Safeguarding podcast – The Extraordinary Paradox with Professor Sonia Livingstone OBE

In this safeguarding podcast, Professor Sonia Livingstone OBE discusses the Online Harms white paper, whether the UNCRC is fit for the digital age and why the USA hasn’t signed up to it, whether the FTC’s COPPA “digital age of consent” should be raised to 16 and why it’s 13 in the first place, and how social media companies are abusing children’s privacy as detailed in her report “Children’s Data and Privacy Online; Growing up in a Digital Age”.

A lightly edited transcript of the podcast is below for those that can’t use podcasts, or for those that simply prefer to read.

Neil Fairbrother

Welcome to another edition of the SafeToNet Foundation safeguarding podcast, where we talk about all things to do with safeguarding children in the online digital context.

The focus of this edition is children’s data and privacy online and how this can impact children growing up in a digital age, and to guide us through, this is one of the UK’s, if not the world’s, most preeminent thinkers, researchers, authors, bloggers on issues regarding children online, and that is that Sonia Livingstone OBE, welcome to the podcast.

Sonia Livingstone

Thank you so much.

Neil Fairbrother

Could you give us a brief resume please, of your background and the work that you do, so our audience has got a context of your experience.

Sonia Livingstone

Sure. I began life as a Social Psychologist in the academic world and I’ve researched how families engage with the changing media for some 30 years now, so it’s getting on! And all the time that digital world gets more and more complex and more questions arise about children’s wellbeing as they grow up in a more complex, now more “datafied”, world. So I’ve been researching, looking at both the opportunities and the risks. I do this work at the London School of Economics and Political Science, which offers me a very multidisciplinary environment in which to think about all things digital in relation to children.

Neil Fairbrother

Okay. And what is a Social Psychologist?

Sonia Livingstone

A Social Psychologist is committed to the idea that it’s vital to understand how people think, how they understand the world, their preferences, their values, their commitments, but to do so in a context where you really think about the social. What are other people doing? What relationships to be formed? How does the wider culture and the institutional structures that we live within, how do all of those shape our possibilities?

I don’t just ask what does the child want, what does the child think? But I also am interested in how the world they are growing up in shapes them and sets the parameters for what they can be.

Neil Fairbrother

So it’s quite a holistic view?

Sonia Livingstone

It’s trying to be holistic and it’s trying to work at multiple levels from thinking about the individual to thinking about relations among people, or especially the family in my case. And then also recognizing that how the digital industry is regulated matters, what school policies matters, what the changing digital offer is; all of those things matter to the life chances of an individual child.

Neil Fairbrother

Okay. Thank you. Now, before we get into the specific topic of children’s data and privacy and looking at your report, I’d like to ask you if I may about the Online Harms white paper as this may well set the stage for all of our experiences online, not just children of course, in any upcoming legislation and many of our listeners will know that the Online Harms white paper proposes both a regulator for the Internet and also a “duty of care” on Internet based companies. What are your views on those proposals?

Sonia Livingstone

I’m very much in favour of there being an independent regulator. I think we’ve spent the last 10 or 20 years, many of us in the research world and also the policy world, exploring the possibility for industry self-regulation, and we’ve reached a point where public trust in industry is pretty low in relation to safety, privacy and harm. And any domain has regulators in the world of transport or food or health or whatever, but in relation to the digital world, we haven’t got that, and the existing regulators are kind of saying “Not my problem”.

So I think there should be a regulator. I think it could be an existing regulator like Ofcom or the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), but it’s really important that it is trusted by the public, engaged with productively by the industry, transparent in how it works and sufficiently expert to properly know what’s going on and how the digital world is changing.

So I don’t think it’s an easy task and I don’t think it’s easy for the white paper as it eventually becomes an Act [of Parliament]. I don’t think it’s easy to say how that’s going work, but I think we have to try.

Neil Fairbrother

Okay. Alright. Thank you for that. And there’s another piece of legislation that’s up for review right now, which is the US-based, FTC’s COPPA or the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule. And that has a direct impact on privacy because it was originally about privacy in the sharing of children’s information and so on. Has that been effective do you think, and what other amendments would you like to see in that important piece of legislation?

Sonia Livingstone

I’m just considering now how to respond to that consultation. So what happens in this domain is that the technology moves faster than the regulation. So COPPA was developed in 1998 as a way of ensuring that if television companies were going to send advertising to children, the parents would have a right to say yes or no, as it were, to know that this was happening and that’s where the age of 13 was first set to say if a child is under 13, then the parents should know if the child’s getting advertising.

Neil Fairbrother

And on what basis was 13 chosen, or was it just an arbitrary age?

Sonia Livingstone

It’s possible that it wasn’t very evidenced based, but any psychologist will tell you that roundabout 12 or 13 is generally accepted as a really kind of crucial turning point, both emotionally if you like as it is the start of puberty more or less, but also cognitively. There’s a lot of theoretical work that says roundabout that age children become more critically aware of the world that they’re in and are able to make better judgements about it.

So that was an age that was set for when children should get advertising without parental permission. It’s become the de facto age at which children can use any social media because COPPA is still in force and social media still bombards children with advertising, and parents still want a say. So it’s become something else. And my understanding is that the Federal Trade Commission in the US is now reviewing how it’s become something much bigger.

Because it’s a barrier to children using social media, it’s become a kind of a harm measure, a way of making sure parents know what social media their children are on. It’s become a means of evasion because children go on [social media] younger to as it were deceive both their parents and the social media company because they want to be with their friends. So it’s become all kinds of things that were never planned, and I see this as a review to say, what should we do? What do I want to happen?

There’s a move by Senator Markey to raise the age to 16 because, and I think reasonably, the digital world has become so complex that it’s unreasonable to expect anyone under the age of 16 to really understand how their data is being collected, exploited, and monetized. But if that becomes the de facto age of children being allowed to use social media, that is way too old. So we’ve got a real trade-off between protecting children on the one hand and giving them a chance to participate on the other.

Neil Fairbrother

But they are only terms and conditions of a social media platform, it’s not a law.

Sonia Livingstone

Oh the COPPA is a law. COPPA is a law that applies to companies operating out of the US.

Neil Fairbrother

Yes, but it’s the basis of the terms and conditions of the social media sites that say 13, as opposed to the law saying 13 is to be on social media.

Sonia Livingstone

Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. And to a child outside the US, there is no relevant law. It’s the law that operates on the companies.

Neil Fairbrother

Yes. And one final thing is that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child recently had a consultation period with a view to that being updated as well. That was written in 1989 and in a blog entry that you wrote to you pose the question “Is the Convention fit for the digital age?” – so is it?

Sonia Livingstone

So that’s also a good question. So just to be really clear, I think the Convention on the Rights of the Child is actually beautifully written and entirely relevant to the digital age. But what’s being written now is called a General Comment, which is a kind of a short text which explains it, which does the translation job, which explains how that convention written 30 years ago, how it applies.

So the Convention says the child has the right to be protected from harm or the right to participate or the right to have their privacy protected. So what does that look like in the digital environment where “privacy” has come to mean something about data collection and where “participation” has come to mean being on social networks and where “harm” has got all kinds of new meanings given the kind of risks that the Internet poses. So it’s like saying we need a translation document to really explain that the Convention doesn’t just apply to the offline child. It really applies to the whole child.

Neil Fairbrother

Right. And one country in particular hasn’t signed up to UNCRC which is of course America, but most of the social media sites are American. Is that a problem?

Sonia Livingstone

It’s an extraordinary paradox really isn’t it? And the best I can understand is that America hasn’t signed up to the Convention a) because America doesn’t really only sign up to international conventions full stop. And b) specifically in relation to the Convention of the Rights of the Child, America favours the rights of the parent, when push comes to shove, over the rights of the child. Whereas all the signatures to the voice of the child would put the best interests of the child first, even if that means ahead of the parents’ right. And you can see that it’s kind of controversial, but it’s interesting that the rest of the world… Britain by the way, has ratified the Convention, but we haven’t incorporated it into our law, and Scotland has, and is just now having a consultation on how the Convention should be interpreted in the digital age, which is also really interesting.

Neil Fairbrother

Well, that’s a topic for a future episode I think! So back on to the real focus of today’s episode, which is your recent report, your study, Children’s Data and Privacy Online; Growing up in a Digital Age, which can be downloaded from your website. Now in your report, you identify three types of privacy: Interpersonal, Institutional and Commercial. Can you explain what those are? Maybe even, can you define privacy in the first place?

Sonia Livingstone

Privacy is notoriously to define, and the easiest way in a sense is to say it’s the individual’s control over their own personal information. It’s not a very good definition because really going back to my being a social psychologist, we think of privacy socially. So there’s no point in my having control of my own information if I’m all by myself. It’s through our relations with others that we want to manage our privacy.

So the way we’ve defined it in the report is to think contextually and say in different kinds of social contexts, privacy has a distinct meaning in which you are the agent of your own privacy. So to come back to the three types of contexts that we tried, what we really tried to say is that we’re used to thinking about children’s privacy in relation to their friends, their family, their school. Maybe their friends and the family mainly. So we kind of think interpersonally. A child wants their Mum to know this and not their classmates.

But what the data does in the digital world is it takes what we’ve said to our parents on Whatsapp or our friends on Instagram and it shares it also with companies. And it may also be monitored by schools and it may also be collected by data brokers and so on. So there were these institutionalcontexts in which what was once just interpersonal is now getting shared, like the school, like the Health Service, and there were these commercialcontexts, which we’re beginning to think about, but don’t really understand, in which what you’ve said to your friend or your parent becomes part of their collection and monetization and profile they make of you which might last for decades.

So the child might feel they have control over their information, they understand that interpersonal context and childhood in a way is about learning that interpersonal context, learning what’s secret, what’s fun to share, what happens if you break a promise and reveal someone’s secret and so on. But we haven’t thought about children’s agency in managing the information that’s collected about them both by the school and especially by companies.

Neil Fairbrother

Yes. Now you said that we have yet to understand this, and the primary question in the report is “What do children understanding and think about their privacy?”. If we don’t understand it, what hope do children have to understand it?

Neil Fairbrother

Yes, well that’s a really crucial question because the principle of the data protection regulation that we have is that people should be agents of their own data collection and they should a) understand what data is being collected about them, and b) have the right to say “Yes’, “No”, get it back if it’s wrong and so on.

So it’s a challenge for us all, but it is important for children and it is a right of children. So in our inquiry we did focus groups all around the country in schools and we wanted to first of all grasp what children themselves thought and we talked to children from the age of 11 through to 16. And then we wanted to explain to them some of the context in which their data is being collected and used and get their thoughts on that. And we did that against the backdrop of a kind of clamour of “common sense” opinion that children don’t care about their privacy because they’re sharing it with everyone, or children can’t really be bothered to consider that data rights because they’re just going to give it away if they want to get a certain app or use a certain service.

Neil Fairbrother

Now when it comes to understanding what they’re giving away, what we all giving away, but children in particular, the terms and conditions or the privacy statements on these websites are pretty obscure and arcane. And if you look at one of them, which was in the news only last week I think, Faceapp, was in the headlines recently and it says “You grant Faceapp a perpetual, irrevocable, nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, fully paid, transferable sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create….” I mean it goes on like that and it is all “legalese” that the majority of adults probably wouldn’t understand or certainly don’t have the time to understand. So how on earth can children?

Sonia Livingstone

Yeah. I’d go further. I’d say it’s not just that children don’t really understand that, though they’ve grasped the idea that they’re pretty helpless in this regard, but we’ve positively taught them that they are the little person in a world that doesn’t respect their dignity and their rights and that big companies are going to take what they want, whatever they do. So we’ve kind of taught them a kind of lesson in hopelessness and insignificance, which sadly we heard repeated back to us in quite a number of the focus groups. Children would say, “Oh, we’re just children. No one’s going to listen to us”.

Neil Fairbrother

One of the points you make is that these commercial companies, the Facebooks of the world and so on, are gathering more data on our children than even governments do.

Sonia Livingstone

Yes, yes, yes. And selling it then to those governments.

Neil Fairbrother

Right. So it may sound like a strange question, but should that even be allowed?

Sonia Livingstone

No, I don’t think so. And nor do children. One of the things that came out really clearly [from our research] let’s take Instagram for example. Why should Instagram collect data? Okay. Kids understand that they want the profile they made before to be still there when they log on next time, that they want their network of contacts collected as their history, that they know what they’ve told Instagram, they’ve shared this photo and searched for this Hashtag or whatever. What they can’t grasp, and I think what many people can’t grasp, is why that data should then be in some sense sold to other data brokers and combined with other information collected from completely different apps or services, in order to create some more complete digital footprint that has a future monetary value, let’s say to an insurance company or to a university admissions process or you know? That, they don’t get, and I think they want to say “No”.

Neil Fairbrother

The feedback that you’ve reported is the children are “outraged” when they do understand this. That was the word you used, is that right? And at least one child said, “Well it’s none of their business”.

But it absolutely is their business, that IS their business. The fact that they’re connecting different people around the world and building this so-called community as Mark Zuckerberg calls it, is irrelevant. That’s a sideshow. That is not their business. Their businesses IS exactly that collation of data. How can we make children aware of that and the issues that it poses for their privacy.

Sonia Livingstone

So I don’t think we can, and I don’t think we can, not because children are stupid. I don’t think we can make anyone aware properly, except that we can scare people and we are scaring people through the kind of scary headlines in the news of data breaches. But really, you know, I’ll go back to the idea of agency. I think really people understand the significance of the spaces they’re engaged with, including the digital spaces, when they’ve got real choices. So if there was a choice between the, as it were, Instagram that collects your data and shares it with the data brokers, and the Instagram that just uses your data to make that service work well, I think everyone would suddenly become savvy. We would know how to advise our children. Everyone would use option two, and option two might make less money than, you know, but it’s not like they’re not making enough money! They’d make enough money.

I’ll give you another example. What we’ve all seen after the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came in is, we haven’t just seen companies saying, “Okay, I have to tell you I’m going to take your data and I’m taking it and I’ve got all the trackers on.” And that’s it. We’ve seen some companies saying that and some saying, “We want to let you know that we’ve got to advise you what we’re doing with your data and we’ve got all the trackers off unless you tell us we can put them on”. Right? So we’ve seen different options and different organizations are making different [options], and that’s when there’s a real choice. So that’s when it’s worth saying to a child “pay attention” because some of them are treating you fairly and some of them are going to take everything unless you stop it.

Neil Fairbrother

But the reality though is that when an app starts to go viral, if we look at TikTok for example, they’ve now announced that they’ve got a billion people using that app, and of course there is a frenzy to join… There’s a rate of growth, hyper-growth. Really is that distinction that you outlined too subtle? Would children really care if there is this headlong hyper-growth frenzy?

Sonia Livingstone

And I think that’s the real problem or one of the problems, and one of the reasons why the digital world is different from other kinds of markets where people have made choices, is that sense of critical mass that everyone wants to be in the same place. There’s no point being on a social network when no one else is there, and there’s no point being on an old one when everyone’s on a new one.

So there’s the speed at which it changes and the fact that any “app of the moment” has a monopoly makes it very hard to say that what we need as a marketplace of real choices. I would go back to the racket question of a regulator though, because a regulator arguably could have said before TikTok enter the British market, “Excuse me, we have some tests”. Just like if a food manufacturer said, “Hey, we’re we’ve got this new kind of popcorn, we’re going to start selling it in Britain”, the food agency would say, “Hang on a sec, we need to say that you’ve passed our tests”.

Neil Fairbrother

And one of those tests might be related to the age of the child. You’ve mentioned in your report that “there are growing calls for mechanisms to know who a child is online and for those mechanisms to be embedded within the digital environment”, which is Age Verification or Age Estimation. But you also therefore need to know who isn’t a child. You need to know what the age of adults are because adults pretend to be children. So is one of the tests before entering a market that social media companies and apps and the like need to have a as non-porous as possible Age Verification or Age Estimation system in place?

Sonia Livingstone

So I think that’s the least favoured solution to a very real problem, and a lot of companies are pursuing that solution to try to produce the kind of brilliant Age Verification mechanism. Why is it a problem? It’s a problem because it means that these companies are going to have a lot more data about us. And probably once they’ve got that nice account of who’s a child and how old everyone is, that’ll be a database that gets breached in some way. So that’s a pretty scary prospect.

The Information Commissioner’s Office is pursuing an alternative possibility through the current consultation around the Age Appropriate Design Code, which in effect is to say Age Verification is the “solution of last resort”. What we want to move towards is a world that treats everybody fairly and if you like, she hasn’t quite put it this way, as if everyone is a child, or as if everyone has the rights that a child should have. And then you collect the data from those who establish they are adults and give permission to do so. I think it is quite a complicated proposal she’s making. It could work, it could be, if it had the force of law behind it, making real change the market. But the public is saying through all of those surveys on trust, they have had it with this particular way the market is working.

Neil Fairbrother

We do have the sale of age-restricted goods, or there are goods that are restricted for sale to different ages. Alcohol for example, cigarettes, fireworks, even party poppers are restricted. So the principle of age-restricted products and services is well established in the offline world. I know you talked about the collection of the age being yet more data being collected, but we’re all happy to put in our credit card details to make online purchases, and the credit card is a very valuable piece of data obviously. So is there a really an issue there with getting a little bit more data?

Neil Fairbrother

I think that’s a good question. And it may be that some of the kind of media panics have over-hyped this question about collecting databases that include age. The point was made recently that anyone who goes to a pornography site online, whether they pay or not, they are tracked, and there is now a database that links their IP address to them. Not only the fact that they looked at pornography but the kind of pornography and you could say that’s a pretty sensitive data set. So why would we say it’s even worse that all the people in that data set have proved that they are over 18, or all the people who’ve bought knives, all the people who’ve done online gambling.

I mean actually this data is being collected about them all as you say, why not? But there seems to be a very strong resistance among the kind of civil libertarian view in this country that asks people to add their name to the database as they access various kinds of dubious contents, is an outrage. And they don’t want to do it and they’d rather that children proved that they were a child, even though that really does make I think quite a risky kind of a database.

Neil Fairbrother

And it’s a very hard thing to do because children by definition just don’t have that kind of ID. They don’t have a credit card, they don’t have a driving license. In Scotland they do actually have an Age Verification card. They have a “I am 13” kind of card, which we don’t use.

Sonia Livingstone

Does it work? Could we bring that in here?

Neil Fairbrother

My understanding is that it does work, and yes, in principle we could bring it into England.

Sonia Livingstone

…and we could use it, let’s say for Instagram or Snapchat?

Neil Fairbrother

In principle yes. Why not?

Sonia Livingstone

Okay. I think that’s an interesting prospect. And presumably it’s validated by the Post Office or a government agency or something. I think we have to find a solution or we say, we don’t take data from anyone without express permission, and we don’t share it beyond the app unless we can really prove this person is over a certain age.

Neil Fairbrother

Okay. Now this is a technical issue, the problems, the ethical and privacy issues have been caused by technology, the Internet, World Wide Web and social media that sit on top of that, is all caused by technology and technology could be part of the solution in a different kind of way. But I noticed that in your report, you’ve picked up on parental controls, and you’ve done a study on parental controls apps that are on the Android Play Store, and 89% of them were found to be “extremely invasive of teenagers’ privacy and provide parents with granular access to monitor and restrict teenagers, intimate online interactions, including websites, visited and texts sent and received”.So you’ve got an attempt using certain types of technology for worried parents to help protect their children, but by doing so, they are massively invading their children’s privacy. Is that a move too far?

Sonia Livingstone

So that’s where we go back to that question about the Convention on the Rights of the Child and what do we do when the child’s right to privacy seems to clash with the parents’, I wouldn’t say “right”, but responsibility, to protect that child. There’s a whole growing market of apps which offer parental controls, which can, I would say play to parental anxieties and sometimes whip up those parental anxieties so that the parents almost feel that irresponsible if they haven’t checked their child’s phone or monitored where their child is going. So we’re reaching quite an extraordinary point of parents spying on their children.

So what Social Psychology tells us really clearly is that this is how relationships are broken. I mean, it just does not build a healthy relationship to have anyone spying on the other and it doesn’t build conditions of trust and open communication if you’ve already got a download of what that person’s done in their day.

Neil Fairbrother

Yes. And from your report, a child’s perception of privacy is actually that which their parents cannot see.

Sonia Livingstone

It’s that which they feel that they have the control over that they want. So children are getting worried by a lot of the talk about online harms as well. So one of the things that struck me in the focus groups is that many children would say, actually, I’m happy for my parents to look at my phone, or I feel that they care for me when they ask to see my phone and discuss what’s on it. So children are changing, children are kind of giving away some of their privacy because they too want that protection.

But the children who say that they’re the ones who trust their parents already, and the irony is that the children who are probably most at risk are the ones who don’t have a great relationship with their parents. And for those parents to, as it were, invade their privacy I think is just to make a difficult situation, worse.

Neil Fairbrother

Now talking about [children] going to parents for advice and guidance and help and a protective arm around them, you do say in your report that “…parents and educators alike, lack the understanding of third party gathering and use of personal information and may fail to recognize the risks of online educational activities”. So if both the educators, the teachers of the world, the schools and so on, and parents lack that understanding, where can children go to get that kind of advice and guidance that they need to help protect their privacy?

Sonia Livingstone

Yeah, good question. I mean who should tell them? Why don’t the companies that take their data explain to children what they’re doing with it and what their rights are? I think they should. Why doesn’t the Information Commissioner’s Office do that? There isn’t a “for children” portal or button on the ICO website. I think there should be. There are many children’s charities that look out for child welfare that are waking up to the question about personal safety, but not to the question of data and privacy.

I treat parents and children a bit differently. I think parents do need to be informed and should be trying to skill up, but there’s a limit to how far I want to pressurize them. I think they’ve got a lot on their plate. I think schools should now say that understanding critically the nature of the digital world is a priority as part of education. And so I’d also say the Department of Education should be requiring schools to have that in the curriculum, should be requiring teachers to have that knowledge. Why not?

Neil Fairbrother

Well the “why not?” I would imagine would be the schools saying, “Well, hey look, we’ve got enough on our plate as it is trying to get people through their formal qualifications without this extra burden. You’re now telling us, we’ve got to be familiar with the UNCRC. We’ve got to be familiar with what the regulator’s doing, the potential new regulator. We’ve got to be familiar with the COPPA legislation…” Suddenly this subject [gets very big and complicated].

Sonia Livingstone

I know. It’s tough. Yeah. One answer will be to put it into the formal curriculum so that it becomes in everyone’s instrumental interest to teach about it. We could have digital literacy as a formal part of the curriculum. Then teachers can be trained, children can learn. Okay, something might get squeezed a little bit, but the digital world is how children learn. It is how they engage. So to bracket it off and indeed to make it a step too far, just doesn’t seem to cut it in the digital age. It’s got to be there in all the subjects they teach.

Neil Fairbrother

Yeah. Now, we are running out of time. You did come up with some recommendations at the end of this report such as “Introducing a comprehensive approach to privacy online”, for example, “A balance of protection and autonomy”, “A child-focused approach” and “Digital skills and privacy education at an early age”, which was just covered off. So could you just take us through a summary of your final recommendations that you have been proposing?

Sonia Livingstone

So I guess I see children surrounded by a range of organizations, some of which are charged with their best interests and some of which aren’t, but affect them, and what we tried to do in the report is to identify what each of those different organizations should do to play their part, because the digital world is complicated and we can’t say it’s just the responsibility of schools, or just the responsibility of parents or indeed of the government.

So we’re trying to say, okay, different organizations should play different kinds of roles. I think for schools, they have got to teach digital literacy. I just think it’s the answer. It’s now impossible to imagine a well-functioning school in the digital age that doesn’t prioritize a critical grasp of that digital world. I also think, and something we suggested in the report, that schools are themselves collecting incredibly sensitive data about children, and that is a learning moment. So if they themselves were to explain to the children what they’re collecting, what they’re doing, what happens to the child’s thumbprint when they pay for their school dinners with it, or what happens to the records of their special educational needs, or their mental health, that would be a brilliant way of learning and empowering the child at the same time.

But we’re also very clear in the report that if the digital world stays as complex and fast changing and incomprehensible as it is at the moment, then the teacher’s job will indeed be too difficult. So the online side, the industry side, has got to do a lot more to clarify, to explain and to provide real choices because if they provide more real choices, then everyone would be more motivated to learn.

Neil Fairbrother

But is that in their shareholder’s interest, in their moneymaking interest?

Sonia Livingstone

Well, I’m an expert on the world of business, but what I hear every expert tell me is that a well-functioning market has all kinds of different strategies and approaches and at the moment we just have the one model [in which] public trust is collapsing. There’s evidence that people are turning away and becoming dissatisfied in some ways. This seems to me ripe conditions for more experimentation in the market.

Neil Fairbrother

You have a website where I think this report is?

Sonia Livingstone

We’ve put everything at www.myprivacy.uk and it opens with the toolkit for children, and it has tabs also for parents, teachers and policymakers.

Neil Fairbrother

Sonia Livingstone, thank you so very much for your time. It’s been absolutely fascinating discussion.

Sonia Livingstone

Thank you very much. Great questions!

 

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *