Internet Moni on 02 May 2010
Consultari nationale EU Kids Online II
Am inceput sa colectam pareri legate de tema siguranta online a copiilor din Romania. Care sunt principalele probleme, ce este specific utilizarii internetului de catre copiii romani si care sunt initiativele considerate relevante, au fost cateva din temele discutate la intalnirea de la Bucuresti din 26 aprilie. In paralel, am colectat pareri cu ajutorul unui chestionar online http://tiny.cc/eukids
Mai jos aveti raspunsurile la intrebarile formulate pentru NAB.
Completari, puncte noi de vedere, alte sugestii sunt binevenite.
___________________________________________________
Report from stakeholders’ meeting (Bucharest, April 26th 2010) and online consultations
1. What are the key issues regarding children’s internet safety?
One of the major problems raised was the significant cleavage/ discrepancy between Romanian children and their parents in terms of Internet use and literacy, which further perpetuates extreme viewpoints and the co-existence of the myth of the expert, techno-savvy child with the adult -protective perspectives. One participant brought up the issue of parents even thriving in their children’s ability to use the Internet in malicious ways and taking pride in their child’s “victory” over other children (e.g. being able to break an e-mail account, steal a password, crack a code etc.). This gap in digital literacy between children and adults (parents, teachers, caregivers etc.) makes it difficult for adults to act as advisers and easy for children to be careless online.
All participants seem to agree that parents are unprepared or majorly under-prepared to deal with issues like safety and mediation of their children’s use of the Internet. Two participants (one online) went as far as stating that parents seem to have traded the TV as a baby-sitter for the computer or the Internet, in order to take the load of parenting off their shoulders.
Quote: “Indiferenta mare din partea parintilor. Copii sunt lasati ore intregi fara sa fie supravegheati inca de la varste fragede. Acestia pot cadea in diferite “capcane”, deoarece doresc sa socializeze tot mai mult sau sa joace tot mai multe jocuri online (multe dintre acestea promoveaza un continut violent)”. [Major indifference of the parents. Children are left for hours unsupervised even from a very young age. They can easily fall in all sorts of “traps”, because they want to socialize more or play more online games (a lot of them promoting violent content)]. D.D., young blogger.
Other participants mentioned the use of Internet and chat-rooms in cathartic ways (as a substitute for ‘real’ communication), in line with the logic of the previous argument.
Other participants stated that children are too trustful of other children and they can easily become targets for malicious activities (computer remote control, Trojans etc.)
The common ground was that vulnerabilities are general, they are not simply online or offline and addressing them should be a continuous process (one part of the solution being raising awareness among parents and teachers and working on increasing their digital competencies).
2. What are the main topics of discussion among stakeholders?
The topic of children’s online safety is not on the public agenda, it is practically un-existent. The topic of safety is relatively new, most of the efforts focus on generalization of Internet access, there are no coherent strategies to address topics like safety, or measures of impact on children. The main topics refer to schools curricula and the uses of internet. It should refer to programs in using internet and new media, by developing the critical thinking and usage.
A lot of changes are happening in the education system, every 2-3 years high-school children face major changes (e.g. baccalaureate). A lot of money is pumped in educational portals, but none in information sites related to safety (opinion expressed by one online participant).
There are very few sites providing edutainment (online educational software and applications that are fun and less scholastic) or positive content for children, therefore children still hold this view of education (school) versus fun, relaxation (Internet).
3. Which national policies or initiatives are relevant to our findings?
There are no policies or strategies related to children’s online safety. Most of them simply encourage Internet use.
One participant mentioned trainings for professors, one offered by Siveco (IT initiation), the other one offered by the Ministry of Education (Initiation in knowledge society). The only relevant approach to children’s online safety was mentioned to be that of sigur.info, a project of the Insafe awareness node in Romania.
4. What is distinctive about children’s internet use in Romania?
It is extremely relevant that HI5, the social networking site, is also the number one site in Romania in traffic rank. One report released by the site showed significant proportions of users under the age of 12 and in the age group 13-18. Also, even though data from the Eurobarometer 2008 released the figure of 70% children as using the Internet, according to members of NAB, due to the divide in access between urban and rural areas, the numbers are even higher for urban youth, with more than 90% being online. Almost all of them, according to NAB, use Yahoo messenger (data confirmed for urban youth in a study conducted in Cluj-Napoca, 2007-2008 ).
The appeal that these two online media exert on children was explained by one of the participants with reference to the ease of sending/ receiving invite lists.
5. What do you think we will find regarding children’s risks online?
The risks are the same in every country (due to relative homogeneity in children’s profiles, regardless of SES), the context however differs.
6. What are the main difficulties in improving internet safety?
All participants agreed that the lack of formal education curricula addressing topics like media literacy and Internet safety for children and the lack of a coherent strategy/ structure of institutions for increasing media literacy and online competencies of teachers and parents are among the major drawbacks. For example, there are no strategies for addressing the migration of school bullying to the online bullying / harassment. Also, there are no governmental policies related to protection software in schools, no education initiatives related to safety.
In addition to the lack of formal education, the informal one is also underdeveloped. Parents seem to have little or no information about technological mediation (parental controls and filters) and they don’t have strategies for social mediation. Teachers fall also in this category therefore they are not able to exert informed supervision and mediation.
Also, there is no clear response chain when problems appear. Children are not thought to report problems to adults or relevant institutions.
However, a recent study released by Gallup Romania revealed some unsettling aspects of parents’ involvement in their children’s life. The survey investigated children’s relations with their parents, in connection to their communication and interaction needs. Results show that almost half (49%) of the children spend only one hour or less talking or doing things together with their parents on a regular week day and almost one third of them (30%) spend only one hour or less talking or doing things together with their parents on a weekend day . This problem was mentioned by four of the respondents.
Quote: “Inconstienta si naivitatea multor dintre parinti. Internetul poate fi un refugiu pentru copii care s-au plictisit de violenta de la TV, dar pot cadea aici intr-o campcana si mai mare. Putine surse de informare despre siguranta copilului pe internet, putina implicare din partea celor din jur”. [Unconsciousness and naiveté of the parents. Internet might become a refuge for children tired of the violence on TV, but here they can fall in an even bigger trap. Very few sources about child safety online, little involvement of those around].
Another issue that was mentioned by four participants (two in Bucharest, two online) was the superficiality and the lack of information check/ verification as a sign of a more important underlying problem, which is the underdevelopment of critical thinking.
Another problem is the lack of access for most of the children in rural areas.
7. Who should we be in touch with, and what relevant research exists?
IAB Europe, MC DC – Marketers & Consumers, Digital & Connected & MC DC 2009 – UNITE Report http://www.iabeurope.eu/research/mc-dc.aspx and
http://www.iabeurope.eu/media/27285/mc-dc-2009-iab-unite-report.pdf
Gallup Romania (2010, January). Children’s needs for communication and interaction [Nevoile de interactiune si comunicare ale copiilor]. Research report. Retrieved 25 April 2010, from: http://www.timpimpreuna.ro/upload/p00020000_Rezultate%20sondaj.pdf
Studies made by National Audiovisual Board and the Institute of Educational Science.
Bunecu, Gheorghe, Negreanu, Elisabeta (coord.)(2005). Educaţia informală şi mass-media.Bucureşti: Institutul de Ştiinţe ale Educaţiei
Ileana Rotaru, “Educaţia pentru comunicare şi mass-media ”, Editura Eftimie Murgu, Reşiţa, 2009
BRAT/SATI traffic data.
Media and new media should also be engaged more for increasing public awareness and moving the issues up the ladder on the public agenda.
Annex
List of participation at the NAB meeting in Bucharest, April 26th
1. Ana-Maria Teodorescu, www.comunicare-relatiipublice.ro
2. Ecaterina Balica, PhD, Lecturer, Romanian Academy, The Sociology Institute
3. Ileana Vasilescu, NGO, digital competencies, www.infotricks.ro
4. Catalina Nicolai, CNFP Ministry of Education, Netiquette, online privacy, copyright
5. Ileana Rotaru, lecturer University “Eftimie Murgu”, Resita
6. Bogdan Manolea, lawyer, www.legi-internet.ro
7. Cristi China-Birta, journalist, www.chinezu.eu
8. Mihail Dumitru Sandu, journalist TvrM
9. Nicoleta Fotiade, Media Active Watch
10. Ionut Codreanu, Media Active Watch
Team members at the NAB meeting in Bucharest, April 26th:
Monica Barbovschi, Eva Laszlo, Valentina Marinescu, George Roman, Anca Velicu
