The electronic footprint – teaching children to tread carefully and legally

01/09/2011

By Henar Dyson, Senior Associate in Corporate & Commercial. First published in Prep School Magazine in September 2011.

There is a mind-blowing statistic on the Facebook website.  It claims to have 750 million active members.  Facebook stipulates that only those 13 years of age or older can set up a Facebook account.  Evidence from research carried out in the United States earlier this year suggests that it could be up to one third. 

Although the most global, Facebook is not the only form of social media being used by primary school children.  Social media can take on many different forms: some examples are blogs (Twitter), social networking sites (Facebook, Bebo, MySpace), video communities (Youtube), online gaming (XboxLive) and internet telephony and messaging (Skype).  These allow content such as text, video and music to be posted and viewed by the world at large.  As this content is digital, it is easily copied and disseminated.  As a result, it can be very difficult, if not impossible, for an individual to remove all content originally posted by them or about them from the web.

With this potential for exposure, there is a pressing need for schools to play their part in educating children about the dangers of online activity.  Much work has already been done, focused rightly on the immediate dangers that can arise from unguarded communication online with strangers.    

The dangers go far beyond this and into a child’s future.  What they do online today could have an impact on their future education and employment opportunities.  A college or an employer will not base important decisions on the online activities of an 11 year old.  At the same time, a history of poor judgment online may be relevant and habits formed in childhood could stay with the young adult of tomorrow.

A glimpse into the future

It is not just children who approach social media recklessly.  In a recent case, a pub manager made inappropriate comments on Facebook about customers in her pub who had been abusive.  The customers complained and she lost her job.  Her mistake was to have posted, whilst still on shift, without checking that her privacy settings would keep her posts between her and her friends.  Even if she had posted out of working hours, the result is likely to have been the same.  Another recent case, involving a chain email sent by an employee to a colleague out of hours, from one home computer to another, also led to dismissal.  Although email is not technically a form of social media, once disseminated, the dangers are the same.  There are plenty of similar cases around.

These cases show how seriously future employers take the risk to their reputation posed by comments made or disseminated online.  The unguarded postings and photos of young friends can become a bad habit that continues into young adulthood.  Would an employer want to employ someone who uses a blog or a social networking site to criticize friends or boast about quasi-criminal behaviour?

Closer to home

What about applications for university and college?  Do universities check the applications of prospective students?  Some university professors have been quoted online as having done precisely that.  Universities have been open about the appointment of communications managers.  From their perspective, negative comments can affect their reputation and the numbers of prospective students who apply.  Universities are openly known to engage ‘friendly bloggers’ to operate online and counter any negative comments.

The rest is, for now, only rumour, but given the ease with which checks can be made, and the lasting footprint that online activity can leave, is it so unlikely that checks are made as part of a risk management policy? 

The legal position

 From a legal perspective, offences can be committed through social media activity:

• Copyright laws are broken through the posting of photos or music without the consent of the author.  It is so easy to do that, to a child, it might seem perfectly acceptable and the habit is formed;
• defamatory statements made online are an offence.   2002 saw the first case of internet defamation where a former teacher successfully sued a former pupil for comments made by the pupil on Friends Reunited.  The cases have come consistently since then, with libel by Twitter the most recent forum.  Any false statement that might affect the reputation of an individual, which is communicated to others, could be defamatory. 

In terms of defences, what about the individual’s right to privacy or freedom of expression?  Legally, information put in the public domain by an individual cancels out any right to privacy for that individual.  This means that the only way to prevent a prospective employer or college from seeing what is posted is to take great care about access rights.  Nor will the noble right to freedom of expression operate as an automatic defence to an offence such as defamation.

The role of the legislators

The legislators know that they have an important role to play in protecting users of social media.  The EU announced earlier this year its plans to create a “right to be forgotten online” and to require strict privacy settings to be in place by default.  This will reduce the scope for prospective employers to carry out pre-employment research.

In the UK, as across the EU, there are already strict rules about the protection of personal information.  The rules are even stricter rules where the information relates to children.  Whilst children are extraordinarily savvy about technology, it may be idealistic to expect them to wade through privacy policies aimed at protecting them.  The good news is that Facebook is cautious about introducing any new features available to UK users that might breach UK data protection laws.

There is certainly more for the legislators to do, if the providers of social media do not act first.  Survey evidence from this year suggests that there is a growing backlash against social media sites that do not provide easy to understand privacy settings and a straightforward right to close an account.  As the backlash grows, they will act, but for now 750 million Facebook members is a huge market for advertisers.

 What primary schools can do

• Emphasise any age limits to pupils and parents.
• Educate children to avoid using bad language, describing or posting photos showing inappropriate behaviour by them or their friends and to avoid criticising or victimising others online.  Teach them to think before they type.
• Explain that careless use of social media has legal and personal implications.
• Host a seminar for parents on the dangers of the internet.
• Suggest that children revisit what they have posted online and what has been posted about them.  Anything inappropriate should be removed.
• Advise children about privacy settings and how to use them properly.  Remember that privacy settings are only part of the story.  A ‘friend’ with access to content can disseminate it to any number of people, with the possibility of serious consequences.
• Do not try to prevent use of social media.  It is here to stay and used properly, can open up many opportunities.
• Stay up to date with developments – check the ICO website pages on social networking and other websites focusing on child internet safety:

www.ico.gov.uk/youth
www.clickcleverclicksafe.direct.gov.uk/index.html
www.childnet-int.org/
www.thinkuknow.co.uk/

The reality is that the law is still very reactive in this area.  It cannot pre-empt what developments will emerge in this field and legislate accordingly.  The principle, however, will always remain the same - any information in a digital format, whether it is provided willingly or unknowingly, should be considered permanent.  This is an ‘electronic footprint’ that is virtually impossible to stamp out.  As smoking behind the bike shed is replaced with blogging behind the bike shed, it is essential for the message to be sent home.