Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Children’s Rights Online: Challenges, Dilemmas and Emerging Directions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Minding Minors Wandering the Web: Regulating Online Child Safety

Part of the book series: Information Technology and Law Series ((ITLS,volume 24))

Abstract

In debates over Internet governance, the interests of children figure unevenly, and only partial progress has been made in supporting children’s rights online globally. This chapter examines how the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is helpful in mapping children’s rights to provision, protection and participation as they apply online as well as offline. However, challenges remain. First, opportunities and risks are positively linked, policy approaches are needed to resolve the potential conflict between protection on the one hand, and provision and participation on the other. Second, while parents may be relied on to some degree to balance their child’s rights and needs, the evidence suggests that a minority of parents are ill-equipped to manage this. Third, resolution is needed regarding the responsibility for implementing digital rights, since many governments prefer self-regulation in relation to Internet governance. The chapter concludes by calling for a global governance body charged with ensuring the delivery of children’s rights.

Sonia Livingstone is Professor of Social Psychology, Department of Media and Communications at LSE. Brian O’Neill is Head of the School of Media at Dublin Institute of Technology. This chapter draws on the work of the EU Kids Online network funded by the European Commission (Directorate-General Information Society) Safer Internet plus Programme (SIP-KEP-321803); see www.eukidsonline.net. We thank members of the network for their collaboration in developing the research underpinning this chapter. Thanks also to Anne Collier, Nóirín Hayes, Simone van der Hof, Jenny Kuper, Peter Lunt, Robin Mansell and Sharon McLaughlin for their comments on an earlier version of this chapter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Green 2010; Lembke 2003; Marsden 2011.

  2. 2.

    Lunt and Livingstone 2012; Schulz and Held 2004; Tambini et al. 2008.

  3. 3.

    Livingstone and Bulger 2013; Preston 2009.

  4. 4.

    Early battles included the successful fight against the US Communications Decency Act 1996 (Nesson and Marglin 1996) and, in 2007, the striking down as unconstitutional of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) 1998 (McNamee 2010). See also www.ftc.gov/privacy/coppafaqs.shtm.

  5. 5.

    European Commission 1996, 2009a, 2010. For research in other parts of the world, see OECD 2011, ITU 2010 and Livingstone & Bulger 2013 for global reports, Gasser et al. 2010, on developing countries, and Palfrey et al. 2008 on the US.

  6. 6.

    See also Dutton and Peltu 2007; Thierer 2011.

  7. 7.

    Powell and Cooper 2011; Zittrain 2008.

  8. 8.

    Livingstone 2011. Indeed, although there is now widespread acceptance of the need for Internet governance, meaning that the libertarian position (for which expression even of illegal content may be claimed as an unqualified right) receives little support, there is still a need to address the concerns of critics who, often with justification, have learned to be sceptical of the stated good intentions of the state or commerce; too often, it has come about that, using the defence of child protection, or the tools thereby developed, various acts of state or commercial intrusion or censorship occur, whether deliberately (by politically motivated governments or for commercial exploitation) or inadvertently (by incompetent systems of Internet filtering or surveillance).

  9. 9.

    Alderson 2000, p. 442.

  10. 10.

    Mansell 2012.

  11. 11.

    Lessig 2000.

  12. 12.

    See www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm.

  13. 13.

    See www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml. Note that children ‘are entitled to special care and assistance’ (Article 25) and that ‘Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children’ (Article 26). Beyond this, there is no implication that children should be treated in any way differently from adults as regards fundamental rights.

  14. 14.

    Freeman 2007.

  15. 15.

    Guggenheim 2005; Holzscheiter 2010; O’Neill 1988; Purdy 1992; Veerman 2010. Article 4 requires governments to undertake all relevant legislative, administrative and other measures to implement the rights of the child, to submit evidence and to have progress on their implementation as a subject of public review (Article 44), while making the principles of the Convention widely known to adults and children alike (Article 42).

  16. 16.

    Alderson 2000, p. 440 (emphasis added).

  17. 17.

    See www.unicef.org/magic/briefing/oslo.html.

  18. 18.

    Hamelink 2008; Livingstone 2009b. Consider the world of traditional mass media, where children’s rights have long been debated. The Children’s Television Charter applies the principles of the UNCRC to television and may, surely, also be applied to the Internet (Livingstone 2009b). Relatedly, the concept of ‘child-friendly journalism’ has been promoted by the Brazilian News Agency for Children’s Rights (ANDI), founded on legislative recognition of children’s rights (including communicative rights), proactive production of positive content and an accountability system in which all stakeholders play an active role (see www.andi.org.br/).

  19. 19.

    McLaughlin 2013.

  20. 20.

    In Europe, the Directorate-General for Justice is charged with coordinating efforts regarding children’s rights; see http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/rights-child/index_en.htm. There are, however, many other European Commission efforts relevant here, including the European Commission Communication, ‘Towards an EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child’ (2006), ‘An EU Strategy for Youth’ (2009) and ‘An EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child’ (2011). Advancing these concerns is not always straightforward, however—witness the struggle in formulating the 2011 Directive on combating sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography about whether the blocking of illegal child abuse images should be discretionary or mandatory in member states. See the overview in European Parliament 2012. Little is said regarding the digital environment in any of these documents.

  21. 21.

    See www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc-sale.htm.

  22. 22.

    Flint 2000; Jones 1998.

  23. 23.

    Relevant to the digital dimension of Article 34, which requires governments to protect children from all forms of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation, is the 2007 Council of Europe’s Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse (the ‘Lanzarote Convention’), which criminalises the use of new technologies to sexually harm or abuse children. Other European legal instruments include the 1996 Communication on Illegal and Harmful Content on the Internet, the 2006 Recommendation on the Protection of Minors and the 2011 Directive on Combating the Sexual Abuse and Sexual Exploitation of Children and Child Pornography. Child protection online setting is also implied by Article 19’s call for ‘appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child’ and which promote governmental action in Internet safety provision.

  24. 24.

    Ainsaar and Loof 2012; Muir 2005; Quale and Taylor 2011; Webster et al. 2012.

  25. 25.

    Livingstone et al. 2011b.

  26. 26.

    Schoon 2006.

  27. 27.

    O’Neill et al. 2011.

  28. 28.

    Lusoli and Miltgen 2009.

  29. 29.

    Anthonysamy et al. 2012; Eurobarometer 2011; Lusoli et al. 2011.

  30. 30.

    Livingstone et al. 2012b.

  31. 31.

    Livingstone et al. 2011a.

  32. 32.

    Mayer-Schönberger 2009; Rosen 2012.

  33. 33.

    European Commission 2012b.

  34. 34.

    Announcing a coalition of chief executive officers (CEOs) of major Internet companies on 1 Dec 2011, European Commission Vice President Neelie Kroes established five work streams to make the Internet better for children; see http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1485&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en.

  35. 35.

    Livingstone et al. 2011b.

  36. 36.

    Awarded at the Digital Agenda Assembly, Brussels, by Commissioner Neelie Kroes (17 June 2011); see http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/events/competition/winners/index_en.htm. The prize was awarded again on 11 February 2014.

  37. 37.

    European Commission 2012a.

  38. 38.

    Ala-Mutka et al. 2008; Council of Europe 2006; OECD 2012a.

  39. 39.

    Helsper 2012.

  40. 40.

    Warschauer and Matuchniak 2010.

  41. 41.

    Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt and Runnel 2012.

  42. 42.

    E.g., Nordic Youth Forum 2012.

  43. 43.

    Griffin 2009; Guggenheim 2005.

  44. 44.

    Archard 2004; Foley et al. 2012.

  45. 45.

    Livingstone et al. 2012a.

  46. 46.

    See CEO coalition discussion earlier. At present, parental tools (filters, monitoring software, age ratings, etc.) are still flawed in design and operation (e.g. they over-block legitimate content, and work poorly for user-generated content, Deloitte and European Commission 2008.

  47. 47.

    European Union 2010.

  48. 48.

    Millwood Hargrave and Livingstone 2009.

  49. 49.

    As Holzscheiter observes, the UNCRC also ‘poses serious problems in translation into different cultural contexts’; Holzscheiter 2010, p. 17.

  50. 50.

    Palfrey et al. 2008.

  51. 51.

    Founded in 1999, the Directorate-General Information Society’s Safer Internet Programme (renamed: Better Internet for Children) has provided an overarching framework for European initiatives for combating illegal content, promoting safer use of Internet and communication technologies and for awareness-raising activities, following a prescient 1996 Communication on Illegal and Harmful Content on the Internet. This established an international network of hotlines for reporting illegal child abuse images and a parallel network of awareness-raising centres, together with a programme to build the knowledge base regarding emerging trends in children’s use and consequences of online technologies. See http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/policy/program5me/current_prog/index_en.htm.

  52. 52.

    Child online protection features prominently in the work of international bodies such as the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the Council of Europe, as well as many national governments around the world. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU), as the lead United Nations (UN) agency with responsibility for the Internet, has actively raised the profile of cyber-security, and the role of child Internet safety within that, both in developed countries and across the developing world where burgeoning Internet adoption in Asia, Latin America and Africa greatly expands the reach of the Internet and the potential risks for children. Linking Internet safety with confidence and trust in the infrastructure of the Internet was a theme that emerged from the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2005 when the ITU assumed leadership of Action C5: ‘building confidence and security in the use of ICTs’. Its Global Cyber-security Agenda acts as the framework for international cooperation aimed at enhancing confidence and security in the information society, a central pillar of which is its Child Online Protection initiative (ITU 2009), designed to tackle the legal, technical and institutional challenges posed by cyber-security. See Global Security Agenda, accessed on 5 Sept 2010 at www.itu.int/osg/csd/cybersecurity/gca/index.html.

  53. 53.

    European Commission 2009b; GSMA 2007; ICT Coalition 2012.

  54. 54.

    See WSIS 2005.

  55. 55.

    Helberger 2008; O’Neill 2010.

  56. 56.

    Livingstone 2009a.

  57. 57.

    Criddle 2006; Thierer 2009.

  58. 58.

    Livingstone 2009a; Oswell 2008.

  59. 59.

    Olsen 1992.

  60. 60.

    Clark 2013; Duerager and Livingstone 2012.

  61. 61.

    Giddens 1991.

  62. 62.

    Bartholet 2011, p. 85.

  63. 63.

    Mathiesen 2012.

  64. 64.

    Duerager and Livingstone 2012.

  65. 65.

    Shmueli and Blecher-Prigat 2011, p. 793.

  66. 66.

    Livingstone et al. 2012a; OECD 2011; Palfrey et al. 2008.

  67. 67.

    As affirmed in the 2009 Prague Declaration, ministers of the European Union have committed to direct coordinated, intergovernmental action to combat illegal content and to minimise risks to Internet users. As a result, the European Commission has made proposals for the adoption of a new directive on combating sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography (European Commission 2010). Also, it is committed through the Digital Agenda, Europe’s digital policy successor to i2010 (European Commission 2010), to creating a flourishing digital economy by 2020. This includes a set of measures to promote the building of digital confidence (p. 6); guaranteeing universal broadband coverage with fast and ultrafast Internet access (pp. 18–19); enhancing digital literacy, skills and inclusion (p. 28); and promoting cultural diversity and creative content (p. 30). See Digital Agenda for Europe, accessed on 5 Sept 2010 at http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/index_en.htm.

  68. 68.

    Livingstone et al. 2011b.

  69. 69.

    Powell et al. 2010, p. 5.

  70. 70.

    European Commission 2012a.

  71. 71.

    Livingstone et al. 2011b; O’Neill et al. 2011.

  72. 72.

    OECD 2012b.

  73. 73.

    Livingstone et al. 2011b.

  74. 74.

    Until this is taken forward, the current policy of the European Commission is widening its focus: the Digital Agenda includes a ‘new strategy for safer Internet and better Internet content for children and teenagers’ (Kroes 2012). It is to be hoped that, in times of austerity, a ‘better’ Internet does not seem less pressing than a ‘safer’ one.

  75. 75.

    eNACSO 2012a, b.

References

  • Ainsaar M, Loof L (eds) (2012) Online behaviour related to child sexual abuse: literature report. Council of the Baltic Sea States. ROBERT, European Grooming Project

    Google Scholar 

  • Ala-Mutka K, Punie Y, Redecker C (2008) Digital competence for lifelong learning. JRC technical reports. European Commission, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Alderson P (2000) UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: some common criticisms and suggested responses. Child Abuse Rev 9:439–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anthonysamy P, Greenwood P, Rashid A (2012) Can privacy policies be traced to privacy controls on social networking sites? A qualitative study. Computer 99:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Archard D (2004) Children: rights and childhood, 2nd edn. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartholet E (2011) Ratification by the United States of the Convention on the Rights of the Child: pros and cons from a child’s rights perspective. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 633(1):80–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark LS (2013) The parent app: understanding families in the digital age. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe (2006) Recommendation Rec (2006)12 of the committee of ministers to member states on empowering children in the new information and communications environment

    Google Scholar 

  • Criddle L (2006) Look both ways: help protect your family on the internet. Microsoft Press, Redmond, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Deloitte and European Commission (2008) Safer internet: protecting our children on the net using content filtering and parental control techniques. European Commission Safer Internet Programme, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Duerager A, Livingstone S (2012) How can parents support children’s internet safety? EU Kids Online, London School of Economics and Political Science, London. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/42872/

  • Dutton WH, Peltu M (2007) The emerging internet governance mosaic: connecting the pieces. Inf Polity 12(1):63–81

    Google Scholar 

  • eNACSO (2012a) CEO coalition to make the internet a better place for kids. eNACSO’s response to the working groups’ interim reports

    Google Scholar 

  • eNACSO (2012b) The next click. European NGO Alliance for Child Safety Online, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurobarometer (2011) Special eurobarometer 359. Attitudes on data protection and electronic identity in the European Union. Directorate-general justice, Information Society & Media and Joint Research Centre, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (1996) Illegal and harmful content on the internet. COM(96) 487. Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2009a) Commission recommendation on media literacy in the digital environment for a more competitive audiovisual and content industry and an inclusive knowledge society. Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2009b) Safer social networking principles for the EU. European Commission safer internet programme. Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2010) A digital agenda for Europe. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0245:FIN:EN:PDF

  • European Commission (2012a) Communication on the European strategy for a better internet for children. Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2012b) Safeguarding privacy in a connected world. A European data protection framework for the 21st century. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0009:FIN:EN:PDF

  • European Parliament (2012) EU framework of law for children’s rights. DG for internal policies, citizens’ rights and constitutional affairs. Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union (2010) Audiovisual media services directive 2010/13/EU. Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Flint D (2000) The internet and children’s rights: suffer the little children. Comput Law Secur Rev 16(2):88–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foley M, Hayes N, O’Neill B (2012) Journalism education and children’s rights: new approaches to media development in CEE/CIS countries. Ir Stud Int Aff 23:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman M (2007) Article 3: the best interests of the child. In: Alen A, Lanotte JV, Verhellen E, Ang F, Berghmans E, Verheyde M (eds) A commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasser U, Maclay C, Palfrey J (2010) Working towards a deeper understanding of digital safety for children and young people in developing nations. Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens A (1991) Modernity and self-identity: self and society in the late modern age. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Green L (2010) The internet: an introduction to new media. Berg, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin J (2009) On human rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • GSMA (2007) European framework for safer mobile use by younger teenagers and children. GSMA Europe, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Guggenheim M (2005) What’s wrong with children’s rights?. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamelink CJ (2008) Children’s communication rights: beyond intentions. In: Drotner K, Livingstone S (eds) The international handbook of children, media and culture. Sage Publications, London, pp 508–519

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Helberger N (2008) The media-literate viewer. In: van Eijk N, Hugenholtz PB (eds) Dommering-bundel: opstellen over informatierecht aangeboden aan Prof Mr E. J. Dommering. Otto Cramwinckel Uitgever, Amsterdam, pp 135–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Helsper E (2012) Which children are fully online? In: Livingstone S, Haddon L, Görzig A (eds) Children, risk and safety online: research and policy challenges in comparative perspective. The Policy Press, Bristol, pp 45–58

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Holzscheiter H (2010) Children’s rights in international politics: the transformative power of discourse. Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ICT Coalition (2012) Principles for the safer use of connected devices and online services by children and young people in the EU. www.gsma-documents.com/safer_mobile/ICT_Principles.pdf

  • ITU (2009) Child online protection. ITU, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ITU (2010) Child online protection statistical framework and indicators. www.itu.int/pub/D-IND-COP.01-11-2010

  • Jones LM (1998) Regulating child pornography on the internet: the implications of Article 34 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Int J Child Rights 6(1):55–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroes N (2012) Digital agenda: new strategy for safer internet and better internet content for children and teenagers. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-445_en.htm?locale=en

  • Lembke J (2003) Competition for technological leadership: EU policy for high technology. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessig L (2000) Code: and other laws of cyberspace. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone S (2009a) Children and the internet: great expectations, challenging realities. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone S (2009b) A rationale for positive online content for children. Commun Res Trends 28(3):12–17. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/48922/

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone S (2011) Regulating the internet in the interests of children: emerging British, European and international approaches. In: Mansell R, Raboy M (eds) The handbook on global media and communication policy. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 505–524

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone S, Bulger M (2013) A global agenda for children’s rights in the digital age: recommendations for developing UNICEF’s research strategy. UNICEF Office of Research, Florence. http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/702

  • Livingstone S, Ólafsson K, Staksrud E (2011a) Social networking, age and privacy. EU Kids Online, London School of Economics and Political Science, London. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/35849/

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone S, Haddon L, Görzig A, Ólafsson K (2011b) Risks and safety on the internet: the perspective of European children, full findings. EU Kids Online, London School of Economics and Political Science, London. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731/

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone S, Haddon L, Görzig A, Ólafsson K (2012a) EU Kids Online final report. EU Kids Online, London School of Economics and Political Science, London. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/39351/

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone S, Ólafsson K, O’Neill B, Donoso V (2012b) Towards a better internet for children. EU Kids Online, London School of Economics and Political Science, London. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/44213/

    Google Scholar 

  • Lunt P, Livingstone S (2012) Media regulation: governance and the interests of citizens and consumers. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lusoli W, Miltgen C (2009) Young people and emerging digital services. An exploratory survey on motivations, perceptions and acceptance of risks, JRC technical reports. European Commission, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Lusoli W, Bacigalupo M, Lupiañez F, Andrade N, Monteleone S, Maghiros I (2011) Pan-European survey of practices, attitudes and policy preferences as regards personal identity data management JRC technical reports. European Commission, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansell R (2012) Imagining the internet: communication, innovation, and governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsden CT (2011) Internet co-regulation: European law, regulatory governance and legitimacy in cyberspace. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mathiesen K (2012) The internet, children, and privacy: the case against parental monitoring. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer-Schönberger V (2009) Delete: the virtue of forgetting in the digital age. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin S (2013) Rights v. Restrictions. Recognising children’s participation in the digital age. In: O’Neill B, Staksrud E, McLaughlin S (eds) Towards a better internet for children policy pillars, players and paradoxes. Nordicom, Goteborg, pp 301–319

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamee J (2010) Internet blocking: crimes should be punished and not hidden. European Digital Rights, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Millwood Hargrave A, Livingstone S (2009) Harm and offence in media content: a review of the empirical literature. Intellect Press, Bristol. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/49000/

    Google Scholar 

  • Muir D (2005) Violence against children in cyberspace: a contribution to the United Nations study on violence against children. ECPAT International, Bangkok

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesson C, Marglin D (1996) The day the internet met the first amendment: time and the communications decency act. Harv J Law Technol 10(1):113

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordic Youth Forum (2012) Youth have their say on internet governance. Nordicom, Gothenburg

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill B (2010) Media literacy and communication rights: ethical individualism in the new media environment. Int Commun Gaz 72(4–5):323–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill B, Livingstone S, McLaughlin S (2011) Final recommendations for policy, methodology and research. EU Kids Online, London School of Economics and Political Science, London. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/39410

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill O (1988) Children’s rights and children’s lives. Ethics 98(3):445–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2011) The protection of children online. Risks faced by children online and policies to protect them. OECD Working Party on Information Security and Privacy, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2012a) Connected minds: technology and today’s learners. www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/connected-minds_9789264111011-en

  • OECD (2012b) Recommendation of the council on the protection of children online. http://webnet.oecd.org/oecdacts/Instruments/ShowInstrumentView.aspx?InstrumentID=272&InstrumentPID=277&Lang=en&Book=False

  • Olsen F (1992) Children’s rights: some feminist approaches to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Int J Law Fam 6:192–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oswell D (2008) Media and communications regulation and child protection: an overview of the field. In: Livingstone S, Drotner K (eds) International handbook of children, media and culture. Sage Publications, London, pp 469–486

    Google Scholar 

  • Palfrey J, boyd d, Sacco D (2008) Enhancing child safety and online technologies: final report of the internet safety technical task force to the multi-state working group on social networking of state attorneys general of the United States. Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell A, Cooper A (2011) Discourses of net neutrality: comparing advocacy and regulatory arguments in the US and the UK. The inf soc 27:311–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell A, Hills M, Nash V (2010) Child protection and freedom of expression online. Oxford Internet Institute forum discussion paper no 17, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston CB (2009) All knowledge is not equal: facilitating children’s access to knowledge by making the internet safer. Int J Commun Law Policy 13:115–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt P, Runnel P (2012) Online opportunities. In: Livingstone S, Haddon L, Görzig A (eds) Children, risk and safety online: research and policy challenges in comparative perspective. The Policy Press, Bristol, pp 45–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Purdy LM (1992) In their best interest? The case against equal rights for children. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Quale E, Taylor M (2011) Social networking as a nexus for engagement and exploitation of young people. Inf Secur Tech Rep 16:44–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen J (2012) The right to be forgotten. Stanford Law Rev Online 64:88

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoon I (2006) Risk and resilience: adaptations in changing times. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz W, Held T (2004) Regulated self-regulation as a form of modern government: an analysis of case studies from media and telecommunications law. John Libbey Publishers for University of Luton Press, Luton

    Google Scholar 

  • Shmueli B, Blecher-Prigat A (2011) Privacy for children. Columbia Hum Rights Law Rev 42:758–795

    Google Scholar 

  • Tambini D, Leonardi D, Marsden CT (2008) Codifying cyberspace: communications self-regulation in the age of internet convergence. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Thierer A (2009) Parental controls and online child protection: a survey of tools and methods. The Progress and Freedom Foundation, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Thierer A (2011) Kids, privacy, free speech and the internet: finding the right balance. Mercatus Centre working paper 11. Mercatus Center, Arlington, VA

    Google Scholar 

  • Veerman PE (2010) The ageing of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Int J Child Rights 18(4):585–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warschauer M, Matuchniak T (2010) New technology and digital worlds: analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Rev Res Educ 34(1):179–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster W, Davidson J, Bifulco A, Gottschalk P, Caretti V, Pham T et al (2012) European online grooming project. Final report. European Commission safer internet plus programme, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • WSIS (2005) Tunis commitment. www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2266%7C2267

  • Zittrain J (2008) The future of the internet and how to stop it. Penguin, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Media and Communications, London School of Economics, London, UK

    Sonia Livingstone

  2. Dublin Institute of Technology, Dublin, Ireland

    Brian O’Neill

Authors
  1. Sonia Livingstone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian O’Neill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sonia Livingstone .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. eLaw – Center for law in the information society, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Simone van der Hof

  2. eLaw – Center for law in the information, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Bibi van den Berg

  3. Faculty of Law eLaw – Centre for Law in the Information, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Bart Schermer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 © T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Livingstone, S., O’Neill, B. (2014). Children’s Rights Online: Challenges, Dilemmas and Emerging Directions. In: van der Hof, S., van den Berg, B., Schermer, B. (eds) Minding Minors Wandering the Web: Regulating Online Child Safety. Information Technology and Law Series, vol 24. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-005-3_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation