1. Introduction
1. Following an initiative by my British colleague,
Robert Walter, the Committee on Culture, Science and Education appointed
me as rapporteur on this subject and organised an expert hearing
in Paris on 10 March 2009. I am grateful for the contributions by
the participants of this hearing: Mr Zsombor Fekete from the Hungarian
Association of Internet Content Providers, Professor Divina Frau-Meigs
from Paris University and Mrs Andrea Millwood Hargrave from Oxford
University.
2. Internet and online media services are expanding rapidly,
through mobile telephony, for example. Children and young people
tend to use these new media instead of traditional media such as
print media, radio and television. A development which began two
decades ago with the creation of the World Wide Web has reached
all sectors of our daily life, including information, communication,
education, entertainment, culture, business and social contacts.
The enormous individual and societal benefits are widely known and
recognised. It is no longer necessary to raise awareness in this
respect.
3. These benefits are, however, linked to a new and greater exposure
to risks which, due to the rapid technological progress, might not
be adequately addressed by existing regulation. Policy makers are compelled
to reflect on this phenomenon and seek new approaches. These risks
include illegal content and content which is legal but may be considered
to be inappropriate for minors. In the first case, such content should
be removed and those responsible should be pursued. The second case
is much more difficult to deal with. The definition of what is inappropriate
for minors is subjective and may vary from country to country. This report
shall provide guidance to parliaments, governments and industry
and initiate related work by the Council of Europe.
2. Council
of Europe standards
4. The Council of Europe has developed a large number
of policy guidelines on this subject: Assembly
Recommendation 1836 (2008) on realising the full potential of e-learning for education
and training, Assembly
Recommendation
1543 (2001) on racism and xenophobia in cyberspace and Assembly
Recommendation 1466 (2000) on media education, as well as the Committee of Ministers’
draft recommendation on measures to protect children against harmful
content and behaviour and to promote their active participation
in the new information and communications environment, Recommendation
CM/Rec(2008)6 on measures to promote the respect for freedom of
expression and information with regard to Internet filters, Declaration
on protecting the dignity, security and privacy of children on the
Internet of 20 February 2008, Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)16 on measures
to promote the public service value of the Internet, Recommendation
CM/Rec(2007)11 on promoting freedom of expression and information
in the new information and communications environment, Recommendation
CM/Rec(2007)3 on the remit of public service media in the information
society, Declaration on human rights and the rule of law in the
information society of 13 May 2005, Declaration on freedom of communication
on the Internet of 28 May 2003, Recommendation Rec(2001)8 on self-regulation concerning
cyber content and Recommendation No. R (99) 5 for the protection
of privacy on the Internet.
5. The Council of Europe also prepared the 2001 Convention on
Cybercrime (ETS No. 185), which has been signed by most member states,
as well as a number of non-member states. It constitutes the only international
treaty on this subject and should be ratified more rapidly by those
states that have signed it. In addition, it would be desirable to
have more non-member states accede to this convention in order to
avoid loopholes undermining this international effort against cybercrime.
6. In conformity with the decision taken by the heads of state
and government at the 3rd Summit of Heads of State and Government
of the Council of Europe (Warsaw Summit) in 2005, the Council of
Europe prepared a handbook on Internet literacy and a game for children
on the possible dangers of the Internet called Wild Web Woods.
3. International efforts
7. The European Commission administers the Safer Internet
Programme (2009-2013) of the European Union, which succeeded similar
programmes existing since 1999 and currently has a budget of 55
million euros. The programme recognises that children and young
people are almost expert users of online technologies. However,
this does not mean that they all have the maturity to identify the
potential risks they may be exposed to, let alone their possible
consequences. The programme therefore aims at informing young people,
parents and teachers of the potential risks that youngsters may
encounter online, as well as at fighting illegal and harmful content
and conduct online.
8. International organisations such as the Council of Europe
could take part in shared-cost actions under the Safer Internet
Programme of the European Union. It is worth exploring common synergies
in this field between the European Union and the Council of Europe.
9. The United Nations International Telecommunication Union organised
the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2003 and 2005,
which addressed safety and security questions, in addition to access
issues aimed at overcoming the global digital divide.
4. Traditional media
standards
10. The protection of minors has been an objective of
media policies and standards for many decades. Most, probably all,
European countries restrict the advertising, display and sale of
pornographic print media and videos in order to prevent minors from
accessing them. Violent films on television can only be shown free-to-air
after a certain hour or through restricted access systems such as
pay-per-view. Advertising for alcohol and tobacco products are typically
restricted in traditional media, either by being prohibited or requiring
a health warning.
11. The 1989 European Convention on Transfrontier Television (ETS
No. 132), revised in 1998, requires, in Article 7, for example,
that programme services of broadcasters shall not be indecent and
contain pornography, and shall not give undue prominence to violence
or be likely to incite racial hatred. All items of programme services
which are likely to impair the physical, mental or moral development
of children and adolescents shall not be scheduled when, because
of the time of transmission and reception, they are likely to watch
them. These provisions are in the process of being amended in accordance
with technological progress and the European Union directive on
audiovisual media services. The policy objectives should, however,
remain valid. Any limitation based on transmission and reception
time does not, of course, apply to the Internet or to on-demand media,
where everything is available all the time.
12. Twenty years ago, the Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation
No. R (89) 7 concerning principles on the distribution of videograms
having a violent, brutal or pornographic content also proposed a
range of measures including self-regulation, content classification,
control systems and bans. At that time, such videograms could be
bought or rented from commercial outlets. Today, minors can download
audiovisual content via the Internet and copy it. With the growth
of user-generated content on the so-called Web 2.0, individual persons
will increasingly be able to produce and make accessible audiovisual
content that does not necessarily respect traditional media standards.
5. New challenges
13. The technological progress in Internet and online
media poses a number of challenges to traditional media standards
for the protection of minors.
14. While, in the past, audiovisual content used to be of lower
picture quality on the Internet,,, such content can meanwhile be
accessed through infrastructures permitting the faster transmission
of more data. It is therefore not necessary to buy audiovisual content
recorded on a physical device. Content can be accessed on websites,
copied onto computers or sent via e-mails.
15. Given the worldwide reach of the Internet, national standards
may apply to national content providers, but they might not be applicable
to producers and distributors abroad.
16. With web cameras and cameras in mobile phones, audiovisual
content can easily be created by individual users, including minors.
17. Social contacts and networks are expanding in the online world.
Many of these are open to, and designed for, children and young
people. The problem of adults grooming minors in online networks
has been known about for some years. Cyber bullying and harassment
are phenomena that have been noted more recently. With a growing
part of their daily time spent on online networks, minors may also
lose touch with real life and may isolate themselves. This is sometimes
referred to as “cyber addiction”.
18. The growing exploitation of the Internet and online media
services for commercial purposes has also led to more aggressive
advertising and selling practices. Software is used to identify
users and their movements on the Internet, people’s Internet conduct
is profiled, and normally private information is searched for on
the Internet, collected and used for commercial or other purposes.
In the offline world, the privacy of minors requires a higher level
of protection. It is therefore also necessary to ensure more protection
online.
19. Child protection work has identified parents as the weak point
in many cases of child abuse or neglect. Children and young people
generally know more about the Internet and online media than their
parents. Parental control over their children’s use of the Internet
is therefore hardly possible without adequate information and training
for parents.
6. Policy responses
20. In order to better understand the challenges and
opportunities created by the Internet and online media, more research
and greater public awareness are necessary. Awareness needs to be
supported by training and education based on research. In Europe,
the so-called digital divide is more a generational problem than
a question of social status. The Standing Conference of European
Ministers of Education could assist national ministries by agreeing
on policy guidelines for education in this respect, both for education
of children in schools, as well as lifelong learning by parents.
21. Technological means exist to restrict both content and conduct
on the Internet. They may include content filters used by parents
or commercial providers of Internet services for children. Such
filters may block content deemed by parents as being potentially
harmful for their children, but they may also facilitate the search
for and access to content appropriate for minors. Lawful content
should obviously not be blocked by state authorities, which could
be tempted to use this possibility to suppress political opposition.
Filtering systems applied at state level could therefore be in violation
of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
At the level of parents, teachers, librarians or other persons in
charge of children, filtering content does not raise problems in
respect of Article 10 ECHR. On the contrary, parental control over
the online conduct of their children and the content they access
is part of the parental obligation towards their children.
22. Internet access providers in France, for example, signed an
agreement with the French Government to provide parental filtering
software free of charge. In 2006, the “family label” was also created
in France to indicate Internet content appropriate for minors. In
March 2009, the Steering Committee on the Media and New Communication
Services (CDMC) of the Council of Europe proposed that the Committee
of Ministers initiate a trust mark for Internet content.
23. On a voluntary basis, the ICRA (the Internet Content Rating
Association) has set up a rating system for content which may be
harmful for minors. It is typically used for the rating of pornographic
or violent content by the providers of such content. The effect
of such voluntary rating is not only that content can be restricted
by parents, but also that such content can be searched for more
easily by those adults who wish to see it.
24. Adult content can also be restricted by content providers
themselves through age-verification systems. The effectiveness of
these may, however, be questioned. For example, in Germany in 2007,
the highest federal court (Bundesgerichtshof) decided that providers
of pornographic Internet content must apply more adequate age control
systems in order to effectively prevent minors from accessing such
content.
25. Social networks may be created which adhere to strict codes
of conduct and which require the verifiable registration and identification
of its members. Such networks may be more appropriate for minors,
especially if membership is restricted to minors. For parents, social
networks with high ethical and security standards will have a competitive
advantage over totally unregulated social networks. For example,
in the United Kingdom in February 2009, a task force of representatives
from industry, charities, law enforcement agencies and government
developed and presented the “Good practice guidance for providers
of social networking and other user interactive services”, which
gives advice to industry, parents and children on how to stay safe
online. This example should be followed in other countries.
26. Easily identifiable, quality content for minors will have
the same competitive advantage for parents. Trusted content providers,
such as public cultural institutions or public service broadcasters,
should therefore be encouraged to make quality content for minors
available online.
27. Children have a natural curiosity for new things and a tendency
to test limits. Forbidden content may therefore have a particular
attraction. Such phenomena can best be coped with through education.
Minors should be made aware of potentially harmful consequences
and be able to control their own use of the Internet and online
media. This is often called Internet literacy.
28. Illegal content and conduct is obviously harmful for all,
not only for minors. States must therefore increase their efforts
to combat cybercrime. Signing and ratifying the Convention on Cybercrime
is a minimum requirement in this respect.
29. In addition, it is helpful to have Internet hotlines which
can be contacted by users having come across potentially illegal
or harmful content or conduct. The International Association of
Internet Hotlines (INHOPE) has been very successful in this respect.
In the United Kingdom, for example, the Internet Watch Foundation provides
a hotline for reporting child pornography and other Internet content
related to child abuse, as well as criminally obscene Internet content
and online incitement to racial hatred.
30. Internet hotlines may be provided by Internet service providers,
as well as by police authorities. For instance, the Virtual Global
Taskforce, which fights online child abuse, is made up of police
forces from Australia, Canada, Italy, the United Kingdom, the United
States and Interpol.
31. Self-regulation by the Internet industry may be useful in
areas where legislation does not exist. This is particularly relevant
with regard to the protection of the privacy of minors, as well
as commercial activities targeted at minors. The Internet industry
should therefore develop codes of conduct and ensure that they are applied.
Reporting committee:
Committee on Culture, Science and Education
Reference to committee: Doc. 11254, Reference 3352 of 24 May 2007
Draft recommendation unanimously
adopted by the committee on 30 April 2009
Members of the committee:
Mrs Anne Brasseur, (Chairperson),
Mr Detlef Dzembritzki (1st
Vice-Chairperson), Mr Mehmet Tekelioğlu (2nd
Vice-Chairperson), Mrs Miroslava Němcová (3rd Vice-Chairperson),
Mr Vicenç Alay Ferrer, Mr Florin Serghei Anghel,
Mrs Aneliya Atanasova, Mr Lokman Ayva,
Mr Walter Bartoš (alternate: Mrs Alena Gajdůšková),
Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mrs
Oksana Bilozir (alternate:
Mrs Olha Herasym’yuk), Mrs
Guðfinna S. Bjarnadóttir, Mrs Rossana Boldi,
Mr Ivan Brajović, Mr Petru Călian,
Mr Miklós Csapody, Mr Vlad Cubreacov, Mrs Lena Dąbkowska-Cichocka,
Mr Joseph Debono Grech, Mr
Ferdinand Devínsky, Mr Daniel Ducarme, Ms Åse Gunhild Woie Duesund, Mrs Anke Eymer, Mr Gianni Farina, Mr Relu Fenechiu, Mrs Blanca
Fernández-Capel Baños, Mr Axel Fischer,
Mr Gvozden Srećko Flego,
Mr Dario Franceschini, Mr José Freire
Antunes (alternate: Mr José Luis Arnaut),
Mrs Gisèle Gautier, Mr Ioannis
Giannellis-Theodosiadis, Mr Martin Graf, Mr Oliver Heald, Mr Rafael Huseynov, Mr Fazail İbrahimli,
Mr Mogens Jensen, Mr Morgan
Johansson, Mrs Francine John-Calame, Ms Flora Kadriu, Mrs Liana
Kanelli, Mr Jan Kaźmierczak, Miss
Cecilia Keaveney, Mrs Svetlana
Khorkina (alternate: Mr Igor Chernyshenko),
Mr Serhii Kivalov, Mr Anatoliy Korobeynikov,
Ms Elvira Kovács, Mr József Kozma, Mr Jean-Pierre Kucheida,
Mr Ertuğrul Kumcuoğlu, Ms
Dalia Kuodytė, Mr Markku Laukkanen,
Mr René van der Linden, Mrs Milica Marković, Mrs Muriel Marland-Militello, Mr Andrew McIntosh,
Mrs Maria Manuela de Melo,
Mrs Assunta Meloni (alternate: Mr Pier Marino Mularoni), Mr Paskal Milo, Ms Christine Muttonen (alternate: Mr Albrecht Konecny), Mr Tomislav Nikolić,
Mr Edward O'Hara, Mr Kent Olsson, Mr Andrey Pantev, Mrs Antigoni Papadopoulos,
Mrs Zatuhi Postanjyan, Mrs Adoración
Quesada Bravo, Mr Frédéric Reiss,
Mrs Mailis Reps, Mrs Andreja Rihter,
Mr Nicolae Robu, Mr Paul
Rowen, Mrs Anta Rugāte, Mrs Ana Sánchez Hernández, Mr Leander Schädler, Mr Yury Solonin, Mr Christophe Steiner,
Mrs Doris Stump, Mr Valeriy Sudarenkov, Mr Petro Symonenko,
Mr Guiorgui Targamadzé, Mr Hugo Vandenberghe, Mr Klaas De Vries,
Mr Piotr Wach, Mr Wolfgang Wodarg
NB: The names of the members who took part in the meeting
are printed in bold
Secretariat of the committee: Mr Ary, Mr Dossow