High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
Progress on Point
Release 14.5 March 2007 Periodic Commentaries on the Policy Debate
Social Networking and Age Verification:Many Hard Questions; No Easy Solutions
by Adam Thierer
Introduction
Two years ago, few people were talking about “social networking” websites.Today, however, social networking sites are among the most-trafficked on the Internet.Concerns about how youngsters use these services have already prompted lawmakersto introduce legislation to ban access to such sites in schools and libraries. Others,including several state attorneys general, want such sites to age-verify all users toexclude those over or under a certain age.“Social networking” defies easy definition because, in many ways, the Internetand most of the websites that make up the World Wide Web have been fundamentallytied up with the notion of social networking from their inception. “Trying to define socialnetworking is very much like trying to pin down a moving target, because it’s evolving soquickly,” argue Larry Magid and AnneCollier, authors of
MySpace Unraveled: AParent’s Guide to Teen Social Networking
.
Nonetheless, more formal social networking sites began popping up a few yearsago that offered their users the space and tools to build the equivalent of an online journal and then to network with others more easily. MySpace, Facebook, Xanga, Bebo,Hi5, Friendster, Tagged, Imbee, LiveJournal, Yahoo 360, and Windows Live Spaces are just a few of the hundreds of social networking sites online today.
New sites areseemingly surfacing every week, and they are growing more personalized in an attemptto appeal to specific niches.
For example, in late 2006, a new site for youngergovernment workers (www.youngfeds.org) was launched that bills itself as “the homefor the views and voices that matter to young people working in and around the federal
∗
Adam Thierer (athierer@pff.org) is a senior fellow with The Progress & Freedom Foundation and thedirector of its Center for Digital Media Freedom. The views expressed in this report are his own. Theauthor wishes to thank John J. Cardillo of Sentinel, Jeff Schmidt of Authis, Denise G. Tayloe of Privo,Anne Collier of Net Family News, and Tim Lordan of the Internet Education Foundation for theirvaluable input on various matters discussed in this paper.
1
Larry Magid and Anne Collier,
MySpace Unraveled: A Parent’s Guide to Teen Social Networking
(Berkeley, CA: Peachtree Press, 2007), p. 2.
2
For a list of notable social networking sites, see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites
3
See Robert D. Hof, “There’s Not Enough ‘Me’ in MySpace,”
Business Week
, December 4, 2006, p. 40.
1444 EYE STREET, NW
SUITE 500
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
PHONE: 202-289-8928FACSIMILE: 202-289-6079
E-MAIL: mail@pff.org
INTERNET: http://www.pff.org
Page 2 Progress on Point 14.5
government.”
At the heart of the debate over social networking lie the same concerns that havemotivated previous Internet regulatory initiatives: underage access to objectionablematerial and fears about child predators. Calls for regulation have followed. In the pastsession of Congress, former Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (R-PA) introduced the DeletingOnline Predators Act (DOPA), which proposed a ban on social networking sites in publicschools and libraries. Fitzpatrick argued that such sites are a “virtual hunting ground forsexual predators.”
Others in Congress were eager to act as well. In fact, in the span of just one month in summer 2006, the House Energy and Commerce Committee aloneheld four hearings on the issue of sexual exploitation of children on the Internet.
Atthose hearings, several witnesses and lawmakers called for increased governmentoversight or regulation of the Internet and social networking websites in particular.
Unsurprisingly, DOPA passed the House of Representatives shortly thereafter bya lopsided 410-15 vote.
And DOPA was reintroduced just a few weeks into the currentsession of Congress by Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), the ranking minority member andformer chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.
It is section 2 of a new bill thatSen. Stevens hassponsored and that is titled the “Protecting Children in the 21stCentury Act” (S. 49).
Many state attorneys general (AGs) are also expressing concern and some havesuggested that legal action against social networking sites might be forthcoming.Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has been a particularly vociferouscritic, callingsocial networking sites “a sexual predator’s dream and a parent’s worstnightmare.”
Many AGs such as Blumenthal and North Carolina Attorney General RoyCooper are pressuring social networking sites to authenticate the identities of theirusers. Specifically, AGs want site operators to verify the age of all their users to keepanyone under the age of 16 or 18 off those sites entirely. Some also propose raising the
4
Stephen Barr, “Fostering a Facebook for the Feds,”
Washington Post
, October 23, 2006, p. D1.
5
Letter from Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (R-PA) to Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), chairman of the HouseCommittee on Financial Services Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice and Commerce, June 7,2006,http://fitzpatrick.house.gov/UploadedFiles/letter%20wolf.pdf
6
“Sexual Exploitation of Children over the Internet,”
Staff Report,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,U.S. House of Representatives, 109
th
7
Larry Magid notes that “DOPA does nothing to strengthen penalties or increase prosecution of criminalswho prey on children. Instead, it punishes the potential victims and educational institutions chartered toserve them, by denying access to interactive sites at school and libraries. It would be like trying toprotect children from being injured or killed by drunk drivers by ruling that kids can no longer walk, ridea bike or even ride in a car or bus to school.” Larry Magid, “House Misfires on Internet Safety,”
CBS News.com
8
Declan McCullagh, “Chat Rooms Could Face Expulsion,”
CNet News.com,
9
Anne Broache, “Congress Off to Slow Start with Tech,”
ZDNet News
10
11
Quoted in McCullagh,
op. cit.
Progress on Point 14.5 Page 3
minimum allowable age to access the sites. But those AGs haven’t offered a specificage verification solution themselves; they are simply demanding that social networkingproviders find a way to do it effectively.
The fact that AGs have demanded that others devise a workable age verificationsolution without proposing any solutions themselves is not surprising. Age verification isextremely complicated, and it would be even more complicated in this case becausepublic officials are demanding the age verification of minors as well as adults, whichpresents a wide array of special challenges and concerns.
This paper will discuss some of those challenges and concerns and will raise ahost of questions that need to be carefully considered as both lawmakers and theindustry move forward. The study offers three general conclusions:(1) Age verification raises
many sensitive issues related to the privacy ofchildren and online freedom of speech and expression
. We need to avoid arushed solution that too easily compromises those values.(2) In all likelihood, even if a technical solution emerges that satisfies that first goal, itwill almost certainly not be foolproof.
Perfect age verification is a quixoticobjective
. It is important that we do not rush into a solution that provides a falsesense of security to either parents or the youngsters using social networkingsites. And it is important that we do nothing that could force mainstream,domestic social networking sites offshore or, even worse, that could drive theusers we are trying to protect to offshore sites. Whatever their concerns areabout current domestic sites, parents and policy makers should understand thatthose sites are generally more accountable and visible than offshore sites overwhich we have virtually no influence but that have the same reach as domesticsites.(3) In light of (1) and (2),
education is absolutely essential
. Parents, schools,government, other institutions, and web site operators all need to do much moreto educate youngsters about online safety and proper etiquette within interactiveenvironments.In the end, a mix of solutions—some technical, but more education based—willlikely provide the optimal solution to concerns about online child safety. Thetechnological solutions should be developed by the private sector. The educationsolutions need to be developed and distributed through a partnership of private-sector,nonprofit, and government entitles.The role of law enforcement should be to focus on prosecuting serious threats
12
See Emily Steel and Julia Angwin, “MySpace Receives More Pressure to Limit Children’s Access toSite,”
Wall Street Journal
, June 23, 2006,http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115102268445288250-YRxkt0rTsyyf1QiQf2EPBYSf7iU_20070624.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
13
For a general overview of age verification challenges, see Anick Jesdanun, “Age Verification at Social-Network Sites Could Prove Difficult,”
Associated Press Financial Wire
, July 14, 2006.
Add a Comment