There can be no doubt that the widespread use of devices, especially by children and young people, is causing a problem. Gavin Ellis posed the question in a recent blog post, “If there was a product that had the potential to cause your child serious and demonstrable harm, would you expect the government to place controls on it?”
The former Herald editor turned media researcher likens social media to a toxic chemical that can kill. He considers such platforms as Snapchat and Instagram carry much of the responsibility and he wants them declared publishers – subject to the same responsibilities and liabilities as the people who produce newspapers or broadcasts. The “safe harbour” provisions in the Harmful Digital Communications Act, protecting content hosts from liability for items posted by third parties, should not be available to online platforms, he says.
Online safety advocate Rob Cope takes a different path. Cope has been an educator in online safety since 2018. He has written books on mental health and been deeply concerned about rising rates of anxiety and depression among tweens and teens attributed to online harm.
Cope helps parents and caregivers understand the risks and offers practical safety solutions and guidance on building children’s emotional resilience.
He recently hosted a seminar in Cambridge that focused on educating parents about what they could do to protect their kids from online harm.
At the same time, he believes the government has a role to play. Cope has drafted a proposed Child Internet Safety Act for which he is seeking political support. His proposal states internet service providers must provide routers for residential internet connection that have built-in filtering devices for minors.
Second, retailers would be required to sell child-filtered SIM cards to under-18s and unfiltered cards to over-18s on proof of age.
Third, public network providers such as schools, libraries and internet cafes would have to ensure that all internet-connected devices provided to students are equipped with child-safe browsing settings by default, ensuring a secure and age-appropriate online experience. Any business, council or government entity providing public internet access would have to apply a child-safe browsing filter to their networks to protect minors from illegal and harmful content.
But Cope’s proposals do not stop there. Parents would have a duty of care to monitor their kids’ online activities (which hopefully is what responsible parents would do anyway).
Parents would be required to configure home networks and devices with secure access controls, such as passwords or PINs, to prevent unauthorised access to unfiltered content. This duty includes preventing circumvention of filtering measures and maintaining a safe digital environment at home. Parents would have to ensure their children had filtered SIM cards.
And there would be consequences. Parents who knowingly exposed children to illegal and harmful online content through negligence may be subject to counselling orders or civil penalties where harm is proven. If they fail to implement reasonable parental controls, including ensuring their children have a filtered SIM card, they may be subject to intervention by child welfare agencies.
The government has not been receptive to these ideas. Minister of Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden puts the responsibility on parents. She told the Herald decisions about internet use “are best made by parents, as each family is different”.
Cope’s proposals are driven by the best of intentions, but they go too far. They intrude upon the privacy of the home and the autonomy of parental decision-making. The surveillance state would become involved in parenting.
By all means, educate parents as to what they can do to make decisions for their kids. But don’t compel them.
David Harvey is a retired district court judge.
