Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
The Daily PollAN OIREACHTAS COMMITTEE heard earlier this week that it should be “frowned upon” for parents to give a smartphone to their children before a certain age.
A number of online experts argued that the digital age of consent be kept at the age of 16, rather than changed to 13 as proposed, because of the risks to children.
The digital age of consent is the age at which a person can consent to the terms and conditions of online tech companies and service providers, such as creating an email account of Facebook page.
It has been argued that the age of 13 is too young to fully consent to all of the terms and conditions of various websites, and risks exposing young people to unnecessary risks online.
In the wake of this, number of senators have tabled an amendment to the Data Protection Bill that would keep the digital age of consent at 16.
So, today we’re asking you: Should the digital age of consent be kept at 16?
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
A 13 year old shouldn’t be able to enter a contract with Facebook, Snapchat etc with regards with rights over their data.
@BlueSkyThinking: nothing can prevent American or foreign internet companies from doing anyone of any age from signing up. Ironically, the companies above implement the US law voluntarily in their global (Irish) operations for the rest of the world. I’d ignore any red herring such as “digital age of consent”, and focus more on what other rights are being impacted by this bill.
@BlueSkyThinking: I agree with your sentiment. However, that shouldn’t prevent them from joining social media.
A different solution could be to have a parental control system, where one parent can create the kid’s account. When the kid turns 16, said kid gets presented with the terms of service, and can make a decision as to whether to accept them and continue, in which case, the account gets converted to standalone upon agreement.
It may be a bit of a faff to implement, but is fully doable. Some internet content providers offer this option already as a family service.
no it should be increased to 21.
@movchino: I like it -i’m on it .
yeah dude!
@movchino: i’m quite calm actually.-but try and explain that to the parents of the students in Florida who were gunned down by a fellow 19 year old who apparently sourced his weapons on social media.
@TheBluffmaster2: Yeah, ban that nasty Internet from under 21s. The big Internet person is a gun runner!!!
@movchino: yes i agree but i still think use of social media had a detrimental effect on him .We will just have to agree to disagree this time but i respect your argument.
@TheBluffmaster2: I’m presuming your first account was Bluffmaster1 and was banned for being a trolling toolbag
@Ragman: good effort Rags but your off the mark-Try and be a bit more with it next time.
@movchino: “Dude social media is really important”. “so pipe down” Powerful and sophisticated arguments there from the youngsters. Our future is safe.
@movchino: I think we’re talking about children here.. it’s not about likeing or dislikeing social media…
@TheBluffmaster2: take your own advice the digital age here has nothing to do with a nutjobs shooting spree in the states. It’s about child protection here
@TheBluffmaster2: SILLY PERSON (I HATE PC with a Passion) If you are old enough (are allowed by law) to have sex EVERTHING ELSE is BALL AXE !!
@movchino: what does ‘ehm’ mean…Some down with the kids lingo?.
@TheBluffmaster2: blaming social media for Americans and their gun problems is pretty dumb mister
@TheBluffmaster2: distracting the issue talking about the Florida shooter – who legally bought his weapon in a gunshot and not as you claim sourced in social media – idiot.
@Dave Hammond: you don’t sound like a very civil person to be on social media calling people names-give it a rest for a while and come back when you have your proper medication
@movchino: now Dude !!!! Lol
@TheBluffmaster2: yeah whatever , your claiming he sourced guns on social media when he bought them in a gunshop legally . still an idiot.
Kept at 16. I dont think there’s many kids out there 10 or over that don’t have a smart phone. Definently a tablet of somekind anyway.
@The Viking: Then they just change their D.O.B when logging into FB and so on. I’m sure we wont be able to open up accounts with providers unless we scan our PSC cards in the next few years..
@The Viking: Facebook has actually started verifying accounts recently. A few friends of mine using funny aliases had their accounts suspended recently until they provided proof of identity. https://m.facebook.com/help/community/question/?id=1561581214071875
@Vigo the Carpathian: They’ve been doing that for years
@Vigo the Carpathian: what kids want to have a Facebook account? For young kids, it’s roblox, Snapchat and musically that you need to be worried about alongside YouTube, which doesn’t actually need an account. And Facebook don’t care anyway – I can point to hundreds of malicious fake Facebook pages that are still there.
@Gulliver Foyle: Same can be done there..
Am I missing something here? How is this to be implemented when you can just put any old d.o.b on an online form.
@PutinBot 5000: Because in those cases where the digital content provider, Facebook for example, is informed that the individual is not of the age of digital consent, this places legal obligations on the provider, that wouldn’t exist if the age of digital consent were lower.
@PutinBot 5000: This is where this entire conversation begins to make me nervous. Yeah sure I can agree that all these companies shouldn’e be able to make or sign contracts with kids until they’re a certain age – but how can they verify their ages. And here’s where it becomes problematic.
A friend who works in this field told me during one of those conversations you have that what’s needed is some sort of digital certificate ( I just nodded a certain points in the conversation) This could be imbedded in an ID card or… something, and used to verify who and how old everyone is. Great. But you see where this is going? Not so great.
@Jed I. Knight: slippery slope , I find it amusing that society in general takes such a passive stance towards how children are targeted for example , the church ,or marketing giants Disney Fast food companies want to be beside schools and offer toys and happy food , coke want to be in vending machines in schools examples of how all have systematically targeted children over the years and by and large they get a free pass , you do realize the churches always wanted to open schools in developing markets for a reason ? Get them young and you can keep them for life , all the main events in life starting with schooling , who you marry and then your death , the church wanted a role starting out young , people need to think and ask what role will social media tech play on children life
@Jed I. Knight: I’m only 12 and I can comment on the Journal.. are my days numbered???
Not sure why this matters, as I’m 48 and I have NEVER read any online terms and conditions. Does anybody?
@James Brady: never read any?
So you signed up to loans, credit cards, phone contracts etc and never read the terms and conditions?
Silly you.
I’ll admit I may not read everyone but I’ll certainly skim through certain ones and anything that involves money I’ll always read so I know where I stand.
Hi Barry, thanks for your critical observation.
I assumed the article related to the digital age of consent “…is the age at which a person can consent to the terms and conditions of online tech companies and service providers, such as creating an email account of Facebook page.”
Lucky I have you here to tell me I’m an idiot.
The number of kids playing games with loot crate gambling options, which is breeding a generation of gambling addicts is one of the least discussed but scariest facets of modern society. Digital consent is virtually ignored to enable gambling for skins for kids. Their parents and government are failing them through ignorance. Please speak with your kids today to see if they’ve been playing such games and get involved.
@Ciaran Ó Fallúin: Exactly Activision are horrendous at this, I’m a gamer my son is also a gamer and both of us never fall into the trap of stupid bloody skins or loot crates, just play the game regardless
@Ciaran Ó Fallúin: There are a wide range of issues that should be considered when deciding age of consent. Addiction to gambling, to the device and the resulting damage to school work and life generally; health issues from over use & the dangers from paedophiles are all very serious issues. Some schools are using tablets and laptops for schoolwork; these should be monitored by teachers and especially parents. Education in the use of social media is the way to go but 13 year-olds are too young for agreeing contracts. To verify age, can’t there be some kind of licence card available when you come to whatever age decided – a bit like a library card? You need a birth cert to get it and it could have a number on it that allows you access. We have ATM and other such pins.
What difference does it make? No one reads the Terms of Service anyway.
@Ben McArthur: Legality of what the companies can do are pretty important
I just “laugh” at all this, I can use a proxy and sign up to social media in almost any country in the work from my own home. So the Social Media provider cannot detect your country and apply country specific rules. Also I can sign up in an internet cafe when on holidays and no one even knows I am Irish and why should Irish rules on age of consent apply to accounts created outside of Ireland.
There is a lot of scare mongering as well as legitimate concern about the internet but it seems to me that many cannot see that this is a global issue and not an Irish issue and Irish rules will not apply particularly if any data is not stored in Ireland.
It is not a coincidence that California is used to store loads of data as the privacy rules (and data protection rules) are strongest there. Likewise, remember that companies that store data in Ireland are subject to Irish data laws and not the laws in the country where that data was soured. Sure this comment could be stored on a server in Iceland and subject to Icelandic Data laws…
Only when people understand the global and distributed nature of the Internet and Cloud data storage can they begin to fathom the real issues here – agreeing to terms and conditions is a minor issue – sure I can create a social media web site with no conditions for those under 18 and bypass all this proposed age of consent stuff…
What is needed it parents to be involved with their children growing up and education about the internet and how to use it and the dangers of it…. and particularly the inability to verify all the rumours and fake news stories that are circulated and appear in my newsfeed every day.
@Niall Ó Cofaigh: I add that the digital age of consent will NOT stop people of any age having a smart phone or other internet connected devices, will NOT stop people accessing the internet, will NOT prevent access to most web sites, etc…. I can read the journal without doing anything, and I can access millions of sites with over 18 material with no terms of conditions or accounts needed – what I cannot do is comment on the journal without an account someone… (and sorry about the typos in the first post)
It should be the same as the age of majority which is 18.
An exercise in futility id imagine.
The age of consent is irrelevant. Parents need to monitor their children’s online activities. There is no need for a child under 13 to own a smartphone
Digital consent. I completely misread the title
Whats the point in wasting time and money bringing in laws that can’t be enforced effectively.
@Paul O Connor: actually Paul gdpr allows for civil litigation meaning you can sue someone over restrictions of right to data privacy. That is why this is important
Waste of time, it not policeable or enforceable so why waste time and money arguing over it?
In the late 90s there was this joke floating around that online no one knows that you are really a dog.
A 10 year old will just say he is 16 and problem solved.
The naivety of some people who think that you can somehow ban a certain group of using something online is just astonishing…
Please note, the bill is not to prevent someone under sixteen accessing digital content, it just means that they cannot legally consent to the “terms and conditions” and will have to have this done by a parent or guardian on their behalf. The bill is designed to protect young people from agreeing to terms that they may not fully understand.
If changed to 16 then kids will be telling thier parents up and down the country that they do not have the right to restrict thier online behaviour.
At 13 parents should have some level control
the government can legislate to the moon and back but if parents are giving their children access to social media prior to the age of consent then how do you enforce the legislation??? We’ve enough laws that cannot be enforced. Parents must be the ones to take responsibility for their child’s access to digital media!
have your say