Verizon Proposal May Be Important Compromise, But Regulatory Trajectory Concerns Many
Two Schools of Internet Pessimism
GAO: Wireless Prices Plummeting; Public Knowledge: We Must Regulate!
Archives by Month
  September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
  - (see all)
Archives by Topic
  - A La Carte
- Add category
- Advertising & Marketing
- Antitrust & Competition Policy
- Appleplectics
- Books & Book Reviews
- Broadband
- Cable
- Campaign Finance Law
- Capitalism
- Capitol Hill
- China
- Commons
- Communications
- Copyright
- Cutting the Video Cord
- Cyber-Security
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- Digital TV
- E-commerce
- e-Government & Transparency
- Economics
- Education
- Electricity
- Energy
- Events
- Exaflood
- Free Speech
- Gambling
- General
- Generic Rant
- Global Innovation
- Googlephobia
- Googlephobia
- Human Capital
- Innovation
- Intermediary Deputization & Section 230
- Internet
- Internet Governance
- Internet TV
- Interoperability
- IP
- Local Franchising
- Mass Media
- Media Regulation
- Monetary Policy
- Municipal Ownership
- Net Neutrality
- Neutrality
- Non-PFF Podcasts
- Ongoing Series
- Online Safety & Parental Controls
- Open Source
- PFF Podcasts
- Philosophy / Cyber-Libertarianism
- Privacy
- Privacy Solutions
- Regulation
- Search
- Security
- Software
- Space
- Spectrum
- Sports
- State Policy
- Supreme Court
- Taxes
- The FCC
- The FTC
- The News Frontier
- Think Tanks
- Trade
- Trademark
- Universal Service
- Video Games & Virtual Worlds
- VoIP
- What We're Reading
- Wireless
- Wireline
Archives by Author
PFF Blogosphere Archives
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.

The Progress & Freedom Foundation