Tech giants have a moral duty to protect children

LOCKDOWN has highlighted many vulnerable areas in our society and nowhere is this more the case than when it comes to children. Perversely, some have been more in danger when kept at home, not less, not least online.

Levels of sexually explicit messaging among children are an extraordinary 183 per cent higher than those observed before lockdown, with them sending nearly three times as many sexts as they were before the nation shut down more than three months ago.

There has also been a significant increase in the amount of sexually explicit messages being sent by children during the day, with more than 55 per cent of sexts now being sent during school hours.

We cannot allow our children’s wellbeing to be placed at such risk and so there are now a number of initiatives underway to look after our young.

We at SafeToNet, along with the Government, want to help parents safeguard the nation’s children. To this end we are giving away one million free mobile safety app downloads which would otherwise cost £5 per month, per user. The licences are being made available for free for life, because it’s the right thing to do.

WE REALLY wish we had the financial resources to do more but we don’t… sadly. The reality is that some parents are able to pay for our software but others cannot. It feels morally wrong that anyone should have to pay to safeguard their children. Isn’t it wrong that your bank balance defines your child’s safety? I think it is.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 3 states: We all have the right to life, and to live in freedom and safety.

So how come safety has been missed off the agendas of the tech giants? How come the social media platforms and messaging apps weren’t built using “safety by design” principles? When you buy a phone for your child why doesn’t it come pre-loaded with safeguarding software? That is madness.

I often feel embarrassed asking parents for £5 a month to keep their children safe. It seems morally disjointed. The problem is that to build AI tech like SafeToNet takes a ton of money. We have spent over £20million to get this far and cannot survive on charity donations.

The tech is complex and needs continual development as online harms change shape and style with alarming regularity.

Take the unintended consequence of lockdown. It was intended to keep us safe from infection, which it did, but it also had the effect of increasing our children’s exposure to online harms when they were asked if not told, to spend their days online and often without close supervision. With no teachers in the room and parents busy on Zoom, our children have been left to “their own devices” texting and messaging on their phones and tablets while doing history and maths on their laptops.

We know this is the case because SafeToNet’s safeguarding technology detects risk and changes in a child’s online behavioural patterns.

The software analyses a child’s speed of typing to detect arguments or sexual dialogue. It notices language that could suggest risk or threat. It spots trends that suggest low selfesteem, fear and anxiety. It then filters harmful messages in real-time and before they are sent. It does all of this while respecting the child’s absolute rights to privacy.

Some say sexting is natural and is another unintended consequence of the digital age but the problem is the distribution of messages and images once they have left the child’s phone. It’s the tube of toothpaste analogy. Once it’s out you can’t put it back. The harm that is done to those poor children who naively send sensitive content is catastrophic at its most extreme level. Children suffer low self-esteem, they are ashamed and in the worst of cases, they commit suicide.

This is why I am so pleased that the Home Office has added SafeToNet to the Government website where parents are given advice and guidance about online safety. Which brings me back to my point about the cost of safeguarding our children.

SAFETONET is a tiny company compared with the tech giants. If we can gift a million licences, then why can’t they also take definitive action? They should not sell a device to a parent unless it has software that safeguards their child and stops them making mistakes online.

Parents, if you are not offered software like that when you next buy a phone for your child then “socially distance” yourself and go to buy elsewhere.

Let’s make that an “intended” consequence. We have to make online safety the new norm – because the old version isn’t good enough.