DATE DOWNLOADED: Fri Dec 30 17:59:21 2022

SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline

Citations:

Bluebook 21st ed.

Joseph Savirimuthu, The EU, Online Child Safety and Media Literacy, 19 INT'l J.
CHILD. Rts. 547 (2011).

ALWD 7th ed.

Joseph Savirimuthu, The EU, Online Child Safety and Media Literacy, 19 Int'l J.
Child. Rts. 547 (2011).

APA 7th ed.

Savirimuthu, J. (2011). The eu, online child safety and media literacy. International
Journal of Children's Rights, 19(3), 547-570.

Chicago 17th ed.

Joseph Savirimuthu, "The EU, Online Child Safety and Media Literacy," International
Journal of Children's Rights 19, no. 3 (2011): 547-570

McGill Guide 9th ed.

Joseph Savirimuthu, "The EU, Online Child Safety and Media Literacy" (2011) 19:3
Int'l J Child Rts 547.

AGLC 4th ed.

Joseph Savirimuthu, 'The EU, Online Child Safety and Media Literacy' (2011) 19(3)
International Journal of Children's Rights 547

MLA 9th ed.

Savirimuthu, Joseph. "The EU, Online Child Safety and Media Literacy." International
Journal of Children's Rights, vol. 19, no. 3, 2011, pp. 547-570. HeinOnline.

OSCOLA 4th ed.

Joseph Savirimuthu, 'The EU, Online Child Safety and Media Literacy' (2011) 19 Int'l
J Child Rts 547

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and
Conditions of the license agreement available at
https://heinonline.org/HOL/License
-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.
-- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your license, please use:
Copyright Information
 C.'i , R

MARTINUS
NIJHOFF
P U BL I S H E R S InternationalJournalof Children'sRights 19 (2011) 547-569 brill.nl/chil

The EU, Online Child Safety and Media Literacy

Joseph Savirimuthu
School of Law and Social Justice, University of Liverpool
jsaviri@liverpool.ac.uk

Abstract
Media literacy continues to assume an important role in EU online child safety governance. Its
central premise is that individuals who do not have access to relevant information will be least able
to make informed choices about how online interactions and risks can be managed in safe and effec-
tive manner. This intuition is broadly correct but 'network publics' create new complications that
media literacy measures must now address. This article examines the role of the EU in enhancing
the safety of children in the online environment through the use of public awareness and education
strategies. The analysis of EU online child safety governance strategy and, more specifically, the
awareness-raising strategies pursued under the Safer Internet Programme reveals some of the ways
child safety issues are now being transformed into legal and social obligations.

Keywords
European Union; child safety; internet; governance; media literacy; children's rights; online risks

Introduction

Media literacy is emerging as an invaluable policy response, particularly for safe-

guarding children in the online environment (O'Neill, 2010: 31-33). The
European Commission's Safer Internet Programme can be seen as a prime exem-
plar of this strategy (European Commission, 2008). From a risk management
perspective, ICT competence and awareness about the nature of digital informa-
tion and threats can equip individuals with the knowledge and confidence to
manage their online activities in a safe manner. The concerns about children's
safety in the online environment are rooted in the fact that the absence of face-
to-face contact and the difficulties in ascertaining the identity of individuals and
controlling the use of electronic data compound the challenges faced by policy-
makers, parents and children in this area of child protection (Livingstone et al.
2010). This article focuses on the role of the EU in equipping children, parents
and educators with relevant and accessible information aimed at complementing
ongoing policy efforts to enhance the safety of children in the online environ-
ment. The central line of inquiry undertaken here relates to the strategic impor-
tance of information awareness measures adopted by the EU. More specifically,

© Koninldijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI 10.1163/157181811X587340

548 J. Savirimuthu / InternationalJournalof Children's Rights 19 (2011) 547-569

it will be argued that we need to identify the specific governance challenges media
literacy initiatives must address, before we can assess their relevance for empower-
ing children to negotiate the risks that originate from difficulties in establishing
control over the use of personal information, ascertaining the authenticity of the
communications, and verifying the reliability of information. Whilst it is gener-
ally the case that concerns about children's safety and well-being lead to a range
of institutional and regulatory responses which have a strong paternalistic bias,
the inquiry pursued in this article should also provide us with an opportunity to
assess whether online child safety governance is consistent with the emerging
children's rights discourse. The article begins with an overview of EU online child
safety policymaking activity. The discussion then proceeds to provide a context
for understanding the role of media literacy in this area of governance. Finally, the
analysis of EU governance strategy, and more specifically, the awareness-raising
initiatives pursued under the Safer Internet Programme reveal some of the ways
child safety issues are now being transformed into legal and social obligations that
adhere to the standards and principles of the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child (UNCRC). However, if media literacy initiatives are to attain
their eventual goals envisaged in The DigitalAgendafor Europe, policymakers may
need to find innovative measures to incentiviseparents and children to assume
their role in contributing to the culture of security, safety and responsibility
(European Commission, 2010). Children's instinct to participate in 'network
publics' and the perception of their unwillingness to heed the safety messages
may be difficult to overcome. It should not be overlooked however that many
children engage in networked publics in a safe and responsible manner, and that
children do develop strategies for managing online risks. However, it should also
be borne in mind that media literacy initiatives do not provide much guidance on
how we assess children's lack of resilience or the measures that can be adopted to
overcome the indifference of some parents to their ethical obligations towards
their children in this area of governance.

A Summary of EU Policymaking Activity in Online Child Safety

Governance

It is very much a clich6 to say that the exponential growth of the Internet and
communication technologies has transformed the way children interact with
social media and the affordances that these technologies make available. Web 2.0
technologies and social media (i.e. Internet, email, mobile phones, and social
networking sites [hereafter "Web 2.0 technologies"]) make available affordances
that children use to negotiate their identities, participate in network publics and
interact with social media and other online users (Boyd, 2007). For example,
children's profile pages and interactions on social networking sites are seen as
 J. Savirimuthu/ InternationalJournalof Childrens Rights 19 (2011) 547-569

platforms for self-presentation and group validation (Donath, 1999). Social net-
working sites and blogs provide technical affordances like "news feeds", "walls",
and "status" features, which children use to exchange information, gossip and
engage with their peers. SMS text, mobile phones, and instant messaging allow
children to construct their interactions with friends, peers and the wider com-
munity. Laptops and mobile phones are equipped with wi-fi and 3G technologies
that enable children to access the Internet, discussion forums, and social net-
working sites from a wide range of venues. It should come as no surprise that Web
2.0 technologies and social media comprise a significant part of children's daily
activities and lifestyle choices. Livingstone suggests that these affordances, cou-
pled with children's increasing consumption of Web 2.0 technologies, have
resulted in a blurring of the private and public spheres inhabited by them (2008,
407). The emerging networked publics can be viewed for example as spaces where
children can now 'gather, interact, and be viewed and also an imagined commu-
nity of people who share similar practices, identities, and cultural understandings'
(Boyd, 2008: 21).
Ready access and use of Web 2.0 technologies also create a new dimension for
child protection policymaking. Ubiquitous computing and the nature of digital
information provide new opportunities for peer victimisation and sexual solicita-
tion by adults. Broadband connectivity has also increased the risks of children
being exposed to illegal or age-inappropriate content inadvertently (Livingstone
et al. 2010: 310). These risks are by no stretch of the imagination novel. Society
has long regarded children's particular vulnerability to such harms as justifying
the development of a child protection and welfare policymaking framework by
the State (Fortin, 2010). Whilst the continued relevance of existing child protec-
tion policies safeguarding children from sexual abuse and peer victimisation is
not doubted, the governance strategies aimed at enhancing the safety of children
in the online environment, however, need to be alert to the scale of the challenge
and the nature of online interactions, digital information and network infrastruc-
tures. The EU Barometer survey in 2005 revealed that 70 per cent of 6-17 year
olds in the European countries were using the Internet.' By 2008, this number
had increased to 75 per cent, with the striking discovery that 60 per cent of chil-
dren aged between 6 and 10 year old were online. Children even as young as
five years old not only spend an increasing amount of their leisure activity online
but they also use a range of media platforms to access information, play games
and interact with their peers at home, school and other venues (Staksrud et al.
2009). Web 2.0 technologies not only lead to a convergence of public and private
spaces, but they also introduce additional properties that pose challenges for
policymaking and compliance: network infrastructures structure the flows of

') http://ec.europa.eu/information-society/activities/sip/surveys/index-en.htm
550 j Savirimuthu / InternationalJournalof Children's Rights 19 (2011) 547-569

information through a wide range of applications and communication devices;

the affordances make information readily accessible and replicable by visible and
invisible audiences; and the identity of the users children connect with are as dif-
ficult to authenticate or verify as those who are connected with them. Increased
access to Web 2.0 communication technologies and the problems children may
face in authenticating the identity of users, verifying the content of information
and controlling the use of digital information (i.e. personal information in the
form of text, audio and images) raise particular challenges for devising and imple-
menting effective online child safety solutions (Smedinghoff, 2007).

Online Child Safety Governance: Concepts, Issues and Actors

For the purposes of this article, online child safety governance can be understood
as addressing three particular forms of risks to a child's safety and well-being, as
depicted in Table 1.

Table 1
Aggressive Sexual
Content - child as Violence, hate, racist Pornography and child sexual abuse
recipient
Contact - child as Victimisation by peers Online sexual solicitation
participant
Conduct - child as Victimising peers User generated sexual content
actor
(Source: adapted from Hasebrink etal 2009, 8)

Surveys commissioned by the EU continue to report children's frequent online

encounters with inappropriate or illegal content, peer victimisation and
approaches from strangers (Livingstone et al. 2010). The EU continues to be at
the forefront of developing policies and promoting innovative strategies that aim
to enhance children's trust in engaging with Web 2.0 technologies. Obviously, a
child's exposure to peer victimisation on social networking sites or through SMS
text, encountering illegal or inappropriate content inadvertently when online,
and unsolicited sexual approaches from adults can undermine trust and confi-
dence of children and their parents in Web 2.0 technologies. Given the multiple
ways through which harm can now be perpetrated against children, the EU has
directed its governance strategy towards requiring all stakeholders (i.e. industry,
law enforcement, educators, child welfare organisations, researchers, parents and
children) to contribute to the goal of creating a safe and secure online environ-
ment for children. As the European Commission recently observed, safeguarding
 J. Savirimuthu I InternationalJournalof Children's Rights 19 (2011) 547-569

children in the online environment is not simply a process of solving some tech-
nical problems:

Addressing those threats and strengthening security in the digital society is a shared responsi-
bility - of individuals as much as of private and public bodies, both at home and globally.
For instance, to tackle sexual exploitation and child pornography, alert platforms can be put
in place at national and EU levels, alongside measures to remove and prevent viewing of harm-
ful content. Educational activities and awareness-raising campaigns for the wider public are
also essential: the EU and Member States can step up their efforts, e.g. through the Safer
Internet Programme, providing information and education to children and families on online
safety, as well as analysing the impact on children of using digital technologies. Industries
should also be encouraged to further develop and implement self-regulatory schemes, in par-
ticular as regards protection of minors using their services
(European Commission, 2010:15-16)

It follows from this that governance primarily involves an ongoing process where
strategies for enhancing the safety of children are developed by the EU in consul-
tation with Member States and stakeholders and ultimately implemented by the
latter. Current EU policymaking and regulatory activity is directed at three
groups of actors: (i) those who make the technologies, (ii) those who make con-
sumption of the technologies and services available; and (iii) those who consume
the technologies and services.
The role of the European Commission has been particularly instrumental both
in terms of responding to online child safety governance issues and ensuring the
implementation of the measures developed as a response at the EU level. In this
regard, particular priority continues to be given to: the use of legal standards to
enforce child safety norms; requiring all Member States to enact laws, create
incentives for industry to develop codes of practice and promote awareness of
online child safety issues, which are consistent with the international and
Convention obligations assumed by the EU towards protecting children; and
impressing on all stakeholders, the importance of keeping their online safety poli-
cies and measures under review.
The EU governance landscape now comprises a patchwork of policy commu-
nications, Directives, Conventions, national legislation, industry practices
and awareness-raising initiatives. The Communication on illegal and harmful
content on the Internet, for example, advocates the establishment of legal stand-
ards governing the prohibition of obscene and indecent content (European
Commission, 1996). Member States undertake obligations to enact and enforce
these standards by passing legislation prohibiting various forms of obscene and
indecent content. Consequently, not only will individuals be subject to prosecu-
tion for engaging in the creation, distribution and consumption of child sexual
abuse and other illegal content but the liability risks are as a consequence extended
to Web 2.0 technologies providers found to have been in violation of their obliga-
tions not to make technical facilities available once they have knowledge of crimes
against children being committed by individuals using these communication
552 J Savirimuthu / InternationalJournalof Children' Rights 19 (2011) 547-569

devices and platforms (Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002,

regulations 13-19). The Council of Europe's Convention on the protection of
children against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse in 2007 is another example
of the EU facilitating the dissemination of acceptable standards of conduct
towards children in countries ("the COE Convention"). The COE Convention is
open for signature by EU Member States, non-Member States that have partici-
pated in its elaboration and by the European Union, and for accession by other
non-Member States. Signatories to the COE Convention undertake to enact leg-
islation, which protect children from commercial and sexual abuse. To ensure
consistency in the laws criminalising child sexual abuse and exploitation, the
COE Convention provides some guidance on the scope and nature of the con-
duct and activities to be made subject to criminal law sanctions (Council of
Europe, 2007). The Commission has long been aware that in a number
of Member States, their national legislation does not prohibit all serious forms of
commercial and sexual exploitation of children, particularly those forms of abuse
now being mediated by Web 2.0 technologies (Newell, 2008). At the EU level,
the Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA, it should be noted, only intro-
duced a minimum approximation of Member States' obligation to criminalise the
most serious forms of child sexual abuse and exploitation (European Council,
2004). Consequently, the Commission published a proposed Directive on com-
bating sexual abuse, the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography,
repealing Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA (European Commission, 2010).
The proposed Directive aims to address some of the regulatory shortcomings in
the 2004 Framework Decision and to ensure that those Member States, which
had not acceded to the COE Convention, be required to adhere to the emerging
international standards for protecting children against sexual abuse and exploita-
tion. Under the proposed Directive, Member States will now be required to enact
legislation criminalising all serious forms of sexual abuse and exploitative behav-
iour, particularly those forms of abuse using Web 2.0 technologies (Articles
3 - 9). Minimum rules covering the definition of criminal offences like "child
sexual abuse", "sexual exploitation", "child pornography", and "solicitation of
children for sexual purposes" are now provided to ensure that Member States
apply the legal standards for protecting children against sexual abuse and exploi-
tation consistently (Article 2). Harmonisation of the laws will also remove poten-
tial barriers to investigating or prosecuting sexual offences against children with a
transborder element (Article 14). The implementation of the proposed Directive
by Member States should increase the prospects of greater cross-border coopera-
tion in the prosecution of offenders and protection of child victims through the
introduction of measures like simplified reporting procedures for child victims
and enabling investigators from different jurisdictions to exchange information
on child abuse and sexual exploitation (Articles 16 - 19). This latest policy rec-
ommendation from the Commission also illustrates the way in which child safety
 j Savirimuthu / InternationalJournalofChildren's Rights 19 (2011) 547-569

standards and principles enshrined in the Council of Europe's Convention on the

Protection of children against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse and the
UNCRC are increasingly being seen as providing a principled basis for regulatory
intervention and the imposition of legal and ethical obligations and responsibili-
ties on Member States and stakeholders.
Two final governance aspects need to be addressed in concluding this overview
of EU online child safety policy. First, a number of strategies have been pursued
to ensure the continued relevance and effectiveness of child safety policies and
measures. Member States and the ICT industry assume primary responsibility
for ensuring the effectiveness and continued relevance of child safety measures
(i.e. national legislation, industry codes of practice and technical standards). The
Commission continues to publish Communications and Directives aimed at
reminding Member States of their continued obligations in this regard. As Web
2.0 technologies evolve, legislation needs to be sufficiently flexible to proscribe
the evolving forms of sexual abuse and harm mediated through these technolo-
gies. For example, under the proposed Directive, sexual grooming and viewing
of online child sexual abuse content, without downloading the materials on
the computer, and child sex tourism will now be criminalised (Articles 2 - 6).
Additionally, the proposed Directive attempts to persuade Member States to
increase their efforts in shutting down or blocking access to websites that engage
in the hosting, production and distribution of child sexual abuse content
(Article 21). The Commission, it would seem from the foregoing discussion,
regards online child safety governance as an ongoing process. It recently used the
Safer Internet Day event in 2011 to announce its plans to review the 2006
Recommendation on minors and how to protect them in audiovisual media and
Internet (European Commission, 201 la). Plans are also in place to review the
2008 Communication on the protection of youngsters from harmful content in
video games (ibid.).
Second, information sharing and dissemination of online child safety practices
adopted by stakeholders in Member States continue to provide an important
foundation for the formulation of online safety policies. Consultation exercises
and studies on priority areas of policymaking (i.e. parental control tools, social
networking sites, media literacy) designed to engage businesses and the ICT
industry are also an important part of the EU's online child safety governance
strategy. The Green Paper on the protection of minors and human dignity in
audio-visual and information services, for example, culminated in the adoption
of a Recommendation, which extended the obligations of the broadcasting media
to ensure that appropriate child safety measures were adopted in respect of audio-
visual and information services (European Council, 1998). A little less than a
decade later, the European Parliament and the Council built on the 1998 Council
Recommendation in passing a Recommendation on the Protection of Minors
and Human Dignity and on the Right of Reply (European Parliament et al.
554 J. Savirimuthu / InternationalJournalof Children's Rights 19 (2011) 547-569

1998). This Recommendation was seen as a necessary response to ensure that

Member States continued to take necessary measures to ensure compliance with
their legal obligations to protect children from exposure to illegal or harmful
content across all audiovisual and on-line information services. Ensuring compli-
ance with the obligations to provide online child safety measures requires policy-
makers to communicate these duties to all stakeholders, in particular the ICT
industry, child welfare organisations and law enforcement. The dialogue also
serves another purpose, namely, it provides policymakers with an opportunity to
disseminate and receive information on child safety issues and practices. The EU's
Safer Internet Forum has provided a platform for addressing existing and emerg-
ing online child safety issues. Since 2004, the topics covered at the Safer Internet
Forum included the promotion of online safety in schools, assessing the impact
of convergence and the nature of online sexual abuse, examining the issues
raised by the deployment of labelling and age verification tools, developing sus-
tainable and effective strategies for safer use of mobile phone and social network
sites and the challenges faced in establishing a European code of practice for
Internet service providers. In 2010 the Forum hosted a meeting discussing the
online experiences and practices of children and parents with particular reference
to managing online risks. The governance strategies and measures implemented
during the past decade demonstrate, at the very least, that EU policymakers are
aware of the nuances of child safety governance in the context of Web 2.0 tech-
nologies and appreciate the outcomes in preferring one regulatory strategy
over another (i.e. direct regulation, co-regulation and self-regulation). The stake-
holder forum convened under the EU Kids Online II project consulted with a
wide range of stakeholders from Member States with the aim of formulating
policy recommendations and disseminating information amongst key national
stakeholders (Jorge et aL 2010). One cannot fail to be impressed by the ICT
industry's engagement with the efforts of the EU in safeguarding children in the
online environment. It should also be pointed out that in pursuing the govern-
ance strategies and measures, the EU has not solely relied on direct State interven-
tion in the form of legislation to define the obligations of the ICT industry.
Policymakers have also acknowledged the shortcomings of legislation in address-
ing emerging threats and compliance issues, and have in some sector-specific
areas opted for self-regulation and the use of codes of practice as standard setting
instruments to complement the overarching legal framework (European
Parliament et al. 2006). As Smedinghoff correctly notes, self-regulation, with
appropriate regulatory oversight mechanisms instituted by governments and
policymakers, can provide greater compliance and even exceed the obligations
assumed under the law (2007, 37). The brokering of two codes of practice involv-
ing social networking service and mobile phone providers is a vindication
of the strategic operational decisions made by EU policymakers in this area of
 J. Savirimuthu / InternationalJournalof Children's Rights 19 (2011) 547-569

governance. 2 Under the European Framework for Safer Mobile use by younger
teenagers and children, signatories undertake to integrate security solutions into
their products and services and subject the effectiveness of these measures to
ongoing review.3 The EU Safer Social Networking Principles provide another
example of online services providers integrating child protection principles into
their business models.4 Signatories undertake to promote online safety practices
and adopt appropriate acceptable use policies which are clear and accessible to
children, parents and educators. These include providing information and tools
that enable users to navigate privacy and age-appropriate services and content.
Additionally, as social networking sites are accessible to both adults and minors,
service providers undertake to make available educational material and techno-
logical solutions, which enable users to manage content, contact and conduct
risks. To ensure that the standards adopted in the two codes of practice are applied
throughout the EU, the responsibility for ensuring implementation and compli-
ance with the obligations assumed and the effectiveness of measures adopted in
fulfillment of these obligations is distributed amongst the Commission, Member
States and public authorities.
In conclusion, the active role of the EU in creating an overarching set of poli-
cies and measures makes clear that Member States must adhere to their obliga-
tions to promote the safety of children in the online environment. The extension
of these obligations to all the stakeholders within each Member State, in particu-
lar the ICT industry, makes clear that governments assume primary responsibility
for formulating appropriate regulatory mechanisms to ensure that all stakehold-
ers adhere to the standards for protecting children from contact, content and
contact risks.

Media Literacy: Education and Information as a Governance Strategy

Safeguarding children strategies not only require the ICT industry, law enforce-
ment and child welfare organisations to be engaged in this area of child protec-
tion but also those who consume Web 2.0 technologies and services. Education
and public awareness-raising campaigns are an important aspect of any child pro-
tection governance strategy (O'Neill et al. 2010).

2) http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/232 and http://europa.eu/

rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/139
3 http://www.gsmeurope.org/safer-mobile/european.shtml
4) http://ec.europa.eu/information-society/activities/social-networking/eu action/selfreg/index
_en.htm
556 J Savirimuthu / InternationalJournalof Children's Rights 19 (2011) 547-569

What is media literacy?

Media literacy as a strategy for safeguarding children continues to be framed in a

number of ways: "digital literacy", "media literacy and security" and "computer
literacy" (Livingstone et al. 2005). The EU social inclusion agenda, for example
describes media literacy in terms of its digital context, namely, information and
communication technology skills and competences (European Commission,
2008: 3). Enhancing the ICT competences of children is part of the EU's Digital
Agenda (European Commission, 2010). The Audiovisual Media Services
Directive interestingly, emphasises information and education relating to:

skills, knowledge and understanding that allow consumers to use media effectively and safely.
Media-literate people are able to exercise informed choices, understand the nature of content
and services and take advantage of the full range of opportunities offered by new communica-
tions technologies. They are better able to protect themselves and their families from harmful
or offensive material. (European Parliament et al. 2007, recital 47)

Media literacy complements the Commission's Agenda for the Rights of the
Child, by integrating children and parents into current regulatory efforts since
online technologies 'bring unique opportunities to children and young people by
providing access to knowledge and allowing them to benefit from digital learning
and participate in the public debate' (European Commission, 201 Ib, 11).
There is another significance to engaging parents and educators. It is true, as
the EU Kids Online Project reiterates, many children turn to their parents and
educators for support when negotiating network publics (O'Neill et al., 28 - 30).
From a standard setting perspective, media literacy initiatives extend the stand-
ards and principles of the UNCRC to children, parents and educators. By pro-
moting their awareness of Web 2.0 technologies and security issues, media literacy
initiatives have the added benefit of ensuring that the measures and steps taken
by this group of stakeholders will reinforce these standards and principles
(European Commission, 201 lb, 1). As the Commission noted in the public con-
sultation on safer mobile use in 2006, the responsibility for managing risks asso-
ciated with mobile phones was not simply a matter for the mobile phone industry
and public authorities.5 If parents and educators are to fulfill their roles as custo-
dians of children's safety and well-being, they need to be integrated into the gov-
ernance framework. Their inclusion into this framework is important for four
reasons. First, children spend most of their formative and adolescent years at
home and at school. Parents and educators are in a position to address problems
as soon as they arise and are best placed to educate and support children (O'Neill
et al., 28 - 30). Second, their inclusion will promote a better understanding of

" http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference= I P/06/1059&format=HTML&aged

=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
 J Savirimuthu / InternationalJournalof Children's Rights 19 (2011) 547-569

their roles and obligations towards enhancing the safety of children in the online
environment. Third, from an organisational perspective, it is imperative that par-
ents and educators gain a better insight into the way their roles fit in with those
of the ICT industry, child welfare organisations, law enforcement and Member
States in the overall governance framework (Jorge et aL 2010). Finally, policy-
makers will be able to better coordinate the activities of all stakeholders, so that a
principled and coherent approach to governance can be sustained.
To conclude, media literacy, within the context of online child safety govern-
ance strategy, has three aspects. First, it comprises measures adopted to enhance
ICT competences and knowledge of Web 2.0 technologies. Second, it will also
include measures that raise children's awareness of the nature of digital informa-
tion and the significance of the absence of face-to-face contact for establishing the
authenticity and reliability of online interactions and information. Third, parents
and educators will be provided with guidance to ensure that children are pro-
tected from online risks, and as a consequence can take advantage of the oppor-
tunities provided by Web 2.0 technologies.

The Relationship between Media Literacy and Risk Management

Without appropriate ICT competence or awareness of the risks associated with

the use of Web 2.0 technologies or the failure to appreciate the nature of digital
information, many of the risks identified by laws and codes of practice are unlikely
to be pre-empted or managed effectively by children. The effectiveness of media
literacy programmes is dependent to a large extent on the safety measures and
obligations being comprehended and understood by children and their parents'
(Ofsted, 2010: 12 -14). As the public and private spheres converge, risk manage-
ment requires children and their parents to understand that 'content', 'contact'
and 'conduct' risks can emerge in networked publics in various contextual set-
tings and at different levels in the network infrastructure. The perception that
there is a defined sphere or venue where risks originate and end is a misguided
one. Trust in Web 2.0 technologies can be undermined when children use search
tools in web browsers, interact with each other on mobile phones, use electronic
mail and instant messaging and participate in gaming sites. Children may encoun-
ter sexual and harmful content or be subjected to peer victimisation through any
of these devices, at any time and at any location (Hasebrink et al. 2009). Some
examples can also be provided to illustrate the various ways network publics,
affordances and digital content implicate a child's and/or its parents' ability to
make informed decisions and manage online risks in a safe manner. Children
may erroneously assume that unsolicited messages received in online mailboxes
are from trustworthy individuals. Online search tools on web browsers may be
regarded as producing search results containing age appropriate information.
Parents may entertain the mistaken belief that the installation of filtering and
558 j Savirimuthu / InternationalJournalof Children's Rights 19 (2011) 547-569

blocking technologies is a sufficient discharge of their responsibilities towards

children's online activities and interactions (Cybion Srl, 2011). Children may not
realise the potential exposure to peer victimisation or online sexual solicitation
that may accompany the disclosure of personal information like lifestyle choices
and contact details on social networking sites. A lack of awareness that digital
information can be easily manipulated, accessed and even distributed to unin-
tended recipients may lead a child to upload images onto their social networking
sites or send these to friends by SMS text or instant messages. Finally, children
and their parents may not possess a proper understanding of how best to manage
online risks through the adoption of social, technical and legal tools. 6 Whilst the
law can provide children and parents with the necessary assurance that those who
violate the criminal laws will face penal sanctions, information and security lit-
eracy is a strategy that has an immediate practical benefit - it enables children to
manage their online activities in a safe and responsible manner.

EU media literacy governance strategy

In the light of the foregoing, information and security awareness-raising initia-

tives can be seen as responding to two governance challenges resulting from chil-
dren's use of and engagement with Web 2.0 technologies. The first concerns the
inculcation of functional ICT literacy skills among children; the second concerns
raising children's parents', educators' and public awareness of the security and
informational implications arising from the use of these technologies. Three
premises underpin the role of the EU when responding to these challenges: first,
that many of the experiences faced by children, either in respect of unwarranted
sexual attention or inadvertent exposure to illegal content, can be addressed at
source through the use of appropriate technological solutions installed by Internet
service providers, online intermediaries and end users; second, that access to rel-
evant information regarding appropriate use of the Internet, mobile phones and
tools like search engine directories, safety setting functions on electronic mail,
computers, mobile phones and social networking sites can reduce exposure to
content, contact and conduct risks; and third, that parents, educators and chil-
dren become part of the solution to strengthening and sustaining current regula-
tory efforts enhancing the safety of children in the online environment (European
Commission, 2010, section 2.3).
There is now emerging evidence of the influence of these considerations in
shaping EU policymaking and responses (Livingstone etal. 2011). Member States,
for example, continue to encourage schools to raise children, educators and

) http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/ 10/704&format=HTML&aged=O
&language= EN&guiLanguage= nl
 J. Savirimuthu / InternationalJournalof Children' Rights 19 (2011) 547-569

parents' awareness of online safety issues either through the school curriculum,
or organised events. Child welfare organisations increasingly make available rel-
evant and accessible online safety information to parents, educators and children
on websites. In addition to these, the ICT industry and online service providers
now provide safety information for children and also guidance to educators and
parents on how best to assist children in managing Web 2.0 technologies in a safe
and responsible manner. Media literacy is also increasingly viewed as a corporate
social responsibility and consumer welfare issue. Businesses regard the provision
of online safety information as fulfilling their obligations to consumers. The pub-
lic awareness-raising activities and campaigns have also resulted in engendering a
growing engagement between parents and educators with Internet service and
social networking service providers and mobile phone operators. Children, par-
ents and educators now regard themselves as consumers and now expect online
services and mobile phone providers to communicate to them the safety issues
arising from the consumption of their products and services, and the mechanisms
for reporting concerns. The codes of practice governing social networking sites
and mobile phone operators also contain mechanisms for assessing their compli-
ance with their obligations and the effectiveness of the measures adopted to pro-
mote trust and confidence amongst children and their parents.
To summarise, EU media literacy policy can be regarded as strengthening cur-
rent legal and industry measures protecting children from online risks in two
ways. First, education and information awareness initiatives directed at improv-
ing children's ICT competences, and their understanding of the safety implica-
tions of interacting in an environment mediated by technology, aim to empower
children by enabling them to make informed decisions when using Web 2.0 tech-
nologies. Decisions about the authenticity of the interactions with individuals
and the numerous uses to which personal and sensitive information can be put,
require at the very least an appreciation of information systems, Web 2.0 tech-
nologies and safety tools. Second, media literacy initiatives also recognise that
children, particularly those who are younger, may be less equipped to negotiate
the risks that may result from their participation in network publics or through
the use of technological affordances in social networking sites, mobile phones and
online communications generally (Livingstone et al. 2011: 145). Accordingly,
online information services providers and mobile phone providers are now under
an obligation not only to make relevant safety guidance to parents and educators
but are also expected to assess the effectiveness of these measures.

The EU's Safer Internet Programme: An illustration of children's rights

mainstreaming

The EU's Safer Internet Programme ("SIP") provides a platform through which
policymakers, the ICT industry, child welfare organisations, law enforcement,
560 J. Savirimuthu / InternationalJournalof Children's Rights 19 (2011) 547-569

researchers, educators, parents and children address online child safety govern-
ance issues, including the use of education and public awareness-raising initia-
tives. Since 1999, the EU has continued to review its strategies for enhancing
children's, parents' and public awareness of their responsibilities in managing
their online activities and risks (European Commission, 2004). As the threats
facing children continue to evolve with advances in Web 2.0 technologies and
services (i.e. peer-to-peer technologies, voice over Internet protocols and online
games), awareness-raising programmes have become a critical governance
response to managing online risks at source (European Parliament et al. 2005). As
the EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child in its action plan emphasises:

supporting Member States and other stakeholders in strengthening prevention, empowerment

and participation of children to make the most
bullying behaviour, exposure to harmful content,
Safer Internet programme and cooperation with
tives (2009-2014).
of online technologies and counter cyber-
and other online risks namely through the
the industry through self-regulatory initia-
(European Commission, 201 Tb, 11)

Overview of education andawareness-raisinginitiatives

The current SIP builds on two previous Programmes (2004-2008 and 1999-2003
respectively) and gives particular prominence to the governance challenges raised
by online sexual grooming and bullying. The Programme adopts two strategies as
part of its media literacy policy: first, developing education and information
awareness initiatives for children, parents and educators; and second, enlisting
the support of social networking sites and mobile phone operators in enhancing
the safety of children through the production of relevant safety information and
tools. Many of the projects and initiatives pursued under the SIP are based on
evidence obtained from research and surveys. For example, the EU Kids Online
project, which is funded by the Safer Internet Plus Programme, provides a broad
research and knowledge base involving the online experiences of children in the
EU. The EU Kids Online Stakeholder Forum is another awareness-raising and
information dissemination platform (Jorge et al. 2010). Another initiative under
the SIP framework that has an education and awareness-raising function is the
creation of Safer Internet Centres. To ensure that child safety issues and standards
are communicated to the widest possible audience in the EU, awareness nodes
have now been set up in 30 European countries. INSAFE is the European
Co-ordinator for Safer Internet Centres. The Insafe plus network also makes
available extensive resources and information to over 30,000 schools across
Europe. For example, in 2006-2008, awareness nodes were set up in at least 18
countries in the EU including the United Kingdom, Cyprus, Greece, Norway,
Denmark, Slovakia and Germany. Between 2004-2005, 10 countries in the EU
set up Centres to promote greater awareness of online safety issues. In Lithuania,
 J. Savirimuthu / InternationalJournalof Children's Rights 19 (2011) 547-569

for example, the awareness node involved the collaboration of three key stake-
holders - BITE GSM (a major ISP and second largest mobile operator in
Lithuania), the Ministry of Education and Sciences of the Republic of Lithuania
and a non-profit organisation (Social and Psychological Service Centre), which
has expertise in youth issues, and training of educators. The Safer Internet Centres
have experienced and well-trained personnel to deal with a wide range of child
safety issues. For example, Childnet International, T-he South West Grid for
Learning (SWGfL) and the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), oversee the activ-
ities of the UK Safer Internet Centre. Safer Internet Centres are also highly
involved in organizing online safety material and sessions for children, parents
and educators. In addition to these activities, the Centres are also involved in set-
ting up helplines, organise youth panels, conduct public awareness campaigns
and coordinate activities for the Safer Internet Day. Of particular note is the crea-
tion of national Youth Panels aimed at seeking the views of children and learning
from their experiences of the Internet. 7 The participation of children is very much
an aspect of EU policymaking activity, which continues to emphasise the right of
children to have their views, concerns and expectations reflected in this area of
governance. In 2009, Insafe launched a pan-European Youth Panel, comprising
of 54 young people in the panel, aged between 14 and 17 years. The panel mem-
bers represented children and young people from 27 countries in the network.
The topics discussed covered a broad range of issues including children's con-
sumption of the Internet and communication technologies, their experiences of
risks and opportunities and the matters that concerned them most in their daily
lives. At the pan-EU Youth Panel in the Safer Internet Forum 2010, members of
the panel addressed an assembled audience including experts, researchers, repre-
sentatives from industry and policymakers.' The event was particularly instruc-
tive in alerting the audience to the way young people viewed media literacy and
the interaction between children, teachers and parents. Finally, the "Safer Internet
Day" provides another online safety awareness-raising opportunity. The event is
usually marked by presentations, workshops, media broadcasts on child safety
issues and policies coordinated by the Safer Internet Centers within the EU. The
participants at these events include the ICT industry, policymakers, child welfare
organisations, educators and children within each Member State. The
Commission, for example, organised the Safer Internet Day in 2007, which
focused on safe mobile phone use. The Safer Internet Day 2009 focused on chil-
dren's safety on social network sites and the measures for promoting safe and
responsible behaviour. In 2010, the Safer Internet Day drew particular attention

71 http://ec.europa.eu/information-society/activities/sip/events/forum/forum-oct-2009/index
_en.htm
6) http://www.vivendi.com/vivendi/Protection-of-young-people
562 1 Savirimuthu / InternationalJournalof Children'sRights 19 (2011) 547-569

to the nature of digital information and the consequences of posting such content
online. The 'Think before you post' campaign culminated in a round table
organized by the Commission in the European Parliament. The recent Safer
Internet Day on 8 February 2011 focused on the "virtual lives" of children with
particular reference to online gaming sites.9 The identification of this theme for
2011 also illustrates policymakers' recognition of the need to be responsive to
children's lifestyle choices and the governance issues raised as a consequence.
There is for example, growing evidence of a number of children spending a large
amount of their lives online, playing games and participating in network publics.
Gamers spend an average of 8 hours each week playing online games. Multimedia
online role playing games are particularly popular with young people. Many
children have accounts on social networking sites and are active users of the
services. Sites like Facebook, Second Life and World of Warcraft continue to
attract large numbers of children to their services. During the Safer Internet Day
2011 an activity book, Play and Learn: Being Online, was produced for 4-8 year-
olds by Insafe.'0 The publication is not only an information resource but also
provides parents and educators with guidance on inculcating online child safety
norms and values amongst this group of children. The publication is also availa-
ble in a number of languages and takes into account linguistic and cultural
differences.

Engagingparents and educators: the ongoing media literacy challenge

Whilst the focus on EU online child safety governance strategy and media liter-
acy initiatives have been rightly directed towards protecting children and enhanc-
ing their opportunities to take advantage of the benefits Web 2.0 technologies
make possible, policymakers will need to revisit their strategies for engaging
with parents. The recent publication of the findings from the EU Kids Online II
project not only indicated that many parents lacked a proper understanding of
the technological and cultural environment inhabited by their children and,
more worryingly, underestimated the extent to which their children encountered
online risks (Livingstone et al. 2011:150 - 151). For example, 40 per cent of
parents whose child had encountered sexual content online said that their child
had not encountered such content (ibid.); 56 per cent of parents whose children
received malicious or hurtful messages said that the child had not (ibid.); 52 per
cent of parents whose child had received sexual messages or solicitations that their
child had not received any (ibid.); finally, 61 per cent of parents whose child
had face-to-face meetings with persons they met online said that their child

The following draws from information provided in http://www.saferinternet.org/web/guest/

T
safer-internet-day-20 11-kit
"))http://www.saferinternet.org/web/guest/activity-book
 J Savirimuthu / InternationalJournalof ChildrensRights 19(2011)547-569

had not (ibid.). There is also anecdotal evidence of some parents assuming
(incorrectly) that children only need to be monitored when they use computers
to access the Internet. Many parents and educators fail to recognize that in a
mobile and increasingly networked environment children can now access online
content from portable media players, mobile phones and game consoles (Ipsos
Mori, 2009). Some parents and educators even assume that locating computers
in a visible area or the employment of filtering and blocking software are suffi-
cient. However, it will be noted that the nature of network publics and techno-
logical affordances is such that risks to children can also emerge from persons
they are connected to in networked publics, as well as the invisible audiences
connected with them (Allen et al. 2007: 12). Those who regard providing parents
with knowledge of filtering and blocking tools as an invaluable child protection
measure would have regarded the findings from the benchmarking study com-
missioned by the European Commission with some concern (Cybion Srl et al.
2011). According to the study, it was reported that parental control tools were
not particularly effective in filtering Web 2.0 content (ibid., 2011: 16 - 22).
Content on social networking sites and blogs, for example, deemed to be inap-
propriate or harmful, evaded detection by filtering and blocking software
(ibid., 23). In addition to the shortcomings of parental control tools in blocking
content from these communication platforms, the survey also reported that the
market had very few software applications that could be used to filter online con-
tent accessed via mobile phones and game consoles (ibid., 27- 48 ). The findings
from the EU Kids Online II and the Benchmarking Study have important impli-
cations for current media literacy and governance strategies - one in particular
has been highlighted, namely, the promotion of children's coping and risk man-
agement capabilities (O'Neill etal. 2010: 35).
Additionally, it should be noted that compliance with media literacy pro-
grammes is an ongoing problem - policymakers rely on parents and children to
assume their civic responsibilities and contribute to the evolving culture of safe
and responsible use Web 2.0 technologies. Prescriptions to the compliance prob-
lem are not easy to formulate. Children's eagerness to engage in network publics
may result in safety messages being unheeded. That said, as the EU Kids Online
II findings show, many children do in fact develop coping strategies and draw on
online safety tools and information (Livingstone et al. 2011: 14 and 141).
However, it should also be borne in mind that media literacy initiatives do
not provide much guidance on how we assess children's lack of resilience or
the measures that can be adopted to overcome the indifference of some parents
to their ethical obligations towards their children in this area of governance. It is
worth keeping in mind that promoting good parenting skills and online safety
awareness amongst parents, children and educators requires considerable, invest-
ment in time and resources. The answer to the problem of resourcing is not
however, as it might be thought, to allocate the entire responsibility on the ICT
564 1 Savirimuthu / InternationalJournalof Children's Rights 19 (2011) 547-569

industry, for example social networking service providers and mobile phone oper-
ators. Obviously, where the ignorance of parents is attributable to the lack of
accessible information on Web 2.0 technologies and safety issues, these can be
readily addressed. It is perhaps not an exaggeration to say that engaging and
empowering children, parents and educators is becoming a priority for the ICT
industry. Mobile operators and social networking sites organise focus groups
comprising all stakeholders to review the online safety literature and resources."
At present, a number of mobile phone and content service providers have made
available media literacy programmes for children in all age groups, parents and
educators. The information includes steps that can be taken to minimise mobile
phone theft, ensuring privacy of communications, blocking unsolicited commu-
nications and content and obtaining support. For example, many leading mobile
phone providers make available contact phone numbers for children to report
mobile phone bullying. Parents and educators are also provided with information
regarding the threats and risks that can accompany the use of mobile phones and
the measures that can be adopted to minimise a child's exposure to harm. Most
mobile phone providers also provide "jargon busters" information, content con-
trol design solutions and classification schemes. Where younger mobile phone
users are concerned, parents are also provided with information, which will ena-
ble them to make informed choices about the services and content that can be
accessed by their children. Mobile phone operators also undertake awareness-
raising activities with particular emphasis on issues like cyber-bullying, 'happy
slapping', illegal file sharing and online security. Additionally, mobile phone pro-
viders have also implemented mechanisms for undertaking age verification
checks, access controls, robust classification software systems and reporting of
grievances. All mobile operators (with the exception of 3UK) in the UK are
involved in the development of the Teachtoday website. This portal serves to
educate teachers, head teachers, governors and other staff about the Internet and
its communication technologies.

Mainstreaming,empowerment and the EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child

Online child safety policies and measures cohere with the EU Agenda for the
Rights ofthe Child requirement that regulations which have an impact on children
'should be designed, implemented, and monitored taking into account the prin-
ciple of the best interests of the child enshrined in the EU the Charter and in the
UNCRC' (European Commission, 201 Ib).
This Communication reflects current EU jurisprudence which not only views
children as independent and autonomous individuals who have a legitimate

") See http://www.o2.com/child-protection.asp, http://www.google.co.uk/familysafety/ and

http://collect.myspace.com/misc/tipsForParents.html
 J Savirimuthu / InternationalJournalof Children's Rights 19 (2011) 547-569

entitlement to human rights but recognizes that the State and its institutions have
an obligation to promote the rights of children (Article 2(3) of the Treaty on
European Union). Public authorities and private institutions are however under
an obligation to make the child's best interests a primary consideration when
implementing child safety policies. As the Commission noted in its recent com-
munication, the opportunities Web 2.0 technologies and social media provide to
children can be significantly reduced if their trust and confidence is compromised
by individuals misusing their personal information or if digital communications
are not easily authenticated or verified (European Commission, 2011 b, 11).
There is also considerable emphasis in online child safety discourse about empow-
ering children. For example, the SIP aims at empowering children to manage
online risks. It should however be said that empowerment should not be seen as
being incompatible with the normative ideal that children be provided with the
opportunities and means through which they can make decisions about their
safety and well-being. The SIP it should be noted emphasizes that empowerment
and protection are legitimate goals. More specifically, the SIP regards children as
having a legitimate role in making decisions, where appropriate, in managing
risks when they are online. O'Neill and McLaughlin go one step further, and
align empowerment with minimal restrictions and greater emphasis placed on
self-responsibility and self-protection (2010, 35). How are we to understand
empowerment without understanding the shifting contexts of network publics?
One suggestion is that:

Given the increasing trend towards more independent and privatised uses of the internet
through increasing mobile access, as well as the ever younger age of children's first internet use,
Awareness Centres may need to focus efforts on fostering a sense of self-responsibility among
children while targeting. Specific safety messages with regard to mobile devices and other
platforms are required as is a special focus on younger children as internet users and with
appropriate resources tailored to their needs.
(Livingstone etal. 2011: 148)

Whilst such efforts will address the 'trust deficit' inherent in Web 2.0 technolo-
gies, they leave unresolved the question of who assumes the responsibility for
helping children develop ethical norms needed to cope with the complexities of
negotiating network publics and reflect on their online interactions, experiences
and decisions (Jenkins et al. 2006: 16). If media literacy activities are to attain
their ultimate goals, policymakers must address a second equally profound
problem: the overreaching of parental fears into the autonomy and privacy of
children's participation in network publics. Many parents' understanding of net-
work publics is shaped by negative messages from media, law enforcement, and
schools and consequently is not matched by the real experiences of their
children (Livingstone et al. 2011: 143 - 144). Consequently, parents and
educators' mistrust of online interactions and communication technologies can
create real tensions with regard to children's privacy and autonomy; restrictions
566 J. Savirimuthu / InternationalJournalof ChildrensRights 19 (2011) 547-569

on Internet use and surveillance are seen as a way of inculcating responsible and
safe use of communication technologies (Ofsted, 2010: 5 - 16). The "best inter-
ests principle" and the media literacy initiatives outlined above provide very lim-
ited assistance on how best to evaluate the legitimacy of parents and educators
intervening in children's (perfectly legal but socially or ethically questionable)
choices regarding the type of content consumed or conduct engaged in the online
environment. Indeed, parental control tools are a crude way of addressing the
complexities of children's engagement with network publics. Indiscriminate use
of such tools merely reinforce protective impulses of parents that public spaces are
domains where their children are at constant risk of harm and abuse (Valentine,
2004: 27). The danger of excessive restrictions being placed on children's engage-
ment with network publics is that parents may deny them spaces for learning,
development and inculcation of valuable skills in using Web 2.0 technologies in
a safe and responsible manner. Many children also find it difficult to understand
educators' reluctance to permit them to make effective use of Web 2.0 technolo-
gies in schools. "Locked down" systems and constant monitoring are tend to
be viewed as legitimate actions of responsible educators and schools. It seems that
a number of schools are now re-examining the appropriateness of this approach.
On 10 February, 2010 the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services
and Skills (OFSTED) produced a report based on a small survey on how
well schools were engaging students with online safety practices. Its principal
findings were that children developed a better understanding of their roles in
contributing to a culture of safe and responsible use of Web 2.0 technologies,
when schools addressed three matters: equipped educators with online safety
information skills; engaged educators, children and parents in developing an
online safety culture in the school; and defined the applicable social and ethical
norms governing children's use of these technologies and social media. It follows
that media literacy initiatives must now respond to three challenges (Jenkins etal.
2006: 16). First, it must address the 'participation gap', since not all children pos-
sess the technical skills or recognize the range of opportunities presented by the
Internet. Second, by integrating children's experiences and understanding of their
online activities into any awareness-raising initiative, children can gain a critical
perspective of their participation ('transparency gap'). Finally, the inclusion of
well-informed parents and educators will enable children to recognize the role
and place of ethical norms in their interactions with peers and social media ('ethi-
cal challenge').

Conclusion

Media literacy is an essential EU public policy goal and central to the EU's future
children's rights agenda. It enables children to maximize the opportunities that
 J Savirimuthu / InternationalJournalof Children' Rights 19 (2011) 547-569

communication tools provide for their personal development and lifestyle

choices, promotes participation with peers and the wider community, facilitates
the acquisition of skills that enable them to become responsible individuals and
citizens, and encourages future engagement in a digital economy. Online child
safety policymaking in the EU reflects an awareness of the need for children to
have access to relevant and accessible information if they are to be expected to
assume responsibility for their safety and well-being. In this context parents, edu-
cators and industry have an important role to play in enabling children to maxi-
mize the undoubted potential the Internet and new communication technologies
make possible. The SIP makes a good attempt at responding to the informa-
tion needs of children. The public awareness and education programmes, and
engagement with industry to promote safe and responsible behaviour, show that
understanding the needs of children, particularly in the way they learn and engage
with network publics and Web 2.0 technologies can produce beneficial outcomes.
Although great strides have been made in equipping children, parents and educa-
tors with relevant ICT competences and safety information, it is also important
to recognize that cultural views of children's perceived inability to manage their
online activities in a safe and responsible manner are difficult to eradicate; paren-
tal fears generated by media portrayals of online risks, the impact of communica-
tion technologies, on "public" and "private" spaces and concerns relating to the
State's ability to police the online environment, all too often elevate control and
surveillance of children as legitimate policy goals. The conundrum facing online
child safety governance, and more specifically in respect of media literacy, is
unlikely to disappear as long as network publics evoke protective and precaution-
ary impulses amongst policymakers, parents and educators.

References

Allen, J. & Westby, J., Governingfor EnterpriseSecurity (GES)Implementation Guide: Characteristics

ofEffective Security Governance (US: Carnegie Mellon University, 2007).
Boyd, D., 'Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics'. In Youth, Identity
and DigitalMedia. ed. D. Buckingham (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007).
Boyd, D., Taken Out of Context: American Teen Sociality in Networked Publics (Berkeley: University
of California, 2008).
Council of Europe, (2007). Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation
and Sexual Abuse CETS No.: 201.
Cybion Sri and Stiftung Digitale Chancen, Benchmarking of Parental Control Tools for the
Online Protection of Children SIP-Bench II Assessment Results and Methodology 1st Cycle
(Brussels: European Commission, 2011). Study commissioned by the European
Commission.
Donath, J., 'Identity and deception in the virtual community'. In Communities in Cyberspace. eds.
P. Kollock & M. Smith (London: Routledge, 1999).
European Commission, (1996). Illegal and Harmful Content on the Internet. Communication
from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM(96) 487 final, 16.10.1996.
568 J. Savirimuthu / InternationalJournalofChildren's Rights 19 (2011) 547-569

European Commission, (2008). Digital Literacy Report: A review for the i2010 elnclusion
Initiative, European Commission Staff Working Document and Digital Literacy: High-Level
Expert Group Recommendations.
European Commission, (2010). Proposal for a Directive on combating sexual abuse, sexual exploi-
tation of children and child pornography, repealing Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA
COM(2010) 94.
European Commission, (2010). Communication From the Commission to the European
Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee
of the Regions, A Digital Agenda For Europe. COM(2010) 245.
European Commission, (2011a). Neelie Kroes Vice-President of the European Commission
responsible for Digital Agenda Safer Internet Day 2011: Protecting children online Child Focus,
Safer Internet Centre in Belgium Safer Internet Day, 8 February, 2011 SPEECH/1 1/73.
European Commission, (2011b). Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, The Council and the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee
of the Regions, An EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child COM(2011) 60 final.
European Council, (1998). Council Recommendation 98/560/EC on the development of the
competitiveness of the European audiovisual and information services industry by promoting
national frameworks aimed at achieving a comparable and effective level of protection of minors
and human dignity, OJ 1998 L 270.
European Council, (2004). Council framework Decision 2004/68/JHA of 22 December 2003 on
Combating the Sexual Exploitation of Children and Child Pornography OJ L 13, 20.1.2004,
44-48.
European Parliament and European Council, (2006). Recommendation 2006/952/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the protection of minors and
human dignity and on the right of reply in relation to the competitiveness of the European
audiovisual and on-line information services industry [Official Journal L 378 of 27.12.2006].
European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, (2010). Directive 2010/13/EU on
the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in
Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media
Services Directive).
Fortin, J., Children's Rights and Developing Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
Hasebrink, U., Livingstone, S., Haddon, L. et al., Comparing Childrens Online Opportunitiesand
Risk across Europe: Cross-NationalComparisonsfor EU Kids Online (2nd ed) (London: London
School of Economics and Political Science, 2009).
Ipsos, MORI, Childrens and Young Peoples Access to Online Content on Mobile Devices, Games
Consoles and PortableMedia Players: Report Preparedfor Ofcom (London: Ipsos MORI, 2009).
Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R. et al., Confronting the Challenges of ParticipatoryCulture:
Media Educationfor the Twenty-first Century (Chicago: MacArthur Foundation, 2006).
Jorge, A., Cardoso, D., Ponte, C. et al., Stakeholders'ForumGeneralReport (London: LSE, EU Kids
Online, 2010).
Livingstone, S., 'Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers' Use of social
networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression', New Media Society 10 (2008):
393-411.
Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Gorzig, A. et al., Risks and Safety on the Internet: The Perspective of
European Children. Full Findings (London: LSE, EU Kids Online, 2011).
Livingstone, S., van Couvering, E. & Thumim, N., Adult Media Literacy: A Review of the Research
Literature (London: Ofcom, 2005).
Newell, P, Legal Frameworks for Combating Sexual Exploitation of Children (Florence: Unicef/
Innocenti, 2008).
O'Neill, B. & McLaughlin, S., Recommendations on Safety Initiatives (London: LSE, EU Kids
Online, 2010).
Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills, The Safe Use ofNew Technologies
(UK: Ofsted, 2010).
Smedinghoff, T., 'It's all about trust: The expanding scope of security obligations in global privacy
and E-Transactions law', Michigan State JournalofInternationalLaw 16(1) (2007): 1-47.
 j Savirimuthu / InternationalJournalof Children' Rights 19 (2011) 547-569 569

Smedinghoff, T, 'Defining the legal standard for information security: What does "Reasonable"
security really mean?' In Securing Privacy in the Internet Age. eds. A. Chander, L. Gelman &
Radin, M. (California: Stanford University Press, 2008).
Staksrud, E., Livingstone, S., Haddon, L. et al., What Do We Know about Children's Use of Online
Technologies?A Report on DataAvailability and Research Gaps in Europe (London: LSE, EU Kids
Online, 2009).
Valentine, G., PublicSpace and the Culture of Childhood (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004).