Britain, Government, Internet, Legal, Society, Technology

New enforceable code for web giants

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

FACEBOOK, Google and other social media platforms will be forced to introduce strict age checks on their websites or assume all their users are children.

Web firms that hoover up people’s personal information will have to guarantee they know the age of their users before allowing them to set up an account.

Companies that refuse will face fines of up to 4 per cent of their global turnover – £1.67billion in the case of Facebook.

The age checks are part of a tough new code being drawn up by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which is backed by existing laws and will come into force as early as the autumn.

. See also Internet safety: The era of tech self-regulation is ending

Experts claim it will have a “transformative” effect on social media sites, which have been accused of exposing young people to dangerous and illicit material, bullying and predators. It includes rules to help protect children from paedophiles online.

The code also aims to stop web firms bombarding children with harmful content, a problem highlighted by the case of Molly Russell, 14, who killed herself after Instagram allowed her to view self-harm images. Under the new code:

. Tech firms will be banned from building up a “profile” of children based on their search history, and then using it to send them suggestions for material such as pornography, hate speech and self-harm.

. Children’s privacy settings must automatically be set to the highest level.

. Geolocation services must be switched off by default, making it harder for trolls and paedophiles to target children based on their whereabouts.

. Tech firms will not be allowed to include features on children’s accounts designed to fuel addictive behaviour, including online videos that automatically start one after the other, notifications that arrive through the night, and prompts nudging children to lower their privacy settings.

Once the new rules are implemented, children should be asked to prove their age by uploading their passports or birth certificate to an independent verification firm. This would then give them a digital “fingerprint” which they could use to demonstrate their age on other websites.

Alternatively, the tech firms could ask children to get their parents’ consent, and have the parents prove their identity with a credit card.

If the web giants cannot guarantee the age of their users, they will have to assume they are all children – and dramatically limit the amount of information they collect on them, as set out in the code.

At present, a third of British children aged 11 and nearly half of those aged 12 have an account on Facebook, Twitter or another social network, OFCOM figures show.

Many youngsters are exposed to material or conversations they are too young to cope with as a result.

The Deputy Commissioner at the ICO, said: “We are going to be making it quite clear that there is a reasonable expectation that companies stick to their own published terms and policies, including what they say about age restrictions.”

A House of Lords amendment tabled by Baroness Beeban Kidron that ensures the new code will be drawn up and put into law, said: “I expect the code to say: ‘You may not, as a company, help children find things that are detrimental to their health and well-being.’ That is transformative. This is so radical because it goes into the engine room, into the mechanics of how businesses work and says you cannot exploit children.”

The rules will come into force by the end of the year, and will be policed by the ICO, which has the powers to hand out huge fines.

It will also use its powers to crack down on any web firm that does not have controls in place to enforce its own terms and conditions. Companies that say they ban pornography and hate speech online will have to show the watchdog they have reporting mechanisms in place, and that they quickly remove problem material.

Firms that demand children are aged 13 or above – as most web giants do – will also have to demonstrate that they strictly enforce this policy.

At the moment, web giants such as Facebook, simply ask children to confirm their age by entering their date of birth without demanding proof.

 

FOR far too long, social media giants have arrogantly refused to take responsibility for the filth swilling across their sites.

Many of these firms, cloistered in Silicon Valley ivory towers, are owned by tax-avoiding billionaires who are indifferent to the trauma inflicted on children using websites such as Facebook and Instagram.

At the click of a mouse, young children are at risk of exposure to paedophiles, self-harm images, online pornography and extremist propaganda.

Finally, however, these behemoths are being brought to heel by the Information Commissioner (ICO). They must ensure strict age checks and stop bombarding children with damaging content – or face multi-million-pound fines.

Such enforced regulation is very welcome and well overdue.

Standard
Britain, Government, Legal, Military

Criminal probe launched into bullying at military base

BRITAIN

Intro: 24 years after historic allegations of abuse at Deepcut military barracks, a criminal probe is launched by Surrey Police

POLICE have launched a criminal investigation into assault allegations surrounding the suicide of a young soldier at the notorious Deepcut barracks almost 24 years ago.

Private Sean Benton, 20, was the first of four British soldiers to die in shootings at the Princess Royal Barracks in Surrey between 1995 and 2002 amid claims of bullying from more senior soldiers and other recruits.

A fresh inquest into Private Benton’s 1995 death ruled last year that he killed himself after being subjected to physical and psychological abuse.

He was found with five bullet wounds to the chest days after being “punched and kicked” by an instructor, leading to calls for a criminal prosecution.

Now, having reviewed evidence from the inquest in Woking, police have opened a new probe into allegations of assault and misconduct in public office.

The investigation was launched in October and has emerged as a fresh inquest into the death of another private, Geoff Gray, was opened earlier this week. It will cover a period from the mid-1990s to the early 2000s.

A spokesperson said: “Surrey Police reviewed the findings [of] the coroner and the Benton family’s request for a new criminal investigation into allegations including assault and misconduct in public office.

“A criminal investigation is under way into a number of allegations.” Three other recruits – Private Cheryl James, 18, Private Gray, 17, and Private James Collinson, 17 – also died at the base between 1995 and 2002 amid claims of bullying and abuse.

Private Collinson, from Perth, was the fourth person to die at the barracks. He was found dead with a single gunshot wound through his chin on March 23, 2002. An inquest into his death in 2006 returned an open verdict.

The coroner at Private Benton’s inquest, Peter Rook QC, delivered a damning five-hour narrative verdict of suicide last June, describing the harsh treatment the soldier was subjected to at the barracks.

He said: “There was a toxic culture at Deepcut at which Sean was frequently the recipient of actions.” He added that Private Benton was often on the receiving end of punishments by senior officers.

The court heard that the recruit was ordered to carry out degrading exercises by one non-commissioned officer, Sergeant Andrew Gavaghan, who has repeatedly denied allegations of abusive behaviour.

This included Private Benton having to perform press-ups on top of a female lance corporal in front of other recruits.

The court heard how a week before the death in June 1995, Sergeant Gavaghan kicked the soldier as he did press-ups.

Mr Rook added: “At times he [Sergeant Gavaghan] did lose control of himself.”

The coroner noted that Private Benton was told he was due to be discharged from the Army after a series of disciplinary problems and his feelings of shame had contributed to his state of mind.

His original inquest was held a month after his death and recorded a verdict of suicide.

But Private Benton’s family wanted the fresh inquest after allegations of bullying and a cover-up emerged at Deepcut.

The coroner also described a litany of failures with the original “woefully inadequate” police inquiry. Shortly after the inquest began, the Army apologised and said there were “a number of things that could and should have been better”.

The second inquest into the death of Private Gray has been launched after a campaign by his parents.

Standard
Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

The tawdry show of Brexit goes to the brink

BREXIT

The decision by Prime Minister Theresa May to delay the “meaningful” Commons vote on her Brexit deal until March 12 – just 17 days before the UK is due to leave the EU – is, unquestionably, a gamble that takes things to the very brink. It is a colossal gamble, but one in which Mrs May had little option but to take.

MPs on all sides will finally have to choose between Mrs May’s deal, No Deal, or effectively no Brexit. This has removed all bluster and political manoeuvring. It leaves just stark choices.

A rehashed motion from Labour’s Yvette Cooper and Tory Nick Boles which is expected to pass the chamber tomorrow is likely to concentrate minds further. That motion says that if no deal is agreed before March 13, Article 50 – our formal departure from the EU – should be delayed, taking No Deal off the table.

But this has two huge drawbacks. It removes a crucial bargaining chip with Brussels. And while saying what Brexit shouldn’t be, the motion offers no viable plan for what it should be. Those who support Mrs May’s withdrawal agreement will suggest, as they have consistently done, that the only plan that is viable, honours the referendum result and averts No Deal, is the Prime Minister’s plan.

Whilst the odds are daunting, there may still be a way in which she is able to get it through.

First, the EU must offer legally binding assurances over the so-called Irish backstop to satisfy the Democratic Unionist Party that Northern Ireland’s place in the UK is not under threat. Without that, the deal is dead – with potentially calamitous consequences for the whole of Europe.

If the DUP is assuaged, Tory hardliners in the European Research Group (ERG) led by Jacob Rees-Mogg, may be persuaded to back their leader – especially in light of the Cooper-Boles amendment which could stop Brexit altogether.

True, some ERG members appear so implacably opposed to the deal that almost nothing would change their minds.

But with Labour in open rebellion against its leader, some Opposition MPs – especially those from Leave-voting areas – may be prepared to defy the Corbyn whip and make up the numbers needed to push the agreement through.

To be realised, this will require good faith on all sides – something conspicuously lacking so far. No one is totally happy with the deal, but it provides a pragmatic compromise. Tory MPs especially need to rediscover the virtues of party loyalty and service to their constituents if they wish to stay in office and by remaining the ruling party – by backing it.

The clock is ticking louder than ever towards March 29.

Standard