In our third episode, we discuss some Spanish research about cyber aggressors and their victims; we check in on another Golden Oldie movie; and we find out what Australians think about children's online privacy.
Updates:
The Report from the Attorney-General’s Department Review of the Privacy Act has now been released: https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/publications/privacy-act-review-report. We’ll be covering it in an upcoming episode, so stay tuned! But meanwhile here are the recommendations relating to children:
16. Children
Proposal 16.1 Define a child as an individual who has not reached 18 years of age.
Proposal 16.2 Existing OAIC guidance on children and young people and capacity should continue to be relied upon by APP entities. An entity must decide if an individual under the age of 18 has the capacity to consent on a case-by-case basis. If that is not practical, an entity may assume an individual over the age of 15 has capacity, unless there is something to suggest otherwise.
The Act should codify the principle that valid consent must be given with capacity. Such a provision could state that ‘the consent of an individual is only valid if it is reasonable to expect that an individual to whom the APP entity’s activities are directed would understand the nature, purpose and consequences of the collection, use or disclosure of the personal information to which they are consenting.’
Exceptions should be provided for circumstances where parent or guardian involvement could be harmful to the child or otherwise contrary their interests (including, but not limited to confidential healthcare advice, domestic violence, mental health, drug and alcohol, homelessness or other child support and community services).
Proposal 16.3 Amend the Privacy Act to require that collection notices and privacy policies be clear and understandable, in particular for any information addressed specifically to a child.
In the context of online services, these requirements should be further specified in a Children’s Online Privacy Code, which should provide guidance on the format, timing and readability of collection notices and privacy policies.
Proposal 16.4 Require entities to have regard to the best interests of the child as part of considering whether a collection, use or disclosure is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
Proposal 16.5 Introduce a Children’s Online Privacy Code that applies to online services that are ‘likely to be accessed by children’. To the extent possible, the scope of an Australian children’s online privacy code could align with the scope of the UK Age Appropriate Design Code, including its exemptions for certain entities including preventative or counselling services.
The code developer should be required to consult broadly with children, parents, child development experts, child-welfare advocates and industry in developing the Code. The eSafety Commissioner should also be consulted.
The substantive requirements of the Code could address how the best interests of child users should be supported in the design of an online service.
Show notes:
Spanish paper: Lucía Segura, Jesús F. Estévez and Estefanía Estévez, ‘Empathy and Emotional Intelligence in Adolescent Cyberaggressors and Cybervictims’ (2020) 17 International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 4681; dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17134681
The Flight of the Navigator review: https://childrenandmedia.org.au/movie-reviews/movies/flight-of-the-navigator
Australian Community Attitudes to Privacy Survey: https://www.oaic.gov.au/engage-with-us/research/australian-community-attitudes-to-privacy-survey-2020-landing-page/
Children and Media Australia submission on review of privacy law: https://childrenandmedia.org.au/assets/files/accm-privacy-submission-2020_.pdf
(Note: this was submitted before CMA changed its branding, so you’ll see ‘ACCM’ on the document. It’s definitely the same organisation!)
Substack: https://outsidethescreen.substack.com/podcast
Children and Media Australia: www.childrenandmedia.org.au
CGI Clinic: www.cgiclinic.com
Episode 3: Cyberbullying, Flight of the Navigator, and Attitudes to Privacy