Skip to main content
Other
The Social Implications of Sexting and the Australian Privacy Foundation's Stance on the Government's Preliminary Proposal to Filter the Mobile Internet
(2010)
  • K. Michael, University of Wollongong
  • Will Goodings
  • Tineka Everaardt
Abstract

Episode 27: 10.03.10 Mornings Live - Wednesday 10.03.10 "Dr. Katina Michael (University of Wollongong) says that internet filters do not work and should not be implemented." Sexting is the act of sending sexual content (text, image, or video) to another person, usually via a mobile phone or the Internet. It is a play on the word "texting" (replace the 't' with the 's' and you have 'sexting). It is prevalent in middle and higher school youth and has been more common, since the beginning of 2007 when smart phones became more available and affordable, and social networks came to the fore through MySpace and Facebook. Ways that individuals can protect their privacy include: (1) opting out of using smart phones altogether (something that is becoming harder and harder to do in a world governed by digital media and often not practical); (2) opt out of particular applications such as MMS or social networking (one way to do this is for parents to go on restricted plans on behalf of their children and allow only certain 'pre-selected' call-out numbers); (3) educate oneself and family and friends by finding out about the social implications and consequences of sexting. Technical solutions are always put forward to overcome problems and challenges but they are not the best solution. A common sense approach is preferred in this instance. For example, say no to being photographed or geotagged on a social network (own your own image), don't send a message that you do not want the whole world to read (especially if you are a high profile celebrity- think worst case), try some simple tests if you think the message you are sending is dubious or may be misinterpreted (the mum test- would you do it in front of your mum; the tv test- would you do it in front of a 6 oclock news audience). Where 'sexting' becomes a grey area is when one has taken a photograph (overtly), i.e., with the consent of the person being photographed, and then continues to effortlessly forward it on via social networks. Some of the consequences of sexting include: (1) leaving an online digital trail of oneself that might act as a judgement against you later (future employment opportunities etc); (2) you may be blackmailed if a relationship you thought would be long lasting ends abruptly; (3) you may be embarrassed if the message finds itself in the wrong hands (you may even be bullied); (4) you may become depressed or suicidal knowing the image has proliferated on the Net. The Net is a very beneficial tool but in the context of 'sexting' it can be unforgiving. Images and script, and voice and video can be replayed, very difficult to delete, and also circulated widely through the Web 2.0 platform. In this instance, you would have lost almost complete power to authorise, consent, your own image. Is regulation the answer? Regulation is synonymous with Internet Filtering and can be considered a form of censorship. While legislation protecting innocent children from things like child pornography is paramount, in the instance when youth are engaged in sexting (illegally sending sexual material of themselves or others around), it is very hard to prove in a court of law that they have done so knowing that it will cause harm to other minors. Thus it is not only difficult to regulate, but to legislate. Mobile phones and SIM cards are transferrable, you can also have the case of a stolen phone that someone might use to send illegal material. Filters have been proven NOT to work; you cannot differentiate between sexting of two consenting adults and sexting of two youth, at least NOT automatically. We seem to be going down a path in Australia, whether we look at airport security screening or other applications of introducing blanket coverage technologies for the sake of catching out a very small minority who wish to do harm. We are at risk of intruding on the privacy of every day citizens, and of building technical solutions which cost a great deal of money but simply do not work in reality. Cutting down an image being transmitted through a filter only stops it momentarily- there are so many other avenues through which that image to appear online. It is like searching for a needle in a haystack.

Keywords
  • Sexting,
  • Social Media,
  • Social Implications,
  • Privacy,
  • Regulation,
  • Crimes Legislation,
  • Filtering,
  • Censorship
Disciplines
Publication Date
March 10, 2010
Citation Information
K. Michael, Will Goodings and Tineka Everaardt. "The Social Implications of Sexting and the Australian Privacy Foundation's Stance on the Government's Preliminary Proposal to Filter the Mobile Internet" (2010)
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/kmichael/183/