header-logo header-logo

17 August 2017
Categories: Legal News , Data protection
printer mail-detail

Children deserve privacy rights too

 

The rise of ‘sharenting’, YouTube families and ‘science entertainment’ television programmes adversely affects the privacy of children, according to a new report.

The University of Winchester report, Have ‘Generation Tagged’ lost their privacy?, calls for young children to have an independent right to privacy, separate from whatever their parents think about their own privacy. It urges social media and internet companies to consider young children’s privacy and best interests in their operations.

The report recommends that there be a limit to the re-contextualising of images and information about young children, enforced by new image matching and tracking technologies. A further recommendation is the introduction of a Children’s Digital Ombudsman who could provide a way for children’s interests to be better represented in respect of all forms of digital publication. 

‘As a society, we’re exposing ever younger children more and more in broadcast media and on the internet, by filming them for “science entertainment” programmes and by “sharenting” on social media sites,’ said Marion Oswald, one of the report’s authors.

‘Young people may therefore grow up in a world which already knows a lot about them that they have not chosen to share. A child may grow to regret their exposure in the media. We shouldn’t put all our eggs in the basket of the so-called “right to be forgotten”. By the time a child is older, it may be too late.’

The government recently announced a new Data Protection Bill that will give people the right to force social media companies to delete their personal data (the right to be forgotten).

Categories: Legal News , Data protection
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll