Internet protection legislation and childhood privacy concerns

Protecting Children Online

Like any forms of advancement, computer and information technology are double-edged swords. On one hand, they offer new opportunities for learning and self-expression. However, the same technology also threatens the safety of children, exposing them to inappropriate content and online predators. This paper argues that given these safety concerns, special measures should be taken to protect children from these Internet predators.

Protection legislation

In 2001, the Children's Internet Protection Act (CHIPA) was signed into law. The mandate of this act is to protect children form the myriad of "inappropriate material" available on the Internet. Public institutions such as schools and libraries must ensure that "technology protection measures" are in place on all of its computers with Internet access. These protection measures include filtering software to screen out inappropriate content (Reilly 2001).

Supporters of this measure argued that the task of keeping children safe from online belongs to everyone in society, not just to parents. After all, many children are much more tech-savvy than their parents. Increasingly, they surf the Internet in public places, such as cafes and their school libraries. This makes it difficult for parents to monitor the Internet use of their children.

Furthermore, supporters of this law argue that the dangers of unsupervised Internet use are very real.

In addition to sexually-explicit content, many teenagers have reported supporting their drug habits via the Internet. Many chatrooms are full of drug dealers and pedophiles who know how to recognize potential young victims or customers ("Teens, Technology and Drugs" 2006). The goal of legislation such as CHIPA is targeted towards ensuring a safe online experience for children.

Overriding concerns

Critics do have valid concerns, and were able to articulate these all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court, however, rightly ruled that filtering technology remains an effective solution to keeping children away from violent, pornographic or otherwise dangerous content. The issue of "overblocking" can easily be remedied by a librarian or administrator. Future problems can also be prevented as libraries and schools further categorize material into designated safe categories, such as educational or medical research (Rehnquist 2005).

These filtering software, especially when conducted by libraries, do not constitute censorship. After all, libraries already perform a "gatekeeping" function when they select books and other physical material for their libraries. It would certainly be inappropriate for public libraries to spend taxpayer dollars on pornographic videos. Schools and libraries would be similarly remiss in their duties if they did not manage the online content that comes into their computers.

In conclusion, critics of filtering software and protection-oriented legislation have valid concerns regarding privacy and censorship. However, the dangers that inappropriate material and online predators pose to children are very real. While the task of keeping children safe is the primary task of parents, the rest of society should also share some of the responsibility. Schools and libraries have the mandate of helping to education young people, while keeping them in a safe and nurturing environment. Filtering software does not discount the former goal, and certainly promotes the latter. For these reasons, measures that help protect children online must therefore be supported.