Use ‘big data’ to protect children — or even ordinary data
AFLAGRANT disregard for the facts is an excellent way for a government to embarrass itself. In recent weeks we’ve seen two examples of absurd laws proposed or implemented in the name of protecting children, with little evidence to back up the arguments in favour of the legislation.
The absurdity of the Film and Publication Board (FPB) trying to control all internet content, ostensibly to protect children, is almost as bad as the Department of Home Affairs introducing onerous new travel regulations to prevent child trafficking. The latter is particularly offensive, because it devastates a successful tourism industry but fails to deal with the problem it was meant to address.
The travel regulations are based on little more than urban legends, stemming from claims that tens of thousands of women were trafficked as sex slaves for the 2006 and 2010 Soccer World Cup. The 2006 event in Germany supposedly saw 40 000 women trafficked across Europe. Similar numbers were bandied about for 2010, with some es- timates as high as 100 000. An NGO at the time estimated there were 30 000 child prostitutes in South Africa — numbers for which there was no evidence.
The truth is, there was very little cross-border trafficking in either country during the tournaments. In Germany, there were only five reported cases. Most trafficking in South Africa happens within the country. However, the very fact that no official statistics are available tells us about the government’s inability to base policy on facts.
The same applies to the FPB, which seeks sweeping powers “to ensure cyber-safety of children and that children are pro- tected from disturbing and harmful content access through social media and mobile platforms”. Considering that the proposed regulations are drawing international attention for their draconian provisions, it would be assumed that the board, or at least the Department of Communications under which it falls, would have done its homework properly on the issue.
For example, how much content posted on YouTube from South Africa can be construed as “disturbing and harmful”? The answer is: so little that it would barely register. But even that answer is merely an assumption. And the FPB is basing control of, among other things, all South African YouTube content, on the same kind of assumption.
And this is despite entering the era of “big data”, where it is possible to gather statistical evidence on any topic and to analyse the statistics rigorously and extract insights that guide policy, strategy and decisionmaking.
So how about focusing on more localised facts? In March 2010, the Human Sciences Research Council published interviews with 300 street children — merely as a sample of children living on the streets. Based on its research, the council said there was a high likelihood that at least 3 200 children were living on the streets of Gauteng.
Living conditions are just the beginning of the horrors to which these thousands of children are exposed.
Were a fraction of the energy expended on undermining tourism and online publishing in the name of protecting children devoted to protecting these street children, then the government’s commitment to this cause could be taken a little more seriously.
But when you don’t believe in acting on data, why would you believe in acting on the evidence that is in front of you?
Goldstuck is founder of World Wide Worx and editor-in-chief of Gadget.co.za. Follow him on Twitter on @art2gee and on YouTube