IWF response to Ofcom's strategy and priorities for the promotion of media literacy
Introduction
The IWF is funded by the EU, internet service providers, mobile network operators, software and hardware manufacturers and other associated partners including the banking industry. We work in partnership with all our funders, the police, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and government to provide a 'hotline' for individuals or organisations to report potentially illegal content they are exposed to online. We then assess and judge that content and if it is deemed to potentially illegal and hosted in the UK then a ‘notice and takedown’ is issued to the content service provider and the relevant law enforcement agency is advised. If the content is traced to servers outside the UK then we pass that information to the hotline in that country where one exists but in all cases the National Criminal Intelligence Service is informed. We also assist service providers to avoid abuse of their systems by distributors of child abuse content and we support law enforcement officers, at home and abroad, to detect and prosecute offenders where possible.
In addition we have also developed policies in partnership with the UK internet industry to minimise illegal online content and this in turn has led to the remarkable situation where potentially illegal content hosted in the UK has been reduced from 18% in 1997 to less than 1% in 2003.
IWF objectives are:
- to foster trust and confidence in the fixed and mobile internet among current and future internet users
- to assist service providers to combat the abuse of their systems for the dissemination of criminal content
- to assist law enforcement in the fight against criminal content on the Internet
IWF remit
to minimise the availability of potentially illegal content on the internet with particular reference to:-
- child abuse images originating anywhere in the world
- criminally obscene content
- criminally racist content.
Government Relationships.
The IWF has positive links to many government departments such as the Home Office, Trade and Industry, Culture, Media and Sport and Education and Skills. We specifically contribute to the work of the Home Secretarys Internet Task Force for the Protection of Children on the Internet and we actively relate to all the other main government departments at they relate to online safety and internet matters.
International Relationships.
We are a member of the Association of Internet Hotline Providers in Europe (INHOPE), a growing network of hotlines across Europe but also including America, Australia and South Korea. The primary purpose of INHOPE is to facilitate and co-ordinate the reporting of illegal internet content between countries.
IWF experience - consumer appreciation - internet literacy
Despite the fact that our remit states that we are charged with dealing with three specialist areas of ‘illegal’ online content, it is quite clear from the numerous enquiries made of us that there are very real misunderstandings as to what constitutes ‘illegal’ ‘harmful’ and ‘offensive’ content and what can be done to prevent exposure to such content. This issue is even more complicated by the international context of the internet and the apparent lack of appreciation amongst many internet consumers as to where content originates and why it cannot be controlled or stopped at source.
Defining ‘illegal’ when it relates to criminally obscene and racist content is problematical enough but when asked to explain the difference between ‘illegal, ‘harmful’ and ‘offensive’ content then it becomes an almost impossible challenge to explain.
The Internet.
Accepting the premise that Ofcom has no statutory powers to regulate the internet there are many good reasons why media literacy must embrace the internet:
- We are seeing convergence of platforms as the internet is accessible through interactive television and 2.5G/3G mobiles, whiile people are accessing radio, television and films on the Net.
- Some 53% of UK homes are now connected to the internet and this proportion will undoubtedly grow.
- As more Internet users switch to an always-on broadband connection and more and more commercial and government services are made available on-line, Net users are going to be spending more time on-line to access more information and services.
- In the on-line environment, access to illegal material - such as child abuse images or race hate sites - and harmful content - such as violent sex or suicide sites - is much easier than in the physical world and requires different controls, most of which depend on parents, teachers or carers.
- Whereas traditional media - such as radio and television - are subject to various editorial and regulatory controls, the Internet is effectively unregulated and uncontrolled and users need to make more informed judgements concerning the reliability and quality of on-line material.
- Conversely, this lack of control of the Internet gives anyone with minimal technical skills the opportunity to become a publisher or creator of on-line content at nil cost.
Media literacy - Ofcom definition:
‘A range of skills including the ability to access, analyse, evaluate and produce communications in a variety of forms. Or put simply, the ability to operate the technology to find what you are looking for, to understand that material, to have an opinion about it and where necessary to respond to it. With these skills people will be able to exercise greater choice and be able better to protect themselves and their families from harmful or offensive materials’.
In the particular context of the Internet, this definition raises the following issues:
- Access: All citizens, wherever they live, need affordable access to every-faster speeds of Internet service and they need basic skills in installing anti-virus protection, managing e-mail, setting the browser, and using a search engine.
- Analysis: This involves understanding the difference between different parts of the Net such as web sites, community groups, and newsgroups and the variable reliability of on-line content, ranging from an authoritative site such as the BBC to a slanted corporate message to an individual conspiracy theorist.
- Evaluation: This includes understanding the difference between facts and opinions and assessing the date, source and authority of both. It might involve recognising the illegality or harmfulness of some material.
- Production: At the lowest level, this means the ability to send an e-mail and post a comment to a community group, but more adventurously it embraces the skills to create a web site or a weblog and run an on-line campaign.
Research
IWF strongly supports the hypothesis that a programme of research to determine consumer knowledge and needs is essential. This should include what users appreciate about the dangers of illegal and harmful content on the internet and what they know about the tools available to minimise access to such material.
We are already in talks with Ofcom personnel to assist in the design and preparation of suitable questions. Evidence based research that could answer these sample type of questions would be very valuable:-
- who do consumers feel should take responsibility for teaching and training in the use of the internet?
- something about consumers understanding of what constitutes illegal content on the internet
- what content do consumers find most alarming on the internet?
- what did the consumer do when they encountered such content?
- what do consumers know about internet policing or regulation?
Connecting, partnering and signposting.
The IWF have long held the belief that there is an absolute need to be able to direct internet consumers to a type of ‘one stop shop’ whenever they encounter internet related problems. This is not just limited to content matters but should also include directing people to advice and guidance concerning new communications technologies. As far as the internet is concerned, this should include direction on how to deal with spam, scams, and viruses as well as problematic content, the danger of chat rooms, and difficulties with e-commerce operations.
Labelling system
When the IWF was first created it was charged with developing a universal labelling system. Over time it became apparent that the scale of this concept was so large that the resources of the IWF would be stretched too far to cope with the issue. As a consequence the Internet Content Rating Association (ICRA) was formed and gradually the work undertaken by the IWF was migrated to this body.
The IWF have always supported the notion of self labelling of internet content but have been frustrated by the apparent lack of enthusiasm from many organisations to recognise the value of such a scheme to assist parents and carers in tailoring their internet experience to suit their family circumstances.
It is essential that consumers can appreciate how the labelling system applies to their electronic audiovisual experience as it is envisaged that internet content will delivered across all platforms in the future.
However, we should flag up the conflict that arises with the lack of labelling when it comes to potentially illegal content because, if our statistics on illegal child abuse content are indicative of potentially illegal content, it would appear that around 90% of our complaints relate to content originating outside the EU. Commercial content producers in the UK and the EU may be persuaded to label their content but broadband connection particularly has encouraged the UK consumer to produce and host their own content, including potentially illegal content. This may be an indicator of increasing media literacy but potentially illegal content is far less likely to be labelled given the criminal nature of the content.
Filtering Tools
It is clear from work undertaken by a dedicated group under the auspices of the Task Force for the Protection of Children on the Internet that there is much confusion about the credibility and validity of software providers who claim their products are the ‘killer application’ for filtering and monitoring internet usage. As a consequence work is underway to try and establish some form of benchmark or kite mark so that consumers can gain a greater degree of confidence in such products but completion of that work is still some way off yet. In the meantime established internet service providers have been striving to make available various filtering or blocking applications to help their customers enjoy their internet experience more, but the take up of such tools still seems to be on the low side indicating either ignorance of their availability or a lack of understanding about their benefits. Any strategy aimed at improving this situation would be welcomed.
Conclusion
The IWF welcomes the offer to work with Ofcom on aspects of media literacy. We believe that we have gained considerable experience over the years in trying to help consumers enjoy their online experience but with the added impetus of Ofcom’s support then there is good reason to suppose that online consumers will benefit from such a relationship.
Page Created: Thu, May 25th, 2006
Page Modified: Thu, May 25th, 2006
