Keeping children safe, thoughts and opinions

Seeing where the digital world is going with regards to recently emerging regulations, age verification and the ever lurking chat control, thoughts and opinions. Do we really need to turn into a surveillance-state to keep children safe?

Does age verification keep children safe?

Purportedly this is the reason why it is introduced by more and more governments.

What it is, is law-abiding sites making material categorized as not appropriate for minors inaccessible to anyone not able to (that would be children) or not willing to go through age verification.

I really feel like this just completely ignores the real risks of children being online without supervision or guidance.

• A lot of sites are designed to influence, to hook in people which could have even worse effect on children lacking awareness. This is getting worse with all the tracking, tailored content (especially on social media).
• It doesn't do anything about applications with online chat including such games aimed at children. Ill-minded adults can get into those the same and continue causing severe harm: Age verification puts a barrier at children pretending to be adults, but does nothing about adults pretending to be children (or otherwise just going there with bad intent).
• Material specifically targeting children: advertising.

Young kids aren't even interested in "adult material". They won't go looking for boobs by themselves.

Teens are different, but then teens will find a way anyway, age verification will only make it worse by steering them towards sketchier sites or possibly using IDs of adult family members if they can get hold of such.

Also, it is not like barriers didn't exist before either, many ISPs even provided parental controls, and more reputable sites did put away adult material from direct reach. Regulation efforts could have focused on making this more uniform, easier to use for parents.

Does chat control keep children safe?

Could a law requiring every house to have microphones installed, always on, monitored by an AI prevent harmful actions to children take place? Sure it could. We have a solution, Alexa, play some fanfare!

Ridiculous, isn't it? Applying more surveillance of course can curb illegal activity, but if we let things go that direction, eventually everything will be illegal. Welcome to Orwell's world.

We need to improve the situation without destroying our privacy and freedom. Or rethink, is this even really where the problem is?

Then how to keep children safe?

Education. First and foremost. Not only the kids, adults (parents) as well. Ultimately that's what matters the most, even the most draconian regulations won't fix that if the problem is there.

Otherwise I see it fair that something should be done to make it easier to provide a safe Net for kids, something which could be given to them such as to assist with school work without worries. We could admit that not all parents are able to keep up with the risks of an unregulated digital world (especially in this cost of living crisis where both of them might need to grind at a full-time job).

I see a possible solution being in separated accounts provided by ISPs. Have a kid friendly Net based on white-lists, vetted to possibly a bit more relaxed education standards.

This not meaning to prohibit kids ending up on the actual much less regulated Internet, the point is to give an easy option to parents to give them access to everything what could possibly be useful in modern education along with child-safe entertainment.

What regulations I would probably enforce on the Internet along with it:

• Advertising targeting minors is to be outlawed. Important that it is not a ban on things which kids might enjoy, rather on the design of advertising. This can be enforced since at least the corresponding product's sales can be blocked if they don't comply.
• Advertising (any sort) within content targeting minors is to be outlawed. This is based on the design of the content, such as cartoons aimed at children. Can be enforced since an offending site can be blocked if they don't comply. Informative non-third-party material provided in a non-disruptive manner is permissible.
• Reinforce parental controls, with public networks requiring to have parental controls set at "General" (with exceptions to adult-only establishments).
• Appropriate content rating for parental controls is required. It can be enforced, if a site doesn't comply, worst case it can be blocked.
• Anonymous private chat is required to be rated as Mature content. It can be enforced, again worst case if not complying, it can be blocked.
• Chat applications either with identification or monitoring pass as General: in different ways they limit bad actors.
• Social media is required to be rated as Mature. What may classify as social media might sometimes be blurred, and could need case by case decision in borderline cases.
• VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) are required to be rated as Adult content.

This isn't anyhow something absolute, just my opinions, where I would look if aiming to regulate towards making it all more kid-safe while preserving the possibility for independent expression and privacy.

Advertising

Advertisements targeting children on any medium I believe is something harmful to their development - these are tailored to influence them, and not towards a goal beneficial for their or the society's overall development. They are designed to make children want some product, and that want they will exert on their parents (who both grind at their full-time jobs to get by in this cost-of-living crisis). It is just plain unethical as far as I see. Continuously being exposed to this would leave a mark on their personality.

On the internet (or even on television) such advertisements are especially asinine, the parents often wouldn't be able to notice what the child is exposed to even if they wanted to. Good parents may limit this exposure and counteract it with their parenting, but often even good parents may not be able to do anything about it, such as if the exposure happens in relation to school activity or by other kids' devices. A separate kid friendly Net of course could limit it, but I wouldn't make a distinction by that: if a programme is aimed at children, children will end up there (possibly / likely by their parents, not necessarily aware).

I would leave advertisements be on non-digital mediums, those being such that parents and schoolteachers can also easily see them, thus exert control over them if needed, talking with children or worse case, raising their voice against the advertiser if it is inappropriate.

Instead of advertising, providers of content aimed at minors should rely on subscription models (and it isn't prohibited either to advertise the service if targeting adults, that is, the parents who subscribe for their kids). Business models relying on influencing children just need to go in my opinion, no excuses, no buts.

Parental controls

Here in the United Kingdom before this farce with age verification had begun there already existed regulations around parental controls. Every ISP provided it, by default turned On. These work by blacklists and content rating.

It can work well, though since an Internet account was one for the whole household it likely got turned Off if parents wanted to access "Adult" material. This could have been improved to resolve most of the issues with children wandering to places on the Net where they shouldn't be.

Content rating is easy to implement by site owners, it allows small independent sites with content requiring stricter rating to operate if regulations stop at requiring this.

Three ratings, "General", "Mature" and "Adult" should be provided, the "Mature" rating I feel is useful to provide a distinction between young kids and teens (as far as I know, as of now only the "Adult" rating really exists), and it could also be a choice the parents might be fine with using, providing access to a variety of content which would be restricted in "General".

Anonymous private chats

I believe it is of utmost importance to protect the rights of this means of communication to exist. Encrypted chats included. They more or less replaced paper mail and partially phone conversations, and are important for people to be able to connect often even across borders. The existence of such chats support a movement towards global peace, however unlikely that seems these times - they connect people far apart, give insights into lives in different parts of the world, making us more and more become aware that in other countries there are similar people like us, too.

With regards to children the difference compared to past means of distant communication is that these became very easy to access, sometimes (such as by online games) even coming as a side effect of some other primary interest.

Adding regulations so to limit these to "Mature" rating with parental controls would serve to bar young children from too easily becoming exposed to contacts their parents are not aware of (and of course if a kid safe Net is introduced, that must not contain such applications). No less, no more: there is absolutely nothing wrong with anonymous encrypted chat, just it is not something appropriate for young kids due to the risks.

Chat applications with identification or monitoring

Such chats could be allowed to have "General" rating and select ones possibly be part of the kid safe Net (if one is established) provided the means of identification is sufficiently robust or suitably strict monitoring is used.

One common use-case in the modern world, modern education could be school projects, but kid friendly games and other applications may also include such chats. These carry some risks though, for young kids the ideal would be keeping chats local (and possibly even avoid too much exposure to being online rather than experiencing the world in person).

Important to note that it is either Identification or Monitoring, not necessarily both. Each could have its own use-cases.

• Identification requires the participants to be tied to real people in a sufficiently robust manner, children included (in their case, their parents may identify them and take responsibility for the identity being true). The restraint on possible ill intent this case is the identification while the chat itself may even be encrypted in a way only the participants can access it. Data persistence should be a requirement: For the participants to be able to access that data and potentially use it as proof (note that this doesn't imply access by anyone apart from the participants themselves, so no backdoors around encryption if encryption is used).
• Monitoring requires the chat to be unencrypted, available for some third parties to scan, possibly filter and moderate. This case the participants might be anonymous, the fact that the chat is monitored provides the restraint. Typical use-cases might be in-game chats, possibly direct messages on some sites. It should be highlighted in these applications that they operate in this manner.

So basically when kids are anticipated to be possibly involved ("General" rating), participants are either identified with the chat itself being private between them, or in an anonymous environment they participate in monitored, moderated conversation.

The difference between the technological possibility of finding out the identity of someone and a chat service with identification as portrayed here would be the latter being legally recognized as such - so if something happens resulting in a child coming to harm, it would be legally a clear case to prove the identity of the participants. The chat history may also be used as evidence if either participant provided access to it.

Social media

Children don't belong on it in my opinion, probably there wouldn't be much debate over that. However note that social media could have many forms, from the doom-scrolling brainrot Twitter (and whatever it became) to even sites focused on sharing art and stories. Young kids are unlikely to understand the implications of having a wide, anonymous exposure, teens however could likely do and might have the motive and drive as well to build up a persona, to show off creative expressions.

For this reason I would rate it "Mature" at least with regards of actively participating in it (having an account).

Tailored content (based on tracking) in such application I feel should be restricted to logged in users or at least on "General" rating.

Virtual Private Networks

They should be rated "Adult". Nothing wrong with them, just acknowledging that they bypass parental controls so in overall they fit under this rating for a consistent system.

Exceptions are allowed if the VPN service adheres to a content rating itself (such as a company VPN would likely apply a "General" rating, hence itself could be rated "General", thus accessible on either parental control setting).

Age verification and its real world analogy

I believe those politicians who back this based on truly believing this should be the way to protect children on the internet take it from the real world practice.

When you enter a pub and ask for some beverages, you may be asked for your ID if by the looks you don't seem to be an adult. It is a legal requirement in most places of the world to do this. The bartender takes a quick look at your photo and your date of birth, if by the looks it is indeed your ID and your age is above the legal limit, you get your order.

A key thing with this is that your ID stays in your reach, and it is a person taking a quick look at it before it is back in your hands. In ten minutes nobody will remember the details apart from that you were indeed not underage.

The Internet however doesn't work this way.

The best real world analogy would be that you let the bartender take your ID with him into the kitchen, minutes pass, you may hear something suspiciously like a photocopier, and then eventually it is back with you and you can have your drink.

This wouldn't fly in a real world pub. It would be closed quite soon and quite possibly with the involvement of the police if such practice began to be used. On the Internet however there is no control. If you send your ID off on the wire, anything could happen with the data and you may never know.

How concerned we should be about privacy?

I would say, very, but the real thing is quite nuanced.

First and foremost, if the government really really wanted to track someone on the Net, usually it could be done by a call to the guy's ISP (Internet Service Provider). Legal things aside, by technology, the ISP necessarily has all the traffic data. Well, not including what was possibly going on if a VPN was used, but the fact that a VPN was used, which VPN and how much data, would be there (and then if really insistent, they could start bothering the VPN provider for providing subsequent tracking data).

So there isn't really a lot of privacy there if someone really-really wants to snoop and has that sort of power to exert the necessary influence to get it.

The main thing is whether we should allow this to be normalized.

Dictatorial police states don't happen out of the blue. There is progression, and for a long while the courts could remain more or less independent. If the constitution and laws keep reinforcing the right to private conversation and forbid collecting and using sensitive data, even if those in power tried, they wouldn't be able to get a case going - and it may as well turn back on them for using means which very much go against the fundamental rights.

So it is important to not let those fundamental rights to be eroded by initiatives like this age verification and chat control are.

May seem a bit bleak. I have to also add though that some privacy does exist if using the right applications. Encrypted exchange of data is very much possible, of that, third parties without possession of the keys to decrypt it can only ever find the participants between whom the exchange occurred.

Closing words

So that would be about it, my long-winded opinions about these regulations emerging in the past years. I see them fundamentally flawed, possibly able to achieve a few things around the premise communicated about them - to keep the children safe - but eroding fundamental rights around privacy in an absolutely horrible way.

With appropriate thought and planning, we could craft regulations to create an internet safer for children (while also possibly improving it for ourselves, adults), even I can see ways which could make the situation better. It is not impossible. Just needs the right attention and proper consideration of what the Internet is, how it works. It is an awesome thing which connects the world, allows people with all sorts of backgrounds to participate and interact with each other, showing us that everywhere in the world there are people living their lives, having their unique experiences, yet in so many ways similar.

The Internet is also a device for the oppressed to be able to still have an access to a freedom to express themselves in anonymity, to show they exist, to cry out - and with many voices to hopefully shape the world towards the better.

But it only works if we, at least in those parts of the world where we can, keep protecting and reinforcing the Internet's status as a communication medium where we can connect and could find the ways to do so in the safety of privacy. That's what we should be working for.