By John Carr, Secretary, Children’s Charities’ Coalition on Internet Safety (chis.org.uk)

I attended a fantastic discussion at Telefonica Digital’s West End offices (London) today. We were focused on how to find more and better answers to challenges associated with online predatory behaviour towards children. The abuse of anonymity lies behind much of this bad or criminal behaviour. Can age verification, identity authentication or other technical solutions help?

The discussion was organized by The Policy Exchange, a Westminster think tank famous for its orientation towards finding market solutions for any given social or economic problem.

Here are my three key takeaways from the event:

– So here was my first (pleasant) surprise. Even free marketeers recognise there are some instances where the market alone cannot organize itself to produce answers within an acceptable timescale. The State or rulemakers of some kind might sometimes need to step in, if only to set the boundaries or parameters within which a solution could emerge. The Gambling Act 2005, was cited as an example of how the problem of under-age gambling online was only finally solved when it was addressed by legislation – which compelled every online gambling company to act. Previous appeals to gambling companies’ sense of corporate social responsibility had produced precious little progress.

– My second thought was how refreshing it was to hear everyone agree – or do I really mean “No one said they disagreed?” – with the idea that this was not a numbers game. The consequences for each child of being ensnared by a predator can be completely catastrophic, thus we have a responsibility to each and every child, not just to the majority. If 98% of a site’s users encounter no problems or difficulties that’s great news for the owners of that site. But if 2% do and that is 25,000 children then it all starts to look a little different.

– Finally, I think we all agreed that the banks and large retailers could probably sort this out in two shakes of a metaphorical lamb’s tail – a solution tied to payment mechanisms could then “migrate” from a transactional space out into social spaces used by children. But there was not a consensus about how and where to lay the emphasis. I accept that if companies can be persuaded that something is in their financial interests they are more likely to be attracted to it, but I for one do not accept that that can be the only basis on which progress might be made. I do think we are entitled to expect better, particularly of our larger, trusted brands. If there are concerns about liability, Parliament should be willing to step in to remove any uncertainty or any unreasonable obstacles but no one has an alibi for inaction.