IGF 2008: Event Report on Workshop No.18/32
Expression and image online – building an evolving personal identity with special focus on the dignity, security and privacy of children
Saturday 6 December, 09.00 – 10.30, Room 2Hyderabad, India
Being allowed self expression and image online is a fundamental need for an ‘Internet for all’, but through which we should also be secure, and have our privacy appropriately respected. The circumstances and needs of children in particular need to be considered. The community at large has children in its charge, and needs to provide adequate safeguards for them. We should all be able to live and work, enjoying the openness and general freedom of the Internet but with confidence and trust.
However, incidents of identity theft, identity checks which encourage discrimination and selection (e.g. at the workplace, admission to higher education, university, etc) and stereotypical portrayals of minorities are examples of the challenges to our freedom to express ourselves online- even as we increasingly use and rely upon the Internet. Incidents involving children are reported all too often.
Our personal identity and human dignity are issues which require examination and discussion at all levels of the Internet’s development, and they call for the delivery of tools and services which facilitate and foster expression and image online in a secure way.
But is this all asking the impossible?
The workshop considered how to deal with the management of personal expression on the Internet in order to encourage expression and openness on the Internet. There was discussion of national policies, technical tools, the roles and responsibilities of industry actors, as well as personal initiatives.
The Workshop was chaired by David Wood from the World Broadcasting Union. He explained that the professional content industry also sees Internet communities as critical elements in establishing our personal identity, and in the fulfilment of a public media mission, and thus they need also to be part of this discussion.
In the absence of the two Council of Europe experts Divina Frau-Meigs, Sorbonne Nouvelle University, France and Andrea Millwood Hargrave, University of Oxford, UK, Thomas Schneider conveyed their messages from the CoE on the traditional and new forms of identity in an ecosystem of ambient screens.
The workshop discussed the following questions:
1. What is identity management at the design level?
2. Can we factor into the design of technologies and services a lifelong approach to our online identities in a manner which respects and protects our security, privacy and dignity?
3. How to manage one’s dynamic identity governance?
4. (Open debate): The role and policies of the state with regard to identity management - is there an optimum solution(s) for harmonised levels of identity which respects and protects our dignity, security and privacy; what is the likely ‘buy-in’ across nations?
The Panellists were:
· Joseph Aldhadeff, Oracle, who gave an experts view of the options and methods, available and prospective, for assuring privacy.
· Marco Pancini, European policy counsel, Google, complemented Mr Alhadeff in the framework of technical means of providing privacy and security of information on identity.
· Thomas Schneider, Swiss Government, explained the current situation as seen by the national administration in Switzerland, and provided background on the Council of Europe’s discussions.
· Ceran Unal Lawyer, Turkey, who outlined the general legal perspectives, and the specific circumstances in Turkey.
· Sunyoung Yang, Yonsei Univ. Korea, explained the measures undertaken in Korea, which are among the most elaborate in the world.
· Janice Richardson who explained the purpose of the Internet Literary Handbooks developed in the framework of the Council of Europe’s objectives.
· Krishna Reddy, Associate Professor, Osmania University, Hyderabad who examined and contrasted the former world of mediated experience (knowledge via teachers, parents, etc) with that of the Internet, where no intermediaries are involved. These two worlds both have advantages and disadvantages.
Discussion and conclusions:
The discussion considered Identity management, with a current situation overview, examined the scope of problem, and tried to summarize of the issues. The participants agreed that there is not only risk of harm through content, but even more through contact and interaction with other Internet users. Such contact may put users at risk of harm, either directly (as in meeting strangers in dangerous situations) or indirectly, from the consequences of their online behaviour. The consequences of exposure seem to be more harmful for those who are already vulnerable. Especially young people tend to give away inappropriate (private) information publicly (allowing access to 'anyone'). However, it seems likely that many more also do so inadvertently, as a result of limitations in both Internet literacy and interface design. Anonymity – as important as it is for freedom of expression online and offline – can be problematic in the framework of social networking sites. The perpetuity of information distributed on the internet is another challenge that has to be faced and better understood.
With regard to possible solutions to the problems, there was agreement in the room that education, awareness raising and internet literacy are of key importance. All actors involved, the states, the business sector but also the users have to recognize and assume their responsibilities. There was consensus that – given the wide-spread desire of users to participate in such platforms – prohibitive laws, especially on national levels, are not likely to be effective remedies.
Governments were encouraged to help empowering users and to create incentives for business to provide for more transparency about their privacy and user protection policies and to develop guidelines and principles in that regard. Some participants were suggesting that service providers should be obliged to ask explicit consent of the user before processing their data. There were also proposals to oblige service providers to set the default settings for their users on a higher privacy and protection level. Better self- and co-regulation and mediation mechanisms could provide effective remedies to the risks discussed.
Business representatives were emphasizing that they were attempting to provide their users with the best choices and opportunities, respecting their demands and interests. They also expressed their willingness in cooperating with governments and users in order to create a secure online environment, especially with regard to children and young people. It was also stated that the users’ right to self-determination should not be compromised unless absolutely necessary.
The discussion showed that there was a general consensus that users should also be included in an “accountability framework” e.g. by consenting to principles on how to deal with their own data but also with the data of other users.
Several actors from different stakeholder groups expressed their intention to pursue this interesting and stimulating discussion in the future and to help exploring ways of developing harmonized guidelines and principles for minimal protection if possible on global level.