In my ongoing work on technopanics, I’ve frequently noted how special interests create phantom fears and use “threat inflation” in an attempt to win attention and public contracts. In my next book, I have an entire chapter devoted to explaining how “fear sells” and I note how often companies and organizations incite fear to advance their own ends. Cybersecurity and child safety debates are littered with examples.

In their recent paper, “Loving the Cyber Bomb? The Dangers of Threat Inflation in Cybersecurity Policy,” my Mercatus Center colleagues Jerry Brito and Tate Watkins argued that “a cyber-industrial complex is emerging, much like the military-industrial complex of the Cold War.” As Stefan Savage, a Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of California, San Diego, told The Economist magazine, the cybersecurity industry sometimes plays “fast and loose” with the numbers because it has an interest in “telling people that the sky is falling.” In a similar vein, many child safety advocacy organizations use technopanics to pressure policymakers to fund initiatives they create. [Sometimes I can get a bit snarky about this.]

That Economist story cites new research by scholars who are dispassionately evaluating the actual evidence and finding that data about cybercrime is often exaggerated and skewed in various ways, often by proponents of greater government regulation — as well as greater government funding for their companies or organizations. Again, we’ve seen this at work for many years in the child safety arena, too. In my book, I discuss the online “predator panic” that many child safety groups blew completely out of proportion in past years.

So, next time you hear such folks advocating increased government regs and funding, ask them what they personally have to gain from it.  Chances are, quite a lot.

Additional reading:

• Prophecies of Doom & the Politics of Fear in Cybersecurity Debates (8/8/11)

[NOTE: The following is a template for how to script congressional testimony when invited to speak about online safety issues.]

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you inviting me here today to testify about the most important issue to me and everyone in this room: Our children.

There is nothing I care more about than the future of our children. Like Whitney Houston, “I believe the children are our future.”

Mr. Chairman, I remember with fondness the day my little Johnny and Jannie came into this world. They were my little miracles. Gifts from God, I say. At the moment of birth, my wife… oh, well, I could tell you all about it someday but suffice it to say it was a beautiful scene, with the exception of all the amniotic fluid and blood everywhere. I wept for days.

Today my kids are (mention ages of each) and they are the cutest little angels on God’s green Earth. (NOTE: At this point it would be useful for you to hold up a picture of your kids, preferably with them cuddling with cute stuffed animals, a kitten, or petting a pony as in the example below. Alternatively, use a picture taken at a major attraction located in the Chairman’s congressional district.)

So, let me be clear: I love my children. And I will do anything to keep them safe. I hope you will, too.

That’s why I am here today to testify in favor of H.R. 1776, “The Keep our Innocent Darlings Safe Act.” The “KIDS SAFE” bill is essential if we love our children and care about their future. It would take sensible steps to shield them from the many evils of the world around us, especially the dangerous villains who haunt the Internets.

Let me tell you about those evils fiends.

Predators are everywhere, I tell you.  At any given second, their hands could reach right through the computer screen and abduct our kids. It could happen, I tell you.  But we mustn’t allow it if we love our children. That’s why we ask you to support “CyberCop,” or proposal to have trained law enforcement officers who visit everyone’s home once a year just to see how everyone is doing and to warn the kiddies about the dangers of the Net.

Then there’s all the smut and nasty talk online.  Who’s going to help me clean it up? If we love our children, we must. That’s why I hope you’ll support our new software tool, “CyberScrubber,” which will sanitize the Net and make it safe for our children.  We’d like to see all ISPs forced to install this software once you’ve mandated our solution as the law of the land. We can make them a very generous deal for bulk installments.

And let’s not forget about the vilest wretches of them all: Advertisers! These nefarious scum are trying to do the unthinkable: Convince our kids to buy their products. We all know what happens next. Little Johnny and Jannie will put a gun to Mom and Dad’s head and force them to drive right to the store to buy whatever it is their innocent little eyes have seen online. There’s no stopping them once the commercial devil has corrupted their souls, I tell you! Thus, we propose a ban on online ads and jail time for any online company who tries to produce free websites that are powered by commercial messages.

Sure, some will say all this is a matter of personal and parental responsibility, but… (NOTE: At this point it is important to deflect any thought in the minds of the Committee that parental responsibility has a role to play here. Find a crafty way of telling the Committee that, in essence, parents are naïve dopes who don’t really know how to raise their own children or what’s in their best interest. Sure this contradicts your overall message that everybody loves and cares about their own kids, but remember: YOU care about them even more!)

I propose we give parents a helping hand. They can’t do it alone. Uncle Sam needs to sitting right beside them for the ride.

That’s why I favor the proposal in the KIDS SAFE Act to create a new federal Office of Humanity, Child Love, & Adolescent Protection (OH-CLAP).

OH-CLAP should be generously funded and fully staffed with trained child development experts and others like me who profess a profound passion for loving children. By spending billions of taxpayer dollars and regulating all online speech and commerce, we can prove to the world how much more we Americans love our children.

I beg you to not listen to those nattering nabobs of negativism who raise pesky questions about technical implementation, constitutional limitations, or fiscal constraints. Clearly, these people just don’t love the children.

Intentions are all that matter here. Neither our Constitution nor technical feasibility should stand in the way of us doing all in our power to protect the fragile, impressionable minds of our children.

In closing, let me again reiterate — as I have the previous four dozen times you have invited me here to testify — the importance of fully funding groups like mine that truly care about the children. Thanks to the tireless work and dedication of Congressmen ____ and ___, my organization was able to secure another $90 million grant through an earmark in the latest Department of Defense authorization bill.

While we greatly appreciate this support, this is $10 million less than the $100 million we asked for as part of our “100 Million Ways to Love the Little Lads” crusade last year. Stated differently, children will feel $10 million dollars less loved this year because of this scandalous funding shortfall.

So, if this Congress really loves the children, we’d ask that you step up your support for us, and groups like ours—but mostly us—so that we can adequately protect our kids from various online evils. (NOTE: Consider mentioning predators again to close things out.)

For the sake of the children, the time to act is now!

Thank you, and God Bless the Children.

Attachment: Invitation to annual “Kids Love Fest” celebration where we will honor the latest “Loving Lawmaker of the Year” award winners.

The European Commission has a new report out today on “Implementation of the Safer Social Networking Principles for the EU.” It’s a status report on the implementation of “Safer Social Networking Principles for the EU“, a “self-regulatory” agreement the EC brokered with 17 social networking sites and other online operators back in 2009. (Co-regulatory would be more accurate here, since the EC is steering, and industry is simply rowing.) The goal was to make the profiles of minors more private and provide other safeguards.

Generally speaking, the EC’s evaluation suggests that great progress has been made, although there’s always room for improvement. For example, the report found that “13 out of the 14 sites tested provide safety information, guidance and/or educational materials specifically targeted at minors;” “Safety information for minors is quite clear and age-appropriate on all sites that provide it, good progress since the first assessment last year; “Reporting mechanisms are more effective now than in 2010;” and most sites have improved Terms of Use that are easy for minors to understand and/or a child-friendly version of the Terms of Use or Code of Conduct; and many “provide safety information for children and parents which is both easy to find and to understand.” Again, there’s always room for improvement, but the general direction is encouraging, especially considering how new many of these sites are.

Unfortunately, Neelie Kroes, Vice President of the European Commission for the Digital Agenda, spun the report in the opposite direction. She issued a statement saying:

I am disappointed that most social networking sites are failing to ensure that minors’ profiles are accessible only to their approved contacts by default. I will be urging them to make a clear commitment to remedy this in a revised version of the self-regulatory framework we are currently discussing. This is not only to protect minors from unwanted contacts but also to protect their online reputation. Youngsters do not fully understand the consequences of disclosing too much of their personal lives online. Education and parental guidance are necessary, but we need to back these up with protection until youngsters can make decisions based on full awareness of the consequences.

This position is misguided, as explained below. But here’s the crucial point: What this Kroes statement once again proves is that, ultimately, every major public policy debate about online privacy and child safety comes down to a question of where to set the defaults and who should set them. Rarely, however, do policymakers or regulatory advocates acknowledge the downsides associated with mandating highly restrictive defaults from the top down.

Back in 2008, I penned a paper on “The Perils of Mandatory Parental Controls and Restrictive Defaults” in which I argued that, “Government regulation mandating restrictive parental control defaults for media devices would likely have unintended consequences and would not achieve the goal of better protecting children from objectionable content, whereas increased consumer education efforts would be more effective in helping parents control their child’s media consumption.” The general point was that if government defaulted all sites and/or devices to be in a “locked-down” state right out of the gates, it would mean products and services would, in essence, be shipped to market in a crippled state.  This would have a variety of unintended consequences, including consumer confusion and such restrictions would discourage the maximum amount of utility / experimentation associated with those products and services.

The same is true of highly restrictive privacy defaults. How are you even to network with others and make new friends if everything is private by default? Worst of all is the fact that the EC seems to want websites to make it practically impossible for minors to even search for each other. That’s increasingly how users of all ages connect with their real world acquaintances, for whom they may have no other contact information. Isn’t the point of social networking to be social and share more? If a child or a parent doesn’t like that openness, why isn’t it sufficient that they be empowered to change that setting on their own?  Why must the law mandate it by default and tell them what is supposedly best for them?

Nicklas Lundblad & Betsy Masiello made a similar point in their important recent essay on “Opt-In Dystopias.” They noted that more formal opt-in consent models may involve many trade-offs and downsides that need to be considered relative to opt-out models, which are currently more prevalent online. “The decisions a user makes under an opt-in model are less informed” they argue, because “the initial decision to opt-in to a service is made without any knowledge of what value that service provides,” and, therefore, “under an opt-in regime a decision can probably never be wholly informed.” They continue: “If instead of thinking about privacy decisions as requiring ex-ante consent, we thought about systems that structured an ongoing contractual negotiation between the user and service provider, we might mitigate some of these harmful effects.”

The crucial point here is that choice should lie with the consumer and not be set from above. Companies should empower the consumer — including kids — with more and better tools and then let them decide what their privacy settings should be. Government need not “nudge” consumers or companies in paternalistic ways based upon the values of unelected bureaucrats. Most importantly, policymakers should not not conflate “privacy by design” with privacy by default. Let experimentation continue and let consumers make these determinations for themselves.

I’m currently plugging away at a big working paper with the running title, “Argumentum in Cyber-Terrorem: A Framework for Evaluating Fear Appeals in Internet Policy Debates.” It’s an attempt to bring together a number of issues I’ve discussed here in my past work on “techno-panics” and devise a framework to evaluate and address such panics using tools from various disciplines. I begin with some basic principles of critical argumentation and outline various types of “fear appeals” that usually represent logical fallacies, including: argumentum in terrorem, argumentum ad metum, and argumentum ad baculum.  But I’ll post more about that portion of the paper some other day. For now, I wanted to post a section of that paper entitled “The Problem with the Precautionary Principle.” I’m posting what I’ve got done so far in the hopes of getting feedback and suggestions for how to improve it and build it out a bit. Here’s how it begins…

________________

The Problem with the Precautionary Principle

“Isn’t it better to be safe than sorry?” That is the traditional response of those perpetuating techno-panics when their fear appeal arguments are challenged. This response is commonly known as “the precautionary principle.” Although this principle is most often discussed in the field of environment law, it is increasingly on display in Internet policy debates.

The “precautionary principle” basically holds that since every technology and technological advance poses some theoretical danger or risk, public policy should be crafted in such a way that no possible harm will come from a particular innovation before further progress is permitted. In other words, law should mandate “just play it safe” as the default policy toward technological progress.

The problem with that logic, notes Kevin Kelly, author of What Technology Wants, is that because “every good produces harm somewhere… by the strict logic of an absolute precautionary principle no technologies would be permitted.”^[1] Or, as journalist Ronald Bailey has summarized this principle: “Anything new is guilty until proven innocent.”[2] Under an information policy regime guided at every turn by a precautionary principle, digital innovation and technological progress would become impossible because trade-offs and uncertainly would be considered unacceptable.

This is why Aaron Wildavsky, author of the seminal 1988 book, Searching for Safety, spoke of the dangers of “trial without error” as compared to trial and error.  Wildavsky argued that:

The direct implication of trial without error is obvious: if you can do nothing without knowing first how it will turn out, you cannot do anything at all. An indirect implication of trial without error is that if trying new things is made more costly, there will be fewer departures from past practice; this very lack of change may itself be dangerous in forgoing chances to reduce existing hazards. … [E]xisting hazards will continue to cause harm if we fail to reduce them by taking advantage of the opportunity to benefit from repeated trials.[3]

Simply stated: Life involves and requires that some level of risk be accepted for progress to occur. While some steps to anticipate or control for unforeseen circumstances and “plan for the worse” are sensible, going overboard forecloses opportunities and experiences that offer valuable lessons for individuals and society. University of Chicago legal scholar Cass Sunstein, who currently serves as Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has argued that “If the burden of proof is on the proponent of the activity or processes in question, the Precautionary Principle would seem to impose a burden of proof that cannot be met.”[4]

Importantly, Wildavsky pointed out that the precautionary principle also downplays the important role of resiliency in human affairs. Through constant experimentation, humans learn valuable lessons about how the world works, which risks are real versus illusory or secondary, and how to assimilate new cultural, economic, and technological change into our lives.  A rigid precautionary principle would disallow such a learning progress from unfolding and leave us more vulnerable to the most serious problems we might face as individuals or a society. “Allowing, indeed, encouraging, trial and error should lead to many more winners, because of (a) increased wealth, (b) increased knowledge, and (c) increased coping mechanisms, i.e., increased resilience in general.”[5]

Recent work by Sean Lawson, an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Utah, has underscored the importance of resiliency as it pertains to cybersecurity. “Research by historians of technology, military historians, and disaster sociologists has shown consistently that modern technological and social systems are more resilient than military and disaster planners often assume,” he finds.[6] “Just as more resilient technological systems can better respond in the event of failure, so too are strong social systems better able to respond in the event of disaster of any type.”[7]

Resiliency is also a wise strategy as it pertains to Internet child safety issues, online privacy concerns, and online reputation management. Some risks in these contexts – such as underage access to objectionable content or the release of too much personal information – can be prevented through anticipatory regulatory policies. Increasingly, however, information proves too challenging to bottle up. Information control efforts today are greatly complicated by five phenomena unique to the Information Age: (1) media and technological convergence; (2) decentralized, distributed networking; (3) unprecedented scale of networked communications; (4) an explosion of the overall volume of information; and (5) unprecedented individual information sharing through user-generation of content and self-revelation of data. “The truth about data is that once it is out there, it’s hard to control,” says Jeff Jonas, an engineer with IBM.^[8]

This is why resiliency becomes an even more attractive strategy compared to anticipatory regulation. Information will increasingly flow freely on interconnected, ubiquitous digital networks and getting those information genies back in their bottles would be an enormous challenge. Moreover, the costs of attempting to control information will exceed the benefits in most circumstances. Consequently, a strategy based on building resiliency will focus on education and empowerment-based strategies that allow for trial and error and encourage sensible, measured responses to the challenges posed by technological change.

[ Note: I next plan to go on to discuss several case studies and outline the sorts of education and empowerment-based strategies that I believe represent the better approach to coping with technological change.]

[UPDATE Feb. 2012: This little essay eventually led to an 80-page working paper, “Technopanics, Threat Inflation, and the Danger of an Information Technology Precautionary Principle.”]

In this essay, I will suggest that (1) while “moral panics” and “techno-panics” are nothing new, their cycles seem to be accelerating as new communications and information networks and platforms proliferate; (2) new panics often “crowd-out” or displace old ones; and (3) the current scare over online privacy and “tracking” is just the latest episode in this ongoing cycle.

What Counts as a “Techno-Panic”?

First, let’s step back and define our terms. Christopher Ferguson, a professor at Texas A&M’s Department of Behavioral, Applied Sciences and Criminal Justice, offers the following definition: “A moral panic occurs when a segment of society believes that the behavior or moral choices of others within that society poses a significant risk to the society as a whole.” By extension, a “techno-panic” is simply a moral panic that centers around societal fears about a specific contemporary technology (or technological activity) instead of merely the content flowing over that technology or medium. In her brilliant 2008 essay on “The MySpace Moral Panic,” Alice Marwick noted:

Technopanics have the following characteristics. First, they focus on new media forms, which currently take the form of computer–mediated technologies. Second, technopanics generally pathologize young people’s use of this media, like hacking, file-sharing, or playing violent video games. Third, this cultural anxiety manifests itself in an attempt to modify or regulate young people’s behavior, either by controlling young people or the creators or producers of media products.

While protection of youth is typically a motivating factor, some techno-panics transcend the old “It’s For the Children” rationales for information control. What all panics share in common, however, is a general desire by the public, media pundits, and policymakers to “do something” to rid ourselves of the apparent menace. Thus, an effort to control the particular content or technology in question is what really defines a true “panic.”

It’s impossible to be scientific about this but there seems to be a cycle of such moral panics or techno-panics at work in our society.  Indeed, looking back over the past few decades, it seems that we experience a new panic roughly every 3 to 5 years. Consider this chronological breakdown of some notable techno-panics since the 1980s on:

• mid-1980s: music lyrics and music videos
• early to mid-1990s: violent video games
• mid- to late 1990s: Internet porn
• late 1990s to early 2000s: browser cookies + kids privacy
• mid-2000: TV & movie violence
• mid- to late 2000: online predators / “stranger danger”
• late 2000s to present: cyberwar
• late 2000s to present: online privacy / web “tracking”

Of course, there were other “mini-panics” that occurred during this stretch and, again, some of them did not involve child safety rationales. There was a brief panic over RFID chips and even the Y2K scare in the late 1990s, for example. Some might argue we also had a bit of panic with copyright and file-sharing back in the early 2000s, and perhaps even one back in the early 1980s when the VCR came on the scene, although that seemed to be more industry-driven. Wireless geo-location and geo-tagging has also been getting more attention recently and still may blossom into a full-blown techno-panic.   And you could make the case that we experienced a different type of techno-panic last year over the supposed “Death of the Web,” although few took that one all that seriously.

Why Do Techno-Panics Pass?

To be clear, there are no clear boundaries with techno-panics.  They do not just suddenly begin and end, and it is impossible to gauge their relative severity since no metric or yardstick exists to measure them against.  Nonetheless, these techno-panics certainly seem to have peaks and valleys in terms of public / political / media attention.

Just a few years ago, for example, the online predator panic reached a fever pitch and “stranger danger” reports were all over the media. As a result, legislation banning social networking sites in publicly funded schools and libraries was introduced, and state attorneys general proposed mandatory online age verification schemes for the Internet to segregate adults and children online. And then, it seems, the fever passed. I couldn’t tell you exactly what week or month it happened — and in many ways some of those fears still exist out there — but it’s clear that the panic about online predation has subsided greatly. I’d like to think that education and awareness helped debunk some of the myths that were fueling that particular panic, just as I’d like to believe that education and awareness helped deflate the fear bubbles that surrounded previous panics.

While I don’t want to entirely discount that possibility, I’m convinced another more cynical explanation may exist: New techno-panics simply crowd-out old techno-panics. There may be several explanations for this:

• Perhaps there is only so much fear-mongering our minds can handle at any given time.
• Perhaps it is becuase the media gets myopically focused on one panic and then hammers it till all the fear has been squeezed out of it such that they have to move on.
• Perhaps it is because a new technology comes along that spooks politicians and the media even more than the previous one they were demonizing.
• Or perhaps all of those factors combine to limit the duration of panics.

Regardless, it seems evident that moral panics and techno-panics have always been with us and will always be with us. From the waltz to rock and roll to rap music, from movies to comic books to video games, from radio and television to the Internet and social networking websites — every new media format or technology spawns a fresh debate about the potential negative effects it might have on society or our kids in particular. An excellent recent report by the U.K. government entitled Safer Children in a Digital World noted that “New media are often met by public concern about their impact on society and anxiety and polarisation of the debate can lead to emotive calls for action.” Indeed, each of the media technologies or communications platforms mentioned above was either regulated or threatened with regulation at some point in its history.

The Cycle is Accelerating but is the Severity of Each Panic Diminished as a Result?

However, it seems like these cycles are now accelerating somewhat.  They peak and fizzle out faster, that is. Perhaps that is a natural outgrowth of the technological explosion we have witnessed in recent years.  Digital innovation is unfolding at a breakneck pace and each new development gives rise to a new set of concerns. Going forward, this could mean we experience more “mini-panics” and fewer of those sweeping “the-world-is-going-to-hell” type panics.

This brings me to the current debate over online advertising, web “tracking,” and personal privacy. What’s interesting about this debate is that, unlike many of the other moral or techno-panics mentioned above, this debate is not being driven by the mantra that “It’s For the Children.”  Today’s privacy panic reflects a more widespread unease with the notion that our digital footprints are somehow being “tracked” for nefarious purposes.  In reality, there isn’t anything nefarious going on here at all. Online sites and service providers are simply using data collection to improve our web experience and better target ads to us in an attempt to cross-subsidize all that wonderful free stuff we enjoy online today. This is truly one of the great pro-innovation, pro-consumer success stories of modern times.  Yet, irrational fears about data collection and targeted marketing have given rise to the second major privacy techno-panic of the past dozen years. (Again, the first privacy-related panic was the “cookie craze” that took place back in the late-90s but then subsided). It is also somewhat ironic that many of the same people and groups who have done yeoman’s work debunking techno-panics in other contexts are driving this modern privacy panic.

I want to make it clear that I am not oblivious to the fact that there are occasionally some legitimate concerns behind some of these moral panics or techno-panics.  For example, I certainly don’t want my young children (ages 9 & 6) viewing hard-core porn, playing extremely violent video games, or even reading graphic comics. And I understand that some forms of personal information are quite sensitive and a legitimate topic for policy discussions.  But, again, these concerns are typically greatly over-hyped, and to the extent that they represent more legitimate concerns, I would argue that education and empowerment-based solutions typically represent a more sensible approach than regulation. Although I sometimes question whether the “harm” that people fear is legitimate, I would hope we could work together to find more sensible ways to address people’s concerns without calling for comprehensive control of the media, content, technology, or the Internet more generally.

Resiliency, Responsibility & Common Sense

Finally, in these discussion, I believe many people overlook the importance of human adaptability and resiliency.  The amazing thing about humans is that we adapt so much better than other creatures. When it comes to technological change, resiliency is hard-wired into our genes.  “The techno-apocalypse never comes,” notes Slate’s Jack Shafer, because “cultures tend to assimilate and normalize new technology in ways the fretful never anticipate.” We learn how to use the new tools given to us and make them part of our lives and culture.  Indeed, we have lived through revolutions more radical than the Information Revolution.  We can adapt and learn to live with some of the legitimate difficulties and downsides of the Information Age. [See my recent book chapter on, “The Case for Internet Optimism, Part 1: Saving the Net From Its Detractors.”]

A healthy does of humility, patience, personal responsibility, and good ‘ol common sense will usually get us through these things. Quite literally, there is no need to panic!

Related Reading

• Techno-Panic Cycles (and How the Latest Privacy Scare Fits In)
• Against Techno-Panics
• Collier on “Why Technopanics are Bad”
• Kids, Media, Commercialism & Moral Panic
• The Next Great Technopanic: Wireless Geo-Location / Social Mapping
• Technopanics and the Great Social Networking Scare
• Sen. Klobuchar Stirs Up Facebook Child Safety Technopanic
• A Rarity: Newspaper Argues Against Techno-panic, Cites Constitution
• Google Street View/Wi-Fi Privacy Technopanic Continues
• Digital Sensors, Darknets, Hyper-Transparency & the Future of Privacy

David Burt, who runs the “GetParentalControls.org,”  is one of America’s leading experts on parental control technologies, and he has just released the Parental Controls Product Guide: 2010 Edition. It’s an absolutely amazing resource for parents and academic researchers alike. I’ve spent a lot of time researching this marketplace and authored an ongoing report on Parental Controls & Online Child Protection, and I have served on several child safety task forces, including the new Online Safety Technology Working Group (OSTWG). So I’m quite familiar with the research in this field and I can say that this is one of the most important and useful resources I have come across in the past several years.  Well done, David!

Parental Controls Product Guide 2010 http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf

The Internet is massive. That’s the ‘no-duh’ statement of the year, right?  But seriously, the sheer volume of transactions (both economic and non-economic) is simply staggering.  Consider a few factoids to give you a flavor of just how much is going on out there:

• In 2006, Internet users in the United States viewed an average of 120.5 Web pages each day.
• There are over 1.4 million new blog posts every day.
• Social networking giant Facebook reports that each month, its over 300 million users upload more than 2 billion photos, 14 million videos, and create over 3 million events. More than 2 billion pieces of content (web links, news stories, blog posts, notes, photos, etc.) are shared each week. There are also roughly 45 million active user groups on the site.
• YouTube reports that 20 hours of video are uploaded to the site every minute.
• Amazon reported that on December 15, 2008, 6.3 million items were ordered worldwide, a rate of 72.9 items per second.
• Every six weeks, there are 10 million edits made to Wikipedia.

Now, let’s think about how some of our lawmakers and media personalities talk about the Internet.  If we were to judge the Internet based upon the daily headlines in various media outlets or from the titles of various Congressional or regulatory agency hearings, then we’d be led to believe that the Internet is a scary, dangerous place. That ‘s especially the case when it comes to concerns about online privacy and child safety. Everywhere you turn there’s a bogeyman story about the supposed dangers of cyberspace.

But let’s go back to the numbers. While I certainly understand the concerns many folks have about their personal privacy or their child’s safety online, the fact is the vast majority of online transactions that take place online each and every second of the day are of an entirely harmless, even socially beneficial nature.  I refer to this disconnect as the “problem of proportionality” in debates about online safety and privacy. People are not just making mountains out of molehills, in many cases they are just making the molehills up or blowing them massively out of proportion.

Go back to those Facebook numbers, for example. 300 million users uploading 2 billion pieces of content each week, plus 45 million user groups.  Now, how many “incidents” do you hear about in the course of an entire year involving privacy and child safety on Facebook? A couple? A dozen?  I doubt it’s that many, but for the sake of argument, let’s be preposterous and say the number of incidents is 10,000.  Doing some quick math: 10,000 “incidents” divided by 2 billion pieces of content shared each week = 0.001%   In other words, there would need to be hundreds of thousands of privacy or child safety “incidents” taking place on Facebook each week before one could legitimately claim the trend was statistically significant in proportion to the total volume of transactions.

Of course, there’s no way to be scientific about this since I can’t crunch the numbers to get an exact calculation for Facebook or the entire Internet since it’s hard to even define or collect info about online “incidents.” And this is not to say there are never any incidents online where some harm might come to an individual or a child.  Defining “harm” can be contentious, however, especially when it comes to what I regard as the conjectural theories about advertising or provocative media content “harming” us or our kids.

Of course, others could claim that the sheer volume of information that we put online about ourselves is problematic for a variety of other reasons. The best argument about potential harm coming of all this information being online is that the sheer volume of data sharing and collection opens up the door to identify theft, or that some government agencies could get their hands on it and use it to do nasty stuff to us.  That first problem can be a legitimate one, and deserves more attention and greater consumer education. But that latter problem should be addressed by putting more constraints on our government(s), not by imposing more regulations on the Internet. Government powers should be tightly limited when it comes to monitoring the habits of websurfers or collecting information about them.

Nonetheless, it is my contention that an infinitesimal percentage of all daily online transactions and interactions involve serious privacy violations or harm to children.  Until they can prove otherwise, we need to demand that our policymakers and folks in the press put these issues into some perspective before they jump to conclusion about online life.  Enough of the fear-mongering and techno-panics!

Just read this AP article that reported on a Tuesday hearing of the Ohio Supreme Court about an Ohio “harmful to minors” law. According to the article, the statute makes it illegal to distribute harmful material to minors through “direct communications by people who know or have reason to believe the recipient is a minor.”

The case is in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has asked the Ohio Supreme Court to interpret “mass distribution” and “personally directed devices.” Per the law:

2) A person remotely transmitting information by means of a method of mass distribution does not directly sell, [etc.] … if either of the following applies: (a) The person has inadequate information to know or have reason to believe that a particular recipient of the information or offer is a juvenile. (b) The method of mass distribution does not provide the person the ability to prevent a particular recipient from receiving the information.

In the hearing (see the video) Justice Robert Cupp coins this beauty of a statement:  “It’s not really the statute that’s confusing here, it’s the technologies.” Judge say what?

Isn’t the whole point of a statute to be applied to factual situations? Anything can make sense in the abstract (even law!). But applied to everyday life, the simplistic becomes complex — and can have unintended consequences.

Such is especially true with laws that regulate Internet communications. The Ohio AG is attempting to narrow the statute by saying it applies only in situations where a speaker (1) directly communicates the harmful material, (2) knowing or has reason to know the recipient is a minor, and (3) the speaker has control over the medium — ie. not applicable to general broadcasting (forums or chat rooms) but applicable where publishers can exclude or limit the audience (direct email).

Are these limitations enough to not cover legitimate communications on the Internet? The Plaintiff, American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, wants an exemption for the Internet. I generally think that it is best to not bifurcate the Internet and non-Internet worlds, particularly when we think of child safety issues (digital natives see the Internet as an extension of everyday life much more than us old fogies).

Media Coalition has a page dedicated to the case here. Stay tuned.

Yesterday up on Capitol Hill, I hosted a very interesting discussion about “Next-Generation Parental Controls & Child Safety Efforts.”  I thought I’d provide a quick recap here for those who couldn’t attend. [Note: audio of the event will be up shortly at the link above and transcript is in the works.] The event featured Steve Crown, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel of Microsoft Corporation’s Entertainment & Devices Division; Dane Snowden, Vice President of External & State Affairs of CTIA – The Wireless Association; and Stephen Balkam, Chief Executive Officer of Family Online Safety Institute.

Steve Crown of Microsoft kicked the show off with a terrific overview of some the current and next-generation parental control tools and awareness efforts that Microsoft is deploying to help empower parents and keep kids safer both online and in gaming environments. Crown outlined Microsoft’s 5-prong strategy regarding how they have approached these issues on the gaming front, and I think it represents an excellent model of how sensible industry self-regulation and “best practices” can go a long way toward addressing concerns that many parents and policymakers have. The five strategies Crown outlined were: (1) Respect both the freedom of game creators and freedom of choice for game consumers; (2) empower parents with ratings, tools, and information; (3) use independent ratings (like the ESRB) to label content; (4) require all games be rated before they can be used on a platform so that parents can implement blocking controls; and (5) respect regional laws and rating systems in different parts of the globe.

In my book on Parental Controls & Online Child Safety: A Survey of Tools & Methods, I’ve documented many of the empowerment tools that Microsoft has deployed in recent years to make this empowerment vision a reality. One of the most important things MS does on its XBox 360 console is to provide an immediate “out-of-the-box” prompt for parents to set up parental controls and establish other limitations on online chat, spending, or Internet access. Microsoft announced another cool new feature in November 2007, the “Family Timer.” It lets parents limit how and when children play games on the console. This is similar to the time management tools Microsoft offers in its Vista operating system for PCs.  Incidentally, my wife has asked me to start using the Family Timer on our XBox — not for our kids, but for me!  This particular 40-year-old man is still a big kid at heart.

Crown also stressed the importance of “deep cooperation and coordination” when it comes to making parental empowerment a reality.  For example, when announcing the Family Timer, Microsoft also launched a new awareness campaign in conjunction with the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) referred to as the “Is Your Family Set?” campaign At the same time, Microsoft and the PTA also rolled out a new “P.A.C.T.” agreement form that parents and their children could sign to reach an agreement on acceptable video game usage in the home.

To bring all these efforts together and give parents a sort of “one-stop shop” for all these gaming tools and information, in early 2009, Microsoft launched a new portal, “Get Game Smart.com.”  The GetGameSmart site provides instructions and video tutorials about how to set up parental controls and family settings, tips and advice from child safety experts, a frequent newsletter, and much more.

Again, “cooperation and coordination” was central to the Get Game Smart effort, with over 15 partners being involved. Moreover, Crown pointed out, cooperation and coordination has also been essential to the efforts of Microsoft and others in the gaming industry when it comes to “point of sale” awareness-building about game ratings.  Obviously, game developers and console makers can’t have staff on hand at every store where games or consoles might be sold. Consequently, it often falls to sales clerks and others in retail stores to convey ratings info.  Luckily, because of the partnerships that have been struck between various stakeholders all along the food chain, public awareness and use of ratings has grown rapidly. Microsoft, the ESRB, and others in the gaming industry have worked with retailers like Best Buy, WalMart, and many online vendors to make sure relevant ratings information is used at the point of sale to inform parents or limit underage access to games rated for more mature audiences.

The chart below illustrates the dramatic increase in ratings use and awareness since 1999 — from 49% awareness in 1999 to 86% by 2008.  That’s an incredible success story in terms of how industry self-regulation and best practices can go all long way toward addressing the concerns of parents and policymakers without denying the public access to a broad range of games for all ages.

Also on hand at our Hill event yesterday was Dane Snowden of the CTIA – The Wireless Association. Snowden also stressed the importance of partnerships and coordination among many diverse players to build awareness about parental controls and online safety in the mobile context. Snowden pointed out that there are well over 600 different mobile communications devices on the market today, which makes devising controls a daunting task. But both the wireless industry and independent vendors are responding with a wave of new integrated tools and add-on services that can help parents control handset use and online interactions.

For example, beginning in November 2005, CTIA unveiled new “Wireless Carrier Content Guidelines” that industry members would follow “to proactively provide tools and controls to manage wireless content offered by the carriers or available via Internet-enabled wireless devices.  According to an April 2009 filing by CTIA to the FCC, the guidelines work as follows:

Under these guidelines, participating carriers agree to develop content classification standards and educate consumers about the meaning of the chosen categories and ratings. The Notice describes the bifurcation in these content classification guidelines between “Carrier Content” and content available from other sources. The guidelines for Carrier Content cover materials that are available through a carrier’s managed content portal as well as third-party materials for which customers may be billed directly by their wireless carrier. These materials are divided into “Generally Accessible Carrier Content,” which is available to all consumers, and “Restricted Carrier Content,” which is not available to wireless users under 18 years of age without specific parental authorization.

Many major wireless carriers have already announced their plans or policies regarding such content or developed family tools to help parents protect their children. Market leaders AT&T (“SmartLimits” and “Media Net”),Verizon Wireless (“Family Locator”), T-Mobile (“Web Guard”), and Sprint (“Net Safety“) already have excellent parental control services and websites up and running.

Dane Snowden also noted that a vibrant marketplace of independent parental control tools is now thriving on many platforms, including Apple iTunes apps and Windows Mobile apps. Thus, just as was the case in the traditional PC world, we can expect to see parental control tools integrated within networks and devices and then also on top of networks and devices. That’s the best of both worlds since it gives parents a lot of flexibility and options.

Finally, my old friend Stephen Balkam of Family Online Safety Institute placed all these developments in a broader historical context. He believes we are finally seeing a shift from a “fear-based approach” to online safety toward a “fact-based approach.” Balkam cited the early fears and techno-panics that motivated misguided and ultimately unconstitutional laws such as the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and the Child Online Protection Act of 1998. He also pointed out just how irrelevant such laws would have been even if they had remained on the books in light of the recent rise of problems like cyberbullying and “sexting.”

To address such concerns, Balkam stressed the importance of media literacy and digital citizenship and the need for a “Web 3.0” approach along the lines of what Anne Collier and Larry Magid have outlined in their work on the issue. Balkam also put in a plug for the “School and Family Education about the Internet (SAFE Internet) Act” (S. 1047), which was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and in the House by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL). The measure proposes an Internet safety education grant program that would be administered by the Department of Justice.  Balkam argued, and I agree, that such education and counseling-based approaches represent the better approach to a “criminalization” solution.

In closing, I think the 3 key take-aways from yesterday’s discussion were:

1. Cooperation and coordination are essential when devising parental control solutions and trying to build awareness of them.
2. Additional parental empowerment tools are great, but focusing on striking the right balance is crucial.  Parental empowerment tools must be both sophisticated and simple to use at the same time.
3. Education is absolutely essential in every child safety context. Whether it’s potentially objectionable content or unwanted forms of communications, we must talk to our kids and better prepare them for life in the Digital Age.  The best “parental control” is parental interaction and ongoing conversation with our kids.

On July 27th, The Progress & Freedom Foundation hosted a Capitol Hill panel discussion entitled “Online Child Safety, Privacy, and Free Speech: An Overview of Challenges in Congress & the States.” The event featured remarks from:

• Parry Aftab, Executive Director, WiredSafety.org
• Todd Haiken, Senior Manager of Policy, Common Sense Media
• Jim Halpert, Partner, DLA Piper
• Berin Szoka, Senior Fellow, The Progress & Freedom Foundation

We’ve just released the transcript of the event, which I have also pasted down below the fold in a Scribd document reader. Also, the audio for this event can be heard by clicking below:

Download mp3

Here is the full event description:

Online child safety, privacy, and free speech remain hotly debated issues at both the federal and state level. Bills introduced in Congress to address cyberbullying concerns propose either educational initiatives or a criminalization approach. Access to objectionable content also remains a concern and a new, government-mandated task force is looking into those issues. Meanwhile, state officials, including many state attorneys general, continue to explore age verification mandates for social networking sites and some have considered building on the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) to expand “parental notification” mandates. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has recently announced an expedited review of COPPA to see if it is keeping up with new developments. The FTC is also exploring child safety in virtual worlds. New concerns about “sexting,” or the sending of sexual explicit images over mobile devices, has also raised new concerns led some lawmakers to ponder penalties.

How serious are these concerns? Is legislation or regulation needed to address them? What free speech issues are at stake? Should Congress take the lead or leave it to the States to experiment with different models? These and other issues were discussed by a panel of leading experts in the field of online safety and privacy policy.

Transcript PFF Online Child Safety Privacy Hill Event (7-27-2009) http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=18756666&access_key=key-1blb7az1ag406howibuk&page=1&version=1&viewMode=

An Illinois bill to ban convicted sex predators from social networking sites (HB 1314) is now law. Gov. Pat Quinn signed the bill yesterday. Even if predation on social networking sites is very rare, we certainly prefer to see efforts that target bad actors instead of tech mandates or age verification requirements. Given the broad definition of “social networking website” in the law, the ban might apply to many types of Internet sites.

Definition:

“Social networking website” means an Internet website containing profile web pages of the members of the website that include the names or nicknames of such members, photographs placed on the profile web pages by such members, or any other personal or personally identifying information about such members and links to other profile web pages on social networking websites of friends or associates of such members that can be accessed by other members or visitors to the website. A social networking website provides members of or visitors to such website the ability to leave messages or comments on the profile web page that are visible to all or some visitors to the profile web page and may also include a form of electronic mail for members of the social networking website.

by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka — (Ver. 1.0 — Summer 2009)

We are attempting to articulate the core principles of cyber-libertarianism to provide the public and policymakers with a better understanding of this alternative vision for ordering the affairs of cyberspace. We invite comments and suggestions regarding how we should refine and build-out this outline. We hope this outline serves as the foundation of a book we eventually want to pen defending what we regard as “Real Internet Freedom.” [Note:  Here’s a printer-friendly version, which we also have embedded down below as a Scribd document.]

I. What is Cyber-Libertarianism?

Cyber-libertarianism refers to the belief that individuals—acting in whatever capacity they choose (as citizens, consumers, companies, or collectives)—should be at liberty to pursue their own tastes and interests online.

Generally speaking, the cyber-libertarian’s motto is “Live & Let Live” and “Hands Off the Internet!”  The cyber-libertarian aims to minimize the scope of state coercion in solving social and economic problems and looks instead to voluntary solutions and mutual consent-based arrangements.

Cyber-libertarians believe true “Internet freedom” is freedom from state action; not freedom for the State to reorder our affairs to supposedly make certain people or groups better off or to improve some amorphous “public interest”—an all-to convenient facade behind which unaccountable elites can impose their will on the rest of us.

B.  Application in Social & Economic Contexts

The cyber-libertarian draws no distinction between social and economic freedom when applying this vision:

• Social Freedom: Individuals should be granted liberty of conscience, thought, opinion, speech, and expression in online environments.
• Economic Freedom: Individuals should be granted liberty of contract, innovation, and exchange in online environments.

Cyber-libertarians also argue that social and economic freedoms are inextricably intertwined:  It is not enough to support liberty of action in one sphere; foreclosing freedom in one sphere will eventually affect freedom in the other.

C.  How “Code Failures” Are to Be Addressed

The cyber-libertarian believes that “code failures” (the digital equivalent of so-called “market failures”) are better addressed by voluntary, spontaneous, bottom-up, marketplace responses than by coerced, top-down, governmental solutions.   From a practical perspective, the decisive advantage of the market-driven approach to correcting code failure comes down to the rapidity and nimbleness of those responses.  Stated differently, cyber-libertarians have a strong aversion to the politicization of technology issues and efforts to replace market processes with bureaucratic processes.

Importantly, the cyber-libertarian defines “markets” broadly to include monetary and non-monetary transactions as well as proprietary and non-proprietary modes of production.  To be clear, collaborative, non-proprietary technologies and efforts ( e.g., Wikipedia and open source software) are not at odds with cyber-libertarianism.  But the cyber-libertarian does reject the notion these models are the only acceptable model or that they should be imposed on us by law.  The proper policy position with regards to the “open vs. closed” or “proprietary vs. non-proprietary” debate should be one of techno-agnosticism.  Lawmakers and courts should not be tilting the balance in one direction or the other.

More generally speaking, instead of seeking to define or impose a single utopian vision, the cyber-libertarian seeks to enable what libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick called a “Utopia of Utopias:” a framework within which many different models of organizing commerce and community can flourish alongside, and in competition with, each other.

D.  General Relationship to “Internet Exceptionalism”

Internet exceptionalists are first cousins to cyber-libertarians:  They believe that the Internet has changed culture and history profoundly and is deserving of special care before governments intervene.  [See Section IV for an expanded discussion.]

II. The Intellectual Foundations of Cyber-Libertarianism

A.  Traditional Libertarian Philosophy

• Natural Rights philosophers –John Locke, Ayn Rand, The Founders
• Utilitarian philosophers – John Stuart Mill (On Liberty), Herbert Spencer
• “Austrian School” of Economics – Ludwig von Mises, F.A.  Hayek, Murray Rothbard
• Milton Friedman (Free to Choose)
• Robert Nozick – argument for a minimalist state; “utopia of utopias” notion
• Thomas Sowell – critique of “The Vision of the Anointed”
• Richard Epstein – vision of “Simple Rules for a Complex World

B.  Modern Cyber-Libertarian Theorists

• Ithiel de Sola Pool (Technologies of Freedom)
• Alvin Toffler (The Third Wave , Future Shock)
• George Gilder (Microcosm , Telecosm)
• Peter Huber (Law & Disorder in Cyberspace)
• Tom W.  Bell
• Technology Liberation Front bloggers

C.  Internet Exceptionalists[see Sec.  IV below]

• Nicholas Negroponte (Being Digital)
• John Perry Barlow (“Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace”)
• David Post
• Eric Goldman
• H.  Brian Holland

III. The Contrast with Cyber-Collectivism

A.  Cyber-Collectivism Defined

Cyber-collectivism is the opposite of cyber-libertarianism.  Cyber-collectivism refers to the general belief that cyber-choices should be guided by the State or an elite class according to some amorphous “general will” or “public interest.”  The distant influence of Plato, Rousseau, and Marx can often been seen in the work of cyber-collectivists.

Cyber-collectivism comes in many flavors, however.  “Left”-leaning cyber-collectivists, for example, are more focused on social concerns than economic ones.  Some “Right”-leaning cyber-collectivists are focused on controlling the impact of the Internet on culture or security.  In other words, cyber-collectivism is not as philosophically coherent as cyber-libertarianism—which, though it comes in many flavors, shares a larger core of common agreement

B.  General Relationship to “Information Commons” Movement

There is a close relationship between the Leftist variant of cyber-collectivism and the “digital commons” or “information commons” movement, which generally refers to the belief that digital resources should be shared or perhaps commonly owned instead of held privately—both because cyber-collectivists think this is more equitable and because they generally think such arrangements will ultimately work better.

Cyber-collectivists are typically not Marxists; few of them call for state ownership of the information means of production.  Rather, cyber-collectivists might better be thought of a “cyber social Democrats” (in a European sense) or “Digital New Dealers” (in the American tradition).  They advocate a generous role for law and regulation in many online matters, but do not typically resort to full-blown nationalization.

C. Exponents of Cyber-Collectivism

Some notable cyber-collectivists or information commons adherents (and their key works):

• Lawrence Lessig (Code , Free Culture)
• Tim Wu (Who Controls the Internet?)
• Yochai Benkler (The Wealth of Networks)
• Jonathan Zittrain (The Future of the Internet & How to Stop It)
• David Bollier (Viral Spiral)
• Harvard Berkman Center*
• New America Foundation*
• Public Knowledge*

(*We are, of course, generalizing a bit here. Not everyone in these institutions is a cyber-collectivist and, again, there are many flavors of cyber-collectivism, just as there are many flavors of cyber-libertarianism. Individuals in some of these organizations diverge significantly in attitudes towards technological change and the proper scope of government influence throughout the high-tech sector.)

IV. Relationship Between Cyber-Libertarianism & Internet Exceptionalism

Some non-libertarians occasionally join ranks with cyber-libertarians out of a belief that the Internet is different and deserving of special consideration and care. This is commonly referred to as “Cyber-Exceptionalism” or “Internet Exceptionalism.” John Perry Barlow’s 1996 “Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace” was probably the earliest (and most extreme) articulation of “Internet Exceptionalism”:

Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather. We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. You have neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you. You do not know us, nor do you know our world. Cyberspace does not lie within your borders. Do not think that you can build it, as though it were a public construction project. You cannot. It is an act of nature and it grows itself through our collective actions. You have not engaged in our great and gathering conversation, nor did you create the wealth of our marketplaces. You do not know our culture, our ethics, or the unwritten codes that already provide our society more order than could be obtained by any of your impositions. You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems don’t exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own Social Contract. This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.

Similarly, in 1994, The Progress & Freedom Foundation brought together four leading technology visionaries (Esther Dyson, George Gilder, George Keyworth, and Alvin Toffler) to pen A Magna Carta for the Knowledge Age. In that manifesto, the authors argued:

Cyberspace is the land of knowledge, and the exploration of that land can be a civilization’s truest, highest calling. The opportunity is now before us to empower every person to pursue that calling in his or her own way. The challenge is as daunting as the opportunity is great. The Third Wave has profound implications for the nature and meaning of property, of the marketplace, of community and of individual freedom. As it emerges, it shapes new codes of behavior that move each organism and institution—family, neighborhood, church group, company, government, nation—inexorably beyond standardization and centralization, as well as beyond the materialist’s obsession with energy, money and control. Turning the economics of mass-production inside out, new information technologies are driving the financial costs of diversity—both product and personal—down toward zero, “demassifying” our institutions and our culture. Accelerating demassification creates the potential for vastly increased human freedom. It also spells the death of the central institutional paradigm of modern life, the bureaucratic organization. (Governments, including the American government, are the last great redoubt of bureaucratic power on the face of the planet, and for them the coming change will be profound and probably traumatic.)

As that last paragraph suggests, this “Magna Carta” for cyberspace contained some hints of cyber-libertarian thinking, but the general thrust of the document was more generally of the Internet Exceptionalist school of thought.

Internet Exceptionalists are sometime critiqued for sounding like techno-utopians, but it is a mistake to conflate the two. There are not always synonymous.

V. Cyber-Libertarianism’s Early Legal Foundations & Victories

• Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 is probably the best example of cyber-exceptionalism in practice. It grants broad immunity to online intermediaries for third party content except for criminal and IP law—breaking with traditional tort liability standards. Specifically, Sec. 230 rejected the “deputization of the middleman” model of liability.
• Overturning of the Communications Decency Act’s indecency & obscenity provisions in Reno v. ACLU decision
• Various court decisions blocking enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) of 1999
• The encryption wars & the defeat of the “Clipper Chip”
• The Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998

VI. Applications: How Cyber-Libertarians Think about Various Policy Issues

• Free speech & online child safety: Favor parental empowerment and industry self-regulation over censorship. “Household standards” should trump “community standards.”
• Privacy policy & online advertising: Privacy is a subjective condition and efforts to regulate to “protect privacy” could have unintended consequences for freedom of speech and the growth of online content and commerce. User empowerment and industry self-regulation represent the superior way to address privacy concerns.
• Net neutrality / infrastructure regulation: “Open access” regulation is nothing more the infrastructure socialism. Network operators should be free to own, operate, and price their systems and services as they see fit, subject only to enforcement of their terms of service and other voluntary disclosures as contracts with their users. New entry and innovation are better alternative to regulating yesterday’s networks and technologies.
• Internet taxation: No special taxes should be imposed on online services or Internet access. To the extent the Net disrupts traditional tax bases that should be seen as an opportunity to reform those tax systems.
• Online gambling: People should be free to do what they want with their money and Internet gambling is likely impossible to shut down entirely anyway, given the nature of the Internet.
• Antitrust: “Market power” and “code failures” are best dealt with by spontaneous evolution of markets and new entry, not bureaucratic micro-management of old technologies or market structures. Regulation often creates, or tends to foster, most monopolies. As Ithiel de Sola Pool once noted, “The force that preserves most monopoly privilege is law… most would vanish in the absence of enforcement.”
• IP issues: Cyber-libertarians are deeply divided over IP issues (especially copyright) and this reflects a long-standing division within libertarian ranks on these issues more generally. Some believe IP rights are a natural extension of traditional property rights and/or a sensible way to incentivize scientific and artistic creativity. Others believe no one has a right to “property-tize” intangible creations or that copyright is simply industrial protectionism. And there are many views in between.

VII. Prospects for Cyber-Libertarianism

A. The Pessimistic View

• Government’s will quash online freedom and bring the Internet under their thumbs.
• Regulatory efforts are expanding at a breathtaking pace and will not slow anytime soon.

B. The Optimistic View

• “Technologies of Freedom” (tools and methods to avoid online regulation, censorship and control) will ultimately triumph.
• Technology is evolving faster than government’s ability to regulate it.

VIII. Related Reading on Cyber-Libertarianism & Internet Exceptionalism

• John Perry Barlow, Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace (1996).
• Tom W. Bell, Free Speech, Strict Scrutiny, and Self-Help: How Technology Upgrades Constitutional Jurisprudence , 87 U. Minn. L. Rev. 743 (2003).
• Esther Dyson, George Gilder, George Keyworth, & Alvin Toffler, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, A Magna Carta for the Knowledge Age (1994).
• Eric Goldman, The Third Wave of Internet Exceptionalism, Santa Clara Magazine (Winter 2008).
• H. Brian Holland, In Defense of Online Intermediary Immunity: Facilitating Communities of Modified Exceptionalism, Kansas L. Rev. (2007).
• Peter Huber, Law & Disorder in Cyberspace: Abolish the FCC and Let Common Law Rule the Telecosm (1997).
• Ithiel de Sola Pool, Technologies of Freedom (1983).
• David Post, In Search of Jefferson’s Moose: Notes on the State of Cyberspace (2009).
• Adam Thierer, The Pragmatic Internet Optimist’s Creed, Technology Liberation Front Blog (Nov. 11, 2008).
• Technology Liberation Front Blog, About the Technology Liberation Front (August 2004, revised 2008).

Cyber-Libertarianism: The Case for Real Internet Freedom [Ver 1.0 – Thierer & Szoka] http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=18490847&access_key=key-14tt6eb4f2cdcil8wnf2&page=1&version=1&viewMode=

My friend Larry Magid, the co-director of ConnectSafely.org (with Anne Collier) and founder of SafeKids.com, has a sharp new piece up at CBS News.com entitled, “Stop Cyberbullying with Education,” in which he rightly points out how “we need to be careful with legislation that would outlaw cyberbullying.”  He points out that although cyberbullying is “not an epidemic and it’s not killing our children”:

Bullying has always been a problem among adolescents and, sadly, so has suicide. In the few known cases of suicide after cyberbullying, there are other contributing factors. That’s not to diminish the tragedy or suggest that the cyberbullying didn’t play a role but–as with all online youth risk, we need to look at what else was going on in the child’s life. Even when a suicide or other tragic event doesn’t occur, cyberbullying is often accompanied by a pattern of offline bullying and sometimes there are other issues including long-term depression, problems at home, and self-esteem issues.

He goes on to provide some solid advice:

identifying the reasons kids are acting as bullies can go a long way toward preventing it as can educational programs that stress ethics and cyber citizenship (“netiquette”). It also helps kids to know what to do if they are victims of bullying. At ConnectSafely.org (a site I help operate) we came up with a number of tips including: don’t respond, don’t retaliate; talk to a trusted adult; and save the evidence. We also advise young people to be civil toward others and not to be bullies themselves. Finally, “be a friend, not a bystander.” Don’t forward mean messages and let bullies know that their actions are not cool. If your child is a victim of cyberbullying, don’t start by taking away his or her Internet privileges. That’s one reason kids often don’t talk about Net-related problems with parents. Instead, try to get your child to calmly explain what has happened. If possible, talk with the parents of the other kids involved and, if necessary, involve school authorities. If the impact of the bullying spills over to school (as it usually does), the school has a right to intervene.

And Larry cautions against rushing into legislative solutions that would criminalize the problem and throw the book at kids instead of adopting a more sensible education and counseling approach to the problem.  This is very much in line with the approach Berin Szoka and I set forth in our recent PFF white paper, “Cyberbullying Legislation: Why Education is Preferable to Regulation.”  While some truly troubled teens who instigate truly awful cyber-bullying attacks might deserve some time in the juvenile justice system, that shouldn’t be our first option for all kids involved in incidents. Anyway, read Larry’s essay.

Full disclosure:  Larry and I are currently serving together on the new, congressionally-mandated Online Safety Technology Working Group. (OSTWG)

Just a heads up for those of you in the DC-area… On Monday, July 27th, PFF will be hosting a Hill event on “Online Child Safety, Privacy, and Free Speech: An Overview of Challenges in Congress & the States.” I will be moderating the discussion and we will be joined by Parry Aftab, Executive Director of WiredSafety.org, Jim Halpert a Partner with the law firm of DLA Piper, Todd Haiken, Senior Manager of Policy for Common Sense Media, and my colleague Berin Szoka also of PFF.

The event will focus on the intersection of online child safety, privacy, and free speech issues at both the federal and state level. Bills introduced in Congress to address cyberbullying concerns propose either educational initiatives or a criminalization approach. Access to objectionable content also remains a concern and a new, government-mandated task force is looking into those issues. Meanwhile, state officials, including many state attorneys general, continue to explore age verification mandates for social networking sites and some have considered building on the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) to expand “parental notification” mandates. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has recently announced an expedited review of COPPA to see if it is keeping up with new developments. The FTC is also exploring child safety in virtual worlds. New concerns about “sexting,” or the sending of sexual explicit images over mobile devices, has also raised new concerns led some lawmakers to ponder penalties.

How serious are these concerns? Is legislation or regulation needed to address them? What free speech issues are at stake? Should Congress take the lead or leave it to the States to experiment with different models? These and other issues will be discussed by the panelists at our July 27th event.

The logistical details are below and you RSVP here.

“Online Child Safety, Privacy, and Free Speech: An Overview of Challenges in Congress & the States” July 27, 2009 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Room SVC-208 Capitol Visitor Center 1st Street and East Capitol Street, NE (entrance across from Supreme Court)

Adam Thierer & I have just released a detailed examination (PDF) of brewing efforts to expand the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 to cover adolescents and potentially all social networking sites—an approach we call “COPPA 2.0.”

As Adam explained on Larry Magid’s CNET podcast, COPPA mandates certain online privacy protections for children under 13, most importantly that websites obtain the “verifiable consent” of a child’s parent before collecting personal information about that child or giving that child access to interactive functionality that might allow the child to share their personal information with others. The law was intended primarily to “enhance parental involvement in a child’s online activities” as a means of protecting the online privacy and safety of children.

Yet advocates of expanding COPPA—or “COPPA 2.0″—see COPPA’s verifiable parental consent framework as a means for imposing broad regulatory mandates in the name of online child safety and concerns about social networking, cyber-harassment, etc. Two COPPA 2.0 bills are currently pending in New Jersey and Illinois. The accelerated review of COPPA to be conducted by the FTC next year (five years ahead of schedule) is likely to bring to Washington serious talk of expanding COPPA—even though Congress clearly rejected covering adolescents age 13-16 when COPPA was first proposed back in 1998.

We’ll discuss some of the key points of our paper in a series of blog posts, but here are the top nine reasons for rejecting COPPA 2.0, in that such an approach would:

• Burden the free speech rights of adults by imposing age verification mandates on many sites used by adults, thus restricting anonymous speech and essentially converging—in terms of practical consequences—with the unconstitutional Children’s Online Protection Act (COPA), another 1998 law sometimes confused with COPPA;
• Burden the free speech rights of adolescents to speak freely on—or gather information from—legal and socially beneficial websites;
• Hamper routine and socially beneficial communication between adolescents and adults;
• Reduce, rather than enhance, the privacy of adolescents, parents and other adults because of the massive volume of personal information that would have to be collected about users for authentication purposes (likely including credit card data);

• Would likely be the subject of massive fraud or evasion since it is not always possible to definitively verify the parent-child relationship, or because the system could be “gamed” in other ways by determined adolescents;
• Do nothing to prevent offshore sites and services from operating outside these rules;
• Present major practical challenges for law enforcement officials in the face of such evasion by both domestic users and offshore sites;
• Could destroy opportunities for new or smaller website operators to break into the market and offer competing services and innovations, thus contributing to consolidation of online content and services by erecting barriers to entry; and
• Violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, since Internet activity clearly represents interstate commerce that states have no authority to regulate.

As I mentioned in a post last month, dozens of comments were filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as part of the agency’s “Child Safe Viewing Act” Notice of Inquiry.  Again, this proceeding was required under the “Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007,” which Congress passed last year and President Bush signed last December. The goal of the bill and the FCC’s proceeding (MB 09-26) is to study “advanced blocking technologies” that “may be appropriate across a wide variety of distribution platforms, including wired, wireless, and Internet platforms.”  I filed 150+ pages worth of comments in this matter, and here’s my analysis of why this bill and the FCC’s proceeding are worth monitoring closely.

Anyway, this week saw many of the same groups that filed before (and some new ones) file reply comments about those earlier submissions.  To make things simple, I have collected most of the notable reply comments down below in case anyone is interested.

• Association of National Advertisers
• American Legislative Exchange Council
• Children’s Media Policy Coalition
• Coalition for Independent Ratings
• Comcast
• Consumer Electronic Association
• Digimarc
• Electronic Frontier Foundation
• Entertainment Software Association
• Funai Electric Co.
• ION Media Networks
• Microsoft
• Motorola
• NAB, NCTA, & MPAA
• Nintendo
• Parents Television Council
• Smart Television Alliance
• TiVo
• T-Mobile
• TV Guardian

Over the past year, I have been monitoring a very interesting trend with important ramifications for the future of Internet policy. State Attorneys General (AGs) — often in league with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) — have been striking a variety of “voluntary” agreements with various Internet companies that deal with child safety concerns or other online issues. These agreements require the companies involved to take various steps to alter site architecture and functionality, commit to stop certain practices, or take steps to block certain users (ex: predators; escort services) or types of content (ex: child porn; online “discrimination”) altogether.

To begin, let me be very clear about one thing: Some of these activities or types of content warrant a law enforcement response. That is certainly the case with child pornography or predation, for example. However, as I will note down below, there is a legitimate question about whether state officials and a non-profit private organization should be crafting legal or regulatory policies to address such concerns for a global medium like the Internet. Regardless, these agreements are creating a new layer of Internet regulation (almost extra-legal in character) that is worthy of exploration.

First, let me itemize some of these recent “voluntary” agreements between Internet companies and the AGs and/or NCMEC:

• MySpace, Facebook & 49 state AGs: On January 14th, 2008, social networking website operator MySpace.com announced an agreement with 49 state Attorneys General (AGs) aimed at better protecting children online. As part their “Joint Statement on Key Principles of Social Networking Safety,” MySpace promised the AGs it would expand online safety tools, improve education efforts, and expand its cooperation with law enforcement. Facebook entered into a similar agreement with the AGs in May. These agreements came after AGs had relentlessly pushed these social networking sites for over a year to adopt age verification techniques to screen site users. Although mandatory age verification was not part of the final agreements, an Internet Safety Technical Task Force (ISTTF) was formed to study online safety tools, including a review of online identity authentication technology. It was clear when the announcements were made that the AGs were very interested in seeing online age verification pursued.
• Various ISPs and New York AG + NCMEC: In June 2008, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo pushed several major ISPs to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with NCMEC to address the dissemination of child pornography online.  Under the MOU, the ISPs must use a NCMEC-provided list of URLs supposedly containing child pornographic images to blacklist and block all access to those sites for their users. The agreement also closed off access to Usenet discussion boards on those ISP’s networks.
• Craigslist & California AG + NCMEC: In early November, Craigslist struck an agreement with 40 state AGs as well as NCMEC in which the online classifies operator agreed to take steps to root out certain sexually-themed or “erotic services” listings. See this Ars Technica article for additional details.
• eHarmony & New Jersey AG: Just this past week, the online dating service company eHarmony announced it had struck an agreement with the Attorney General of New Jersey to settle a complaint that a New Jersey resident filed with the state in 2005 alleging that eHarmony violated his rights by not offering a same-sex matching service. The agreement creates some interesting questions, as George Mason University law professor David Bernstein told the Wall Street Journal. The discrimination claim “seems like quite a stretch,” he said, and he said that he is worried it might encourage similar claims. “If you start a dating service for African Americans, do you need one for whites and Latinos? If you have one for Jews, do you need one for Christians and Muslims?” According to the Journal, eHarmony faces a similar discrimination claim in a California court, so we might get answers soon enough.

There are a number of interesting legal and practical questions raised by these agreements:

• “Voluntary” Agreements & the Law: Although typically billed as “voluntary” in nature, it seems highly unlikely that any of the companies involved would have made these concessions without  pressure from the state AGs (and sometimes NCMEC) to do so. How binding are these agreements in light of that? Of course, it is unlikely any of the companies involved would (or could) later challenge the validity or scope of these agreements after they had already signed onto them. But what if a free speech or civil liberties group challenged these agreements in court because of their impact on the Internet, online speech, or a certain group of citizens? Would they have a case? Would they even have standing? Where do they have it?
• Precedent & Applicability: Do such agreements constitute precedents that could be applied in other cases or contexts? Could parties not involved in the original agreements — either because they refused or did not yet exist — eventually be covered by them in some fashion? Do these agreements cover services available in the American but hosted entirely overseas?
• Commerce Clause Issues: Do state Attorneys General have the right to impose such quasi-regulatory regimes on an interstate medium like the Internet? Can 50 state AGs impose uniform laws on the Net without any congressional oversight, as was the case in the MySpace and Craigslist agreements? Conversely, what will the impact be of individual state AGs going their own way, as was the case with the eHarmony agreement? If Congress remains silent on the agreements but a group (ex: a civil liberties group) brings a dormant Commerce Clause case, what are their chances of prevailing in court?
• Accountability & Effectiveness: Will anyone in Congress or a federal agency oversee these agreements? How transparent are these agreements when they are brokered behind closed doors or with NCMEC? Does the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) apply such that records and information can be made public?  What is the benchmark of success when different states adopt different legal regimes for the Net?

I’m not saying I have any good answers here; I’m just trying to get the questions on the table and get a discussion going. I would appreciate any input on the matter, especially of the legal variety. It strikes me that we are in somewhat uncharted waters here, at least for the Internet. On the other hand, I’m sure there have been state AG-related “voluntary” agreements struck in other industries and contexts in the past that might provide some insight into what, if anything, happens next.

What I find most interesting about these developments is that the state AGs appear to be gradually accomplishing what Congress has not been able to do over the past dozen years: To impose a comprehensive regulatory structure on the Internet. But that emerging regulatory structure is highly fractured and piecemeal in nature, and that troubles me. I am particularly concerned about the long-term impact of a 50-state patchwork approach to online regulation — both for speech and commerce. It’s not like we’re talking about the regulation of a corner newsstand here, after all. This is the Internet, and localized regulation of this national — actually global — platform makes me more than a bit nervous.

In closing, I want to again reiterate that I do not necessarily oppose intervention in any of these cases. However, to the extent such regulations do need to be imposed and enforced, it may make more sense for the process to be federalized and NCMEC’s role nationalized and administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation or some branch of the Department of Justice. There needs to be greater transparency and accountability when matters of child pornography or predation are at issue, and NCMEC’s lack of FOIA-ability in this regard is problematic. I think NCMEC is a fine organization that does very important work to help protect children, but it is work that involves criminal activities and the collection of evidence that could be used in criminal court proceedings. In light of that — and in light of the expanded law enforcement powers being granted to NCMEC — I believe the time has come to have a serious conversation about whether those powers should continue to be housed in a private, non-profit organization, or if they should be transfered to a federal law enforcement agency. Of course, there could be serious downsides associated with the nationalization of those powers, which also should be considered.

I’ve spent a lot of time in recent years trying to debunk various myths about online child safety or at least put those risks into perspective. Too often, press reports and public policy initiatives are being driven by myths, irrational fears, or unjustified “moral panics.”  Luckily, the New York Times reports that there’s another study out this week that helps us see things in a more level-headed light. This new MacArthur Foundation report is entitled Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth Project. This white paper is a summary of three years of research on kids’ informal learning with digital media. The survey incorporates the insights from 800 youth and young adults and over 5000 hours of online observations. The information will eventually be contained in a book from MIT Press (“Hanging Out, Messing Around, Geeking Out: Living and Learning with New Media.”)

From the summary of the study on the MacArthur website:

“It might surprise parents to learn that it is not a waste of time for their teens to hang out online,” said Mizuko Ito, University of California, Irvine researcher and the report’s lead author. “There are myths about kids spending time online – that it is dangerous or making them lazy. But we found that spending time online is essential for young people to pick up the social and technical skills they need to be competent citizens in the digital age.”

Importantly, regarding the concerns many parents and policymakers have about online predation, Ms. Ito told the New York Times that, “Those concerns about predators and stranger danger have been overblown.” “There’s been some confusion about what kids are actually doing online. Mostly, they’re socializing with their friends, people they’ve met at school or camp or sports.”

In the report, according to the summary, the researchers “identified two distinctive categories of teen engagement with digital media: friendship-driven and interest-driven. While friendship-driven participation centered on “hanging out” with existing friends, interest-driven participation involved accessing online information and communities that may not be present in the local peer group.” The specific findings of the study are as follows:

• There is a generation gap in how youth and adults view the value of online activity.
  • Adults tend to be in the dark about what youth are doing online, and often view online activity as risky or an unproductive distraction.
  • Youth understand the social value of online activity and are generally highly motivated to participate.
• Youth are navigating complex social and technical worlds by participating online.
  • Young people are learning basic social and technical skills that they need to fully participate in contemporary society.
  • The social worlds that youth are negotiating have new kinds of dynamics, as online socializing is permanent, public, involves managing elaborate networks of friends and acquaintances, and is always on.
• Young people are motivated to learn from their peers online.
  • The Internet provides new kinds of public spaces for youth to interact and receive feedback from one another.
  • Young people respect each other’s authority online and are more motivated to learn from each other than from adults.
• Most youth are not taking full advantage of the learning opportunities of the Internet.
  • Most youth use the Internet socially, but other learning opportunities exist.
  • Youth can connect with people in different locations and of different ages who share their interests, making it possible to pursue interests that might not be popular or valued with their local peer groups.
  • “Geeked-out” learning opportunities are abundant – subjects like astronomy, creative writing, and foreign languages.

These findings are consistent with the much of the existing research already out there about online youth behavior and Internet interactions. As I have mentioned here before, over the past year, I have been serving on the Internet Safety Technical Task Force (ISTTF), which was formed following a January 2008 agreement between social networking website operator MySpace.com and 49 state Attorneys General. As part their “Joint Statement on Key Principles of Social Networking Safety,” MySpace promised the AGs it would expand online safety tools, improve education efforts, and expand its cooperation with law enforcement. Importantly, they also agreed to create the ISTTF to study online safety issues and technologies.

The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School was tapped to run the ISTTF, and the Task Force included a wide diversity of child safety groups, non-profit organization, and Internet companies. During a session the Task Force held in Washington, DC on April 30th, we heard from several of the nation’s top researchers in the field of online child safety. The presentations were quite enlightening and the videos of the sessions — as well as supporting materials — have all been posted on a special Berkman Center website. I just wanted to share all of those links with you here so that you have access to these wonderful materials. As you will see, they tell the same story the new MacArthur report does: Almost everything the press and policymakers have told us about online child actions and safety has been wrong.

Anyway, read (or watch) for yourself and decide. (P.S. When the final ISTTF report comes out later this year, it will include a massive compendium of all the relevant surveys and academic research done in this field. It will be the definitive treatment of the issue. An early draft is online here. I will post the final link here once the Task Force wraps up.)

April 30, 2008 – ISTTF Child Online Safety Expert Panel

• Teens OnlineStranger Contact and Cyberbullying: What research is telling us Amanda Lenhart, Pew Internet & American Life Project Presentation in .pdf video
• Youth & Law Enforcement Surveys Janis Wolak, Crimes against Children Research Center Presentation in .pdf video
• Social networking sites, unwanted sexual solicitation, Internet harassment, and cyberbullying Michele Ybarra, Internet Solutions for Kids, Inc. Presentation in .pdf video
• Panel Q&A video
• Further reading
  • 1 in 7 Youth: The Statistics about Online Sexual Solicitations
  • Online “Predators” and Their Victims: Myths, Realities, and Implications for Prevention and Treatment
  • Internet Safety Education for Teens: Getting It Right
  • Internet Prevention Messages: Targeting the Right Online Behaviors
  • Teens, Stranger Contact & Cyberbullying
  • How Risky Are Social Networking Sites?
  • Updated Trends in Child Maltreatment, 2006

Over at CDT’s “Policy Beta” blog, my friends John Morris and Sophia Cope have penned two important essays about online free speech issues that are worthy of your attention. In the first, Sophia argues that the “Next President Must Preserve Free Speech on the Internet.” She argues:

It will be critical for the next President to do his part to uphold the Internet’s robust culture of free speech and innovation as we march further into the 21st Century. In stark contrast to the mass media of the last century, the Internet has provided, at very low cost, virtually unlimited forums for both creators and consumers of new content and technologies. This in turn has created a huge boost for participatory democracy and our economy. The next Administration must reject Congressional or agency efforts to censor content or stifle the fire of innovation on the Internet and other communications media.

Amen! Importantly, Sophia points to the essential role of Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which protects online service providers from crushing legal liability in a variety of circumstances. Sec. 230 is probably the most important — and most often forgotten — law dealing with online freedom. Unfortunately, however, it’s increasingly under attack and we need to be vigilant in defending it. (I’m working on a big paper about that right now with my PFF colleagues Berin Szoka and Adam Marcus).

In the second essay on the CDT blog today, John Morris notes how Congress has been passing a “flurry” of last-minute child safety bills. He points out:

While the public’s attention was focused on the drama unfolding around the economic bailout, it was actually a busy time for other bills to get pushed – sometimes under the cover of the bailout darkness. Just before recess, Congress considered parts of four “child safety” bills, acted on three, and sent two to the White House. While not all the provisions in these bills raise red flags, some language gives free expression advocates plenty to worry about.

One of the measures he discusses, S. 602, the “Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007,” was the subject of an essay I penned here a few days ago.

Anyway, make sure to read these excellent essays by Sophia and John.

Yesterday, the Senate passed S. 602, “The Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007,” which was introduced by Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) in February 2007. The bill requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to study the market for “advance blocking technologies” (i.e., parental controls and rating systems) that parents can use to protect their kids from inappropriate content from various sources and platforms. On the surface, the measure seems harmless enough, but in practice, it could have some troubling long-term free speech implications if it leads to more government meddling with parental controls and ratings systems.

The measure requires the FCC to initiate a notice of inquiry to consider measures to examine:

1. the existence and availability of advanced blocking technologies that are compatible with various communications devices or platforms;
2. methods of encouraging the development, deployment, and use of such technology by parents that do not affect the packaging or pricing of a content provider’s offering; and
3. the existence, availability, and use of parental empowerment tools and initiatives already in the market.

That all sounds harmless enough. Indeed, such a study could produce some useful information about the state of the parental controls marketplace.  (Of course, I could save them some taxpayer dollars and just send copies of my big Parental Controls & Online Child Safety report to all FCC officials!)

But it’s what comes next in the bill that causes me some heartburn. As part of the review mandated by the bill, S. 602 commands the FCC to “consider advanced blocking technologies that”:

1. may be appropriate across a wide variety of distribution platforms, including wired, wireless, and Internet platforms;
2. may be appropriate across a wide variety of devices capable of transmitting or receiving video or audio programming, including television sets, DVD players, VCRs, cable set top boxes, satellite receivers, and wireless devices;
3. can filter language based upon information in closed captioning;
4. operate independently of ratings pre-assigned by the creator of such video or audio programming; and;
5. may be effective in enhancing the ability of a parent to protect his or her child from indecent or objectionable programming, as determined by such parent.

I have highlighted the two provisions that are cause for concern since they raise the specter of what I referred to as “convergence-era content regulation” in a PFF paper about the bill last year.  Let me explain.

Regarding that first provision, here’s how I stated my concern in my old paper:

In demanding that regulators investigate and consider requiring blocking technologies for “wired, wireless, and Internet platforms,” the measure potentially opens the door to the beginning of convergence-era content regulation at the FCC. The agency currently has no authority to regulate content (or parental control technologies or rating systems) on most media or communications platforms outside of broadcasting, and its authority over broadcasting is limited. But S. 602 would potentially give regulators the ability to begin expanding the horizons of federal content regulation. One wonders what sort of resources the FCC would need to carry out this task. After all, we’re talking about numerous platforms and a potentially enormous volume of content. The FCC would likely need a small army of regulators to ensure that all “wired, wireless, and Internet platforms” were in compliance with the law. Will there be a specific team of FCC officials devoted to monitoring advanced blocking mechanisms for the official websites of major media operators? What about YouTube.com, MySpace.com and other major websites that host both user-generated content and professional media content? What about the new media platforms and content that mobile operators are offering? Many advanced blocking tools already exist to screen or filter online content, but whether other types of regulation could be required under S. 602 remains unclear. Moreover, the global reach of many of these online platforms raises other enforcement issues.

Second, regarding the second provision I highlighted above (about “independent ratings”), here again is how I stated my concern in my paper:

in specifying that these new advanced content blocking technologies should “operate independently of ratings pre-assigned by the creator of such video or audio programming,” S. 602 seems to imply that existing voluntary rating and labeling systems cannot be trusted. That is a dangerous presumption. Existing rating and labeling systems, while not perfect, are well-established and comprehensive. It is simply unrealistic to expect that all new advanced content blocking technologies will operate independent of existing rating and labeling systems, such as the television rating system, the MPAA movie rating systems, and the video game industry’s ESRB rating system. It is important to realize that these systems rate and label almost all the entertainment content produced in their respective fields. While third-party rating systems can supplement these official industry rating schemes, it is unlikely those independent schemes will ever be as comprehensive as the official industry systems. More importantly, existing blocking tools on the market today, such as the V-Chip and cable and satellite set-top boxes, rely on those official rating and labeling systems, which most Americans are already familiar with. It is unrealistic to expect all new consumer media devices to employ alternative blocking schemes or be able to read independent rating systems. Thus, it remains unclear what that sponsors of S. 602 are hoping to accomplish by specifying that new blocking systems “operate independently of ratings pre-assigned by the creator.” Regardless, the real danger here is that that language could fuel a push for “universal” media ratings that would be imposed by the government or a third-party which has the government’s blessing. It goes without saying that such a proposal would raise serious First Amendment concerns. But, even setting aside the clear First Amendment concerns, there is no practical reason to believe that the government could actually do a better job of assigning ratings or creating parental control tools. If the government were responsible for assigning content ratings or labels, for example, five unelected bureaucrats at the FCC or some other regulatory agency would simply substitute their own values for those of the voluntary rating boards or other labeling organizations in existence today.

Importantly, however, the version of S. 602 that the Senate passed was amended before being voted out of the Senate Commerce Committee on August 2, 2007. The amended version made a few important wording changes to the original version of the bill. Specifically, the Senate Commerce Committee struck the phrase that specified the FCC would have the power ” to encourage or require” the use of advanced blocking technologies.  Needless to say, that’s a very important deletion since it means that S. 602 hasn’t granted the FCC sweeping new powers to require the creation of content controls or ratings systems.  It’s one thing for the FCC to study the marketplace of existing controls and ratings systems. It’s quite another for the agency to get actively involved in the business of mandating or regulating those controls or rating systems.

Sen. Pryor and his Senate colleagues are to be commended for avoiding direct content regulation and instead focusing on empowering families to make media consumption decisions on their own. Nonetheless, in an attempt to empower parents it is important that Congress not empower regulators instead.  S. 602 opens the door to an expansion of the FCC’s authority over media content on multiple platforms and threatens to undermine private, voluntary rating systems in the process.  There are better ways to help parents and protect kids.

Further reading / sources:

• The Senate-passed version of S. 602
• press release from Sen. Mark Pryor about Senate passage
• article by Ted Hearn of Multichannel News about Senate passage
• my PFF white paper on the earlier version of the bill: “Convergence-Era Content Regulation? S. 602, The Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007“.

Over at Ars, Ben Kuchera has a review of Ask.com’s redesign of its web portal for kids, AskKids.com. It’s a great new addition to the growing list of safe seach tools and web portals geared toward younger surfers.

I’m also a big fan of KidZui, the new browser for kids that provides access to over 800,000 kid-friendly websites, videos, and pictures that have been pre-screened by over 200 trained teachers and parents. The company employs a rigorous 5-step “content selection process” to determine if it is acceptable for kids between 3-12 years of age. My kids, both under the age of 7, just love it, but I can’t see many kids older than 10 enjoying it because it is mostly geared toward the youngest web surfers.

Last year, as part of my 10-part series coinciding with “Internet Safety Month,” I wrote about the market for safe search tools and web portals for kids. I generally divide these sites and services into two groups:

(1) “Safe Search” Tools and Portals for Kids (2) Child- and Teen-Oriented Websites

Below I will describe each group and list the many sites and services currently available. I encourage readers to offer additional suggestions for sites that belong on the list. (I keep a running list of these sites and services in my book, “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools & Methods.”)

(1) “Safe Search” Tools and Portals for Kids: These sites help direct children to sites and information that are educational and enriching. Most major search engine providers offer “safe search” tools that provide filtered search results.

ALA’s Great Web Sites for Kids ( www.ala.org/greatsites)

AOL for Kids (U.S.) (http://kids.aol.com)

AOL for Kids (Canada) (http://canada.aol.com/aolforkids)

Ask Kids (www.askkids.com)

Awesome Library for Kids (www.awesomelibrary.org)

Diddabdoo ( www.dibdabdoo.com)

Education World ( www.education-world.com)

Fact Monster ( www.factmonster.com)

FirstGov for Kids ( www.kids.gov)

KidsClick (www.kidsclick.org)

Kid Zui (www.kidzui.com)

Noodle Net (www.noodlenet.com)

NetTrekker (www.nettrekker.com)

SearchEdu.com ( www.searchedu.com)

Surfing the Net with Kids (www.surfnetkids.com)

Surf Safely.com (www.surfsafely.com)

TekMom’s Search Tools for Students ( www.tekmom.com/search)

ThinkQuest Library ( www.thinkquest.org/library)

Yahoo! Kids (http://kids.yahoo.com)

(2) Child- and Teen-Oriented Websites: The child-friendly web portals discussed above generally direct children to informational and educational sites and resources. But there exist many other ways to tailor the web-surfing experience to a family’s specific needs and values. The Internet is full of wonderful sites dedicated to kids and teens. Many have an educational focus, whereas others offer enjoyable games and activities for children. Table 2 highlights some of the best of these websites, but this list just scratches the surface. If parents wanted, they could configure their web browsers to access only sites such as these and then block access to all other webpages.

Table 2: Child- and Teen-Oriented Websites

Candy Stand (www.candystand.com)

Clever Island (www.cleverisland.com)

Club Penguin (www.clubpenguin.com)

Disney’s Club Blast (http://disney.go.com/blast)

Disney’s DGamer (http://disney.go.com/dxd2/index.html?channel=68447)

Disney’s Playhouse (http://disney.go.com/playhouse/today/index.html)

Disney Toontown Online (http://play.toontown.com)

Habbo (www.habbo.com)

HBO Family XE “ HBO Family” Games (www.hbofamily.com/games)

Imbee (www.imbee.com)

Iland5 (www.iland5.com)

JuniorNet (www.juniornet.com)

Kaboose Family Network (www.kaboose.com)

Kaboose FunSchool (http://funschool.kaboose.com)

KidsClick (www.kidsclick.org)

KidsFirst (www.kidsfirst.org)

Microsoft At School (www.microsoft.com/education/atschool.mspx)

Net Smartz Kids (www.netsmartzkids.org)

Nickelodeon Games (www.nick.com/games)

Nick Jr. Games (www.nickjr.com)

Nicktropolis (www.nicktropolis.com)

Noggin XE “ Noggin” Games (www.noggin.com/games)

PBS Kids (http://pbskids.org/go)

Surfing the Net with Kids (www.surfnetkids.com)

Webkinz (www.webkinz.com)

Yahoo! Kids (http://kids.yahoo.com)

YoKidsYo (www.yokidsyo.com)

Zeeks (www.zeeks.com)

ZoeysRoom.com (www.zoeysroom.com)

Zoey’s Room and Club Penguin are two of the most popular of these sites. Here’s some screenshots:

Again, please let me know if you have suggested updates to these lists.

I have just released a new PFF white paper on “The Perils of Mandatory Parental Controls and Restrictive Defaults.” It points out the dangers of government mandating that parental controls be defaulted to their most restrictive position. I’ve gone ahead and just pasted the entire text below (but without the footnotes):

During ongoing debates about parental controls, ratings, and online child safety, there have occasionally been rumblings about the possibility of requiring that media, computing and communications devices: (1) be shipped to market with parental controls embedded, and possibly, (2) those controls being defaulted to their most restrictive position, forcing users to opt out of the controls later if they wanted to consume media rated above a certain threshold.

Imagine, for example, a law requiring that every television, TV set-top box, and video game console be shipped with on-board screening technologies that were set to block any content rated above “G” for movies, “TV-Y” for television, or “E” for video games, which are the most restrictive rating designations for each type of media. Similarly, all personal computers or portable media devices sold to the public could be forced to have filters embedded that were set to block all “objectionable” content, however defined.

If “default” requirements such as this were mandated by law, parents would be forced to opt out of the restrictions by granting their children selective permission to media content or online services. In theory, this might help limit underage access to objectionable media or online content. Such a mandate might be viewed as less intrusive than direct government censorship and, therefore, less likely to run afoul of the constitution.

For these reasons, such a proposal would likely have great appeal among some policymakers, “family” groups, child safety advocates, and parents. But mandating parental controls and restrictive defaults is a dangerous and elitist idea that must be rejected because it will have many unintended consequences and not likely achieve the goal of better protecting our kids. You Can Lead a Horse to Water, But…

As I have pointed out in my book on Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods, there has never been a time in our nation’s history when parents have had more tools and methods at their disposal to help them decide what constitutes acceptable media content in their homes and in the lives of their children. And this is true for all forms of media, from TV and music to video games and the Internet.

That being said, one of the enduring mysteries about parental controls is why many parents do not take advantage of the tools and options at their disposal. It’s the proverbial “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink” problem. There are a few reasons why this may be the case.

First, many households may not take advantage of parental control tools because they instead rely on a variety of non-technical “household media rules.” In chapter 2 of my book, I identified four categories of household media rules that surveys show almost all parents use in some combination to control their children’s media consumption: (1) “where” rules; (2) “when and how much” rules; (3) “under what conditions” rules, and, (4) “what” rules.

Second, in many homes, technical controls and rating systems are viewed as unnecessary if the kids are below or above a certain age. Many parents of children under 4 or 5 years of age, for example, do not let their kids consume much media, or they at least have much tighter control over their children’s media consumption habits. And after kids reach their mid-teen years, many parents eschew technical controls because they either trust their kids, or better yet, they constantly talk to them about media content or their online experiences.

Of course, it could also be the case that some parents do not use technical controls or rating systems because they find them too confusing. That may be true to some extent, but it is important to note that these controls and rating systems are getting increasingly easy to use. Most parental control tools are just one or two clicks away on most TVs, gaming systems, or personal computers. And although there are different rating schemes for different forms of media, those rating systems share much in common and are all quite descriptive. Setting up parental controls is certainly no more difficult now that programming a personal video recorder or uploading digital photographs to the Internet.

Finally, it may be the case that some parents are simply not aware of the controls or ratings. This too, however, is increasingly unlikely. Survey data suggests a growing familiarity with most rating systems, although some more than others. And companies and non-profit organizations are increasingly offering more information and tutorials along with the parental control tools that are typically embedded, free-of-charge, in almost all modern media devices. In any event, the answer to low awareness issues is not mandatory defaults but, as I explain below, increased educational efforts.

Forcing the Issue

Still, for whatever reason, many parents are not using parental controls or rating systems and, at the same time, many feel or express some concerns about being able to manage media use by their children. Regardless of the culprit—and it could be a combination of all of the factors listed above—what more could be done to encourage these parents to use these technical controls and rating systems to limit children’s access to potentially objectionable content or communications? There are two general options.

Increased Education & Empowerment Options One way to increase parental comfort levels is through better education and awareness-building initiatives. As mentioned, many companies already offer detailed information and tutorials along with the parental control tools they offer, but more could always be done to promote awareness of the tools and how to use them. Many parents may feel media use in their homes is unmanageable because they are unaware of their options or unsure how to utilize the available tools.

One sensible first step is the inclusion of easy-to-understand instructions in all user manuals. “Tip sheets” could also be bundled along with the products, which provide a summary of how set up parental controls, or what relevant ratings meant. Most vendors already offer this and much more on their websites, but sometimes the URLs for those pages can be difficult to find. All media companies should consider placing clearly labeled links on their websites to guide visitors to parental controls, ratings information, or online safety tips. Finally, customer support hotlines—whether automated and human-based—could probably be improved and expanded.

Again, most companies are already moving in this direction today. It’s simply a smart business practice since many parents increasingly expect such services to be available. To the extent some companies aren’t keeping up, others—policymakers and child safety groups, in particular—are increasing putting pressure on them to provide such tools and assistance.

Mandated Controls & Maximum Defaults The second approach to encouraging more widespread use of parental controls and rating systems would involve the sort of legal mandates described above. Presumably, this would require a law or regulation that would: (1) spell out what sort of controls or filters would be embedded in every “media or computing device” and then, (2) determine how restrictive the default control settings would be before the hardware or software in question was marketed. In essence, this would be a mandatory “opt out” regime for parental controls / filters.

The first portion of the mandate is largely unnecessary; almost all major media devices marketed today already contain some sort of parental control tools. All TVs include V-chips, all set-top boxes include additional TV screening controls, and all video game consoles include blocking tools for both games and movies. With PCs, filters and monitoring tools have been made ubiquitously available by ISPs and non-profit entities for little or no charge, and operating systems like the new Windows Vista have included parental control tools. Importantly, almost all of these tools are free-of-charge. A variety of supplementary tools can be purchased online or from electronics retailers or computer stores. As a general matter, moreover, it is rarely sound public policy to have governments—rather than markets—select a particular technology or service as a mandatory feature. This risks locking in less effective technology and, in a worst case scenario, creating financial windfalls for well-connected technology vendors.

The real debate, then, comes down to the question of how effective those embedded controls are at meeting the interests of parents, and whether the embedded controls should have pre-established defaults set to the most restrictive setting available before they are shipped or downloaded. Of course, any company could voluntarily offer such an alternative today. It’s worth asking, therefore, why are no companies currently doing so?

Enforcement Hassles

There are many reasons why no media or communications companies are currently offering such maximally restrictive defaults when they ship their products to market, and those reasons are instructive when considering the wisdom of mandating that such defaulted controls be imposed by law.

To begin, there’s just not as much demand for this as some might think. Again, not all parents see the need to use parental controls or ratings, usually because they rely on household rules or tightly monitor or restrict access to media and communications devices.

Second, not all homes have children in them. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, almost 68 percent of American homes do not have any children under 18 years of age in residence. Obviously, there is less interest in parental control technologies in adult-only homes.

Third, because there are many adults who purchase media devices for their own use, it would be illogical to ship all devices or products to market with the controls set to the most restrictive setting. In fact, many consumers (even some who are parents themselves) would likely find it annoying, and perhaps even somewhat insulting, to be forced to opt out of such controls when they purchase new media hardware or software. And it’s likely that as soon as such devices or services hit the market, consumer complaint hotlines would light up like Christmas trees due to calls from irate users griping about what they imagine to be defective hardware or software.

Could companies offer multiple versions of their hardware or software products to solve this problem? For example, some set-top boxes, gaming consoles, and PCs could be sold and labeled as “Kid-Friendly” (or “locked”) while others are “Adult-Only” (or “unlocked”). It goes without saying that this would represent a major expense to many vendors (especially hardware vendors). It could also create potential confusion when the devices are labeled and marketed for sale. And what would the penalty be for a mislabeled device, or the accidental sale of such a device to a minor?

Perverse Incentives and Possible Evasion

It may be that there is a market for such “kid-friendly” devices or services. There are, for example, some wireless device and service options designed for kids that have limited features, or some toy (and toy-like) devices that have filters on by default, or only work with certain age-appropriate internet services. Many social networking services designed for kids have strict settings on by default. These may well be fantastic choices for some parents and kids. But whether that is the case seems to be best determined by the market.

Mandating such a dual-version approach, particularly for mass-market general use devices like PCs and Televisions, seems likely to create perverse incentives, both for consumers and for media and technology providers. If services and devices are sold with the highest levels of restrictions active by default, many parents might seek to avoid the annoyance associated with the “kid-friendly” versions of the device and just purchase “unlocked” hardware or software. And kids would likely get quickly to work cracking the defaults on the locked / kid-friendly versions of the hardware or software. (Witness what happened in Australia within a few days of the government releasing subsidized filtering software). The result would be some significant degree of consumer dissatisfaction with high-default services and, except perhaps in the case of households with very young children, dissatisfaction with locked/kid-friendly services and devices.

Among the possible consequences would be a perverse incentive for service providers and device makers to avoid investing in parental control tools. If setting controls to the highest default level is mandatory, but at the same time most consumers don’t prefer that default level, some consumer backlash is inevitable. And when consumers are unhappy about a service feature—but companies are not permitted to address that unhappiness by turning off the higher settings—a likely result could be for companies to weaken or even not offer parental controls altogether.

There are other issues associated with enforcing such a mandate. Regulators would need to grapple with the possibility of widespread evasion in terms of offshore sales and black market devices. For example, would it be illegal for an eBay vendor located in Hong Kong to sell a U.S.-based customer an “unlocked” PlayStation Portable without first verifying that they are indeed an adult? If so, that’s another layer of regulation that needs to be considered in terms of online age verification.

Of course, governments could forbid the development of “unlocked” devices or software and mandate that every media or computing device sent to market had mandatory defaults set for maximum restrictiveness. Even assuming such rules would not run afoul of international trade rules, many of the same problems would still develop, however. It will likely be difficult to stem the flow of “illegal devices” or software, and hackers would likely only work harder to defeat existing controls. And what about all the existing “unlocked” devices already on the market? This mandate might breathe new life into older devices and discourage some consumers from making the jump to new hardware and software that includes superior parental control tools.

A final enforcement question relates to how broadly “media devices” are defined for purposed of this mandate. TVs, set-top boxes, gaming consoles and PCs would all be covered, of course. But what about mobile phones, iPods, MP3 players, PlayStation Portables and GameBoys, and so on? If Congress or the Federal Communications Commission defines “media devices” broadly, it would bring an unprecedented array of consumer electronic devices and communications technologies under the purview of federal regulatory authorities. Each class of devices would likely have its own set of enterprising hackers and renegade device makers, eager to evade the mandates. Presumably, financial penalties would be required and various enforcement actions would be sanctioned in an attempt to thwart such activity. Finally, as a result of these new mandates, the prices all the affected media devices would likely rise for consumers.

Unintended Consequences and Constitutional Concerns

At this point, some supporters of such an approach might be thinking: So what? Regulation is often difficult, even expensive, but we find ways to enforce many other laws if for no other reason than to try to teach the public, or kids, a lesson. In this case, some slippage in the system might be viewed as an acceptable trade-off for the increased awareness among some parents about parental control tools or potentially objectionable media content or forms of online communications.

But this mentality is quite myopic in that it ignores the many unintended consequences of such a regulatory regime. The fundamental problem with a mandate of this sort is that, while well-intentioned, it threatens to upset the current balance of things and could leave parents and their children less well off.

As was stated previously, there has never been a time in our nation’s history when parents have had more tools and methods at their disposal. It would be foolish, however, to think that this situation might not be retarded or even reversed by misguided public policy prescriptions. One of the most unfortunate consequences of such a mandate would be that it might lull some parents into a false sense of security. If parents came to believe that because a filter was installed they need do nothing more to help their children go online safely, or become engaged in their media choices, that would be an extremely troubling outcome.

Moreover, as was noted above, a rule mandating restrictive parental control defaults might create perverse incentives for industry to not rate content or build better controls at all. After all, it is important to remember that the ratings and controls that government is seeking to regulate here are voluntary and private; there is no reason they couldn’t be abandoned tomorrow. Of course, if they were abandoned that might lead to calls for government intervention / regulation and the substitution of some sort of universal ratings regime for the voluntary systems that exist today. If that scenario developed, lawmakers will be forced into making content-based determinations that would likely run afoul of the First Amendment.

But even if voluntary rating systems remained in place as the basis of a new federal enforcement regime, there are some constitutional issues in play here. Namely, it would be unconstitutional for government to enshrine a private ratings scheme into law or use it as a trigger for legal liability. That is what several courts have held in past years after some state and local governments attempted to enact laws or ordinances based upon the MPAA’s voluntary movie ratings system.

For example, in Borger v. Bisciglia a U.S. District Court held that “[A] private organization’s ratings system cannot be used to determine whether a movie receives constitutional protection.” Similarly, in Swope v. Lubbers, the court held that “[t]he standards by which the movie industry rates its films do not correspond to the… criteria for determining whether an item merits constitutional protection or not.” Roughly a dozen court cases have come to largely the same conclusion: Government cannot co-opt a voluntary, private ratings system for its own ends. Recent video game cases have reached similar conclusions. Thus, a law mandating parental control defaults based on voluntary ratings systems will likely end up in court and become the subject of another protracted legal battle between government and industry.

Is This Really Necessary?

Finally, it’s worth noting that most media, communications, and computing devices cost substantial sums of money. Televisions, movies, video games, cell phones, MP3 players, computers, and so on, do not just drop from high-tech heaven into our kids’ laps! When our kids want those things—or want things that are advertised on those media platforms—they must come to us and ask for money (usually a lot of it). This “power of the purse” is, in many ways, the ultimate parental control tool. If parents are shelling out money for such devices, presumably they are also in a good position to set some rules about the use of those devices once they are brought into the home. Whether those rules take the form of informal household media rules or technical parental controls is, ultimately, a decision that each family must make for themselves. There is no reason for government to make that decision preemptively for all households by mandating highly restrictive parental control defaults.

Moreover, there are better ways for government and industry to encourage the diffusion and adoption of parental control tools and rating systems. Instead of spending money litigating cases against the government, industry should plow their resources into improved, easier-to-use parental control tools and consumer education efforts. And, as was mentioned above, government education and awareness-building campaigns could go a long way toward improving consumer adoption. In the past, government has helped change public attitudes about safety in other contexts by undertaking (or lending support to) various public awareness campaigns, including: forest fire prevention efforts (“Smokey the Bear” campaigns); anti-littering efforts (“Give a Hoot, Don’t Pollute”), and seat-belt safety. Those campaigns have helped forever change behavior and improved public safety as a result.

Policymakers should tap these more constructive, constitutional solutions and steer clear of mandating parental controls and restrictive default settings that would, ultimately, have many unintended consequences and leave parents and children worse off in the long run.

The long-awaited final report of the UK’s Byron Review on Children and New Technology is finally out. It is called Safer Children in a Digital World. It focuses on the benefits and risks associated with the Internet and video games. I will be posting more about the specifics in coming days, but the general thrust of the report–at least from the executive summary–looks quite good. Here’s a few key quotes:

* Technology offers extraordinary opportunities for all of society including children and young people. The internet allows for global exploration which can also bring risks, often paralleling the offline world. * “New media are often met by public concern about their impact on society and anxiety and polarisation of the debate can lead to emotive calls for action.” … “Debates and research in this area can be highly polarised and charged with emotion.” * “I propose that we seek to achieve gains in these three areas by having a national strategy for child internet safety which involves better self-regulation and better provision of information and education for children and families.” * “We need to take into account children’s individual strengths and vulnerabilities, because the factors that can discriminate a ‘beneficial’ from a ‘harmful’ experience online and in video games will often be individual factors in the child. The very same content can be useful to a child at a certain point in their life and development and may be equally damaging to another child.”

I like the focus on education and parental oversight that I see in the report. Here’s a particular good recommendation that closely parallels what I have called for in my own work:

* We can use these findings to help us navigate a practical and sensible approach to helping our children manage risks. This is no different to how we think about managing risk for children in the offline world, where decreasing supervision and monitoring occurs with age as we judge our children to be increasing in their competence to identify and manage risks. So, when we teach our children to cross the road safely we do it in stages: > We hold their hand when they cross the road. > We teach them to think, look both ways and then cross. > When we see that they are starting to understand this we let them cross walking beside us, without holding on to them. > Eventually we let them do it alone, maybe watching from a distance at first, but then unsupervised. > And throughout this, the environment supports them with signs and expected behaviour from others in the community – the green man, zebra crossings, speed limits and other responsible adults.

This is very much in line with the “educate & empower” focus of many past child safety reviews here in the States.

Of course, there are 200 pages more for me to get through, so I will need to review the details to see what they look like. More later.

Update: I think this paragraph on pg. 17 of the report makes an essential point:

“Deciding what is inappropriate is subjective and based on many factors including the age, experience, values, belief systems and culture of the person making that decision. Some behaviours that take place on the internet, such as children’s exploration to do with sexuality, may be considered inappropriate or even delinquent by an adult, but can play an important role in the young person’s development. So what might be offensive for one person may be empowering for another.”

Indeed. This is the “eye of the beholder” point I always try to make in all my work about content regulation. As the old saying goes, ‘one man’s trash is another man’s treasure.’