DOCSLIB.ORG

Cyberbullying Among Young People

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT C: CITIZENS' RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS CYBERBULLYING AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE STUDY Abstract This study provides an overview of the extent, scope and forms of cyberbullying in the EU taking into account the age and gender of victims and perpetrators as well as the medium used. Commissioned by the Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee, the study illustrates the legal and policy measures on cyberbullying adopted at EU and international levels and delineates the EU role in this area. An analysis of legislation and policies aimed at preventing and fighting this phenomenon across the 28 EU Member States is also presented. The study outlines the variety of definitions of cyberbullying across EU Member States and the similarities and differences between cyberbullying, traditional bullying and cyber aggression. Moreover, it presents successful practices on how to prevent and combat cyberbullying in nine selected EU Member States and puts forward recommendations for improving the response at EU and Member State levels. PE 571.367 EN ABOUT THE PUBLICATION This research paper was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and commissioned, overseen and published by the Policy Department for Citizen's Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Policy Departments provide independent expertise, both in-house and externally, to support European Parliament committees and other parliamentary bodies in shaping legislation and exercising democratic scrutiny over EU external and internal policies. To contact the Policy Department for Citizen's Rights and Constitutional Affairs or to subscribe to its newsletter please write to: [email protected] Research Administrator Responsible Céline Chateau Policy Department C - Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] AUTHORS Ms Virginia Dalla Pozza, Milieu Limited Ms Anna Di Pietro, Milieu Limited Ms Sophie Morel, Milieu Limited Ms Emma Psaila, Milieu Limited SENIOR EXPERTS Dr Vasiliki Artinopoulou (Professor of Criminology in the Sociology Department of Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences, Athens, Greece) Dr Sonia Livingstone (Professor of Social Psychology, Department of Media and Communications London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK) Dr Aisling Parkes (Lecturer in Law, University College Cork, Ireland) NATIONAL EXPERTS Elena Fries-Tersch (Austria); Nathalie Meurens, Benoit Cavez (Belgium); Raya Raychinova (Bulgaria); Christodoulou-Varotsi (Cyprus); Hana Spanikova (Czech Republic); Damir Petrovic (Croatia); Nina Smith (Denmark); Laura Isotalo (Finland); Sophie Morel (France); Katalin Adamis-Császár (Hungary); Gillian Kelly (Ireland); Linda De Keyser (Latvia); Lyra Jakuleviciene, Lijana Štarienė (Lithuania); Laura Jacques (Luxembourg); Emma Psaila (Malta); Marta Silva (Portugal); Zuzana Lukacova (Slovakia); Neža Kogovšek Šalamon, Katarina Vučko (Slovenia); Ana Gomez Rojo (Spain). AUTHORS OF THE COUNTRY REPORTS Andra Siibak (Estonia); Lukas Rass-Masson (Germany); Elina Lampropoulou (Greece); Anna Di Pietro and Virginia Dalla Pozza (Italy); Trijntje Vollink and Francine Dehue (Netherlands); Jacek Pyzalski (Poland); Raluca Tomsa (Romania); Elza Dunkels (Sweden); Liam Hackett (United Kingdom). LINGUISTIC VERSION Original: EN Manuscript completed in July 2016. © European Union, 2016. This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/supporting-analyses DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. Policy Department C: Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 6 LIST OF TABLES 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 1. INTRODUCTION 14 1.1. Background 14 1.2. Objective of the study 15 1.3. Methodological approach 16 1.4. Roadmap 18 2. CYBERBULLYING IN THE EU 19 2.1. The phenomenon of cyberbullying 20 2.2. Definitions of cyberbullying 21 2.2.1. UN definitions 21 2.2.2. EU definitions 22 2.2.3. Definitions by academia 23 2.2.4. Definitions at national level 24 2.2.5. Perceptions of cyberbullying of adults and young people 25 2.3. Overview of cyberbullying in the EU 26 2.3.1. Extent and scope of the phenomenon 26 2.3.2. Forms of cyberbullying 28 2.3.3. Means used 28 2.3.4. Age 29 2.3.5. Gender 32 2.3.6. Link between victims and perpetrators within cyberbullying and traditional bullying 34 3. EU AND INTERNATIONAL LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK ON CYBERBULLYING 36 3.1. EU and international legal and policy standards on cyberbullying 37 3.1.1. International level 37 3.1.2. Regional level: Council of Europe 39 3.2. The EU role on cyberbullying 41 3.2.1. EU competence on cyberbullying 41 3.2.2. EU legally binding measures not specific to cyberbullying 44 3.2.3. EU non-legally binding measures 46 4 Cyberbullying among young people ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. LEGISLATIVE/POLICY RESPONSE AND MONITORING OF CYBERBULLYING AT NATIONAL LEVEL 51 4.1. Overview of data and data collection systems on cyberbullying among young people 52 4.1.1. Data in the 28 EU Member States 52 4.1.2. Data collection systems on cyberbullying among young people 55 4.2. Mapping of the national legal and policy framework on cyberbullying in the EU Member States 57 4.2.1. Legal framework 57 4.2.2. Policy framework 65 5. GOOD PRACTICES TO PREVENT AND TACKLE CYBERBULLYING AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE 73 5.1. Education/Awareness raising 74 5.2. Child protection 77 5.3. The involvement of children 79 5.4. The involvement of the Government 80 6. RECOMMENDATIONS 82 ANNEXES 90 ANNEX I: Country Reports 90 ANNEX II: Definitions and actions taken by MS and European authorities. 165 ANNEX III: Bibliography 174 ANNEX IV: Survey 184 ANNEX V: List of eu and national stakeholders consulted 191 5 Policy Department C: Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs ____________________________________________________________________________________________ LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS BIK Better Internet for Kids Strategy CJEU Court of Justice of the European Union COFACE Confederation of Family Organisations in the European Union DG Directorate Generals of the European Union EC European Commission ECHR European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ECJ European Court of Justice ECtHR European Court of Human Rights EU European Union FRA European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights ICT Information and communication technologies INSAFE International Association of Internet Helplines INHOPE International Association of Internet Hotlines LIBE Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs NGO Non-Governmental Organization TEU Treaty on European Union TFUE Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union UN United Nations UNCRC United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund USA United States of America 6 Cyberbullying among young people ____________________________________________________________________________________________ LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 The extent of bullying online in the EU. 27 TABLE 2 Elements defining bullying online and offline. 165 TABLE 3 Forms of cyberbullying. 165 TABLE 4 Official definitions of cyberbullying in 14 Member States. 166 TABLE 5 The main features of Member States’ definitions of cyberbullying. 168 TABLE 6 Measures adopted by the Council of Europe relevant to cyberbullying. 168 TABLE 7 Initiatives, programmes, and projects carried out by the EU with respect to cyberbullying. 170 TABLE 8 Public authorities in charge of collecting data on traditional bullying and cyberbullying in eight selected Member States and the frequency of data collection. 172 TABLE 9 Non-exhaustive list of criminal offences under which cyberbullying may be punished across Member States. 172 TABLE 10 Overview of participants 187 TABLE 11 List of stakeholders who provided support in circulating the survey among young people. 189 TABLE 12 Table 12: List of stakeholders at the EU level. 191 TABLE 13 List of stakeholders at the national level. 191 7 Policy Department C: Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs ____________________________________________________________________________________________ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study was commissioned by the Policy Department on Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (the LIBE Committee) in order to assess the rapidly evolving phenomenon of cyberbullying among young people and the needs for public action in the area. The aim of this study is to illustrate the scale and nature of cyberbullying in the EU and provide an overview of the legal and policy measures adopted in this area at EU, international and national levels. The study focuses on young people under the age of eighteen. It is based on desk research, stakeholder consultation and a survey among young people. Although the research covered all 28 EU
Recommended publications
  • Cyber Violence Against Women and Girls

    Cyber Violence Against Women and Girls

    CYBER VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND GIRLS A WORLD-WIDE WAKE-UP CALL 2015 Photo credits:Shutterstock A REPORT BY THE UN BROADBAND COMMISSION FOR DIGITAL DEVELOPMENT WORKING GROUP ON BROADBAND AND GENDER CYBER VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND GIRLS: A WORLD-WIDE WAKE-UP CALL Acknowledgements This Report has been written collaboratively, drawing on insights and rich contributions from a range of Commissioners and Expert Members of the Working Group on Broadband and Gender. It has been researched and compiled by lead author Nidhi Tandon, assisted by Shannon Pritchard, with editorial inputs by teams from UN Women, UNDP and ITU. Design concepts were developed by Céline Desthomas of ITU. We wish to thank the following people for their contributions and kind review and comments (listed in alphabetical order of institution, followed by alphabetical order of surname): Dafne Sabanes Plou, Jac sm Kee and Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC); Dr Nancy Hafkin; Minerva Novero- Belec (UNDP); Corat Suniye Gulser (UNESCO); Jennifer Breslin and team (UN Women); Samia Melhem and team (World Bank). About the Commission The Broadband Commission for Digital Development was launched by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in response to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s call to step up efforts to meet the Millennium Development Goals. Established in May 2010, the Commission unites top industry executives with government leaders, thought leaders and policy pioneers and international agencies and organizations concerned with development. The Broadband Commission embraces a range of different perspectives in a multi-stakeholder approach to promoting the roll-out of broadband, as well as providing a fresh approach to UN and business engagement.
  • The Right to Be Forgotten in the Light of the Consent of the Data Subject

    The Right to Be Forgotten in the Light of the Consent of the Data Subject

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Open Repository and Bibliography - Luxembourg computer law & security review 32 (2016) 218–237 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect www.compseconline.com/publications/prodclaw.htm The right to be forgotten in the light of the consent of the data subject Cesare Bartolini *, Lawrence Siry * University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg ABSTRACT Keywords: Recently, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued decision C-131/12, which was Data protection considered a major breakthrough in Internet data protection. The general public wel- General data protection reform comed this decision as an actualization of the controversial “right to be forgotten”, which Consent was introduced in the initial draft for a new regulation on data protection and repeatedly amended, due to objections by various Member States and major companies involved in massive processing of personal data. This paper attempts to delve into the content of that decision and examine if it indeed involves the right to be forgotten, if such a right exists at all, and to what extent it can be stated and enforced. © 2016 Cesare Bartoli & Lawrence Siry. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. forgotten is not mentioned in the current DPD provisions, yet 1. Introduction it has been statutorily introduced in the proposed General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The GDPR comes from the evo- In May 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) lution of the DPD interpretation in the light of technological issued a decision1 which has been regarded as the enforce- developments since its adoption in 1995.
  • Hate Speech and Persecution: a Contextual Approach

    Hate Speech and Persecution: a Contextual Approach

    V anderbilt Journal of Transnational Law VOLUME 46 March 2013 NUMBER 2 Hate Speech and Persecution: A Contextual Approach Gregory S. Gordon∗ ABSTRACT Scholarly work on atrocity-speech law has focused almost exclusively on incitement to genocide. But case law has established liability for a different speech offense: persecution as a crime against humanity (CAH). The lack of scholarship regarding this crime is puzzling given a split between the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia on the issue of whether hate speech alone can serve as an actus reus for CAH-persecution. This Article fills the gap in the literature by analyzing the split between the two tribunals and concluding that hate speech alone may be the basis for CAH- persecution charges. First, this is consistent with precedent going as far back as the Nuremberg trials. Second, it takes into account the CAH requirement that the speech be uttered as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. Third, the defendant must be aware that his speech ∗ Associate Professor of Law, University of North Dakota School of Law, and Director, UND Center for Human Rights and Genocide Studies; former Prosecutor, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda; J.D., UC Berkeley School of Law. The author would like to thank his research assistants, Lilie Schoenack and Moussa Nombre, for outstanding work. The piece also benefited greatly from the insights of Kevin Jon Heller, Joseph Rikhof, and Benjamin Brockman-Hawe. Thanks, as always, to my family, especially my wife, whose incredible support made this article possible.
  • OCSA Bullying/Cyberbullying/Hate Violence Policy

    OCSA Bullying/Cyberbullying/Hate Violence Policy

    OCSA BULLYING/CYBER BULLYING/HATE VIOLENCE POLICY All students and employees of the Orange County School of the Arts have the right to work, to attend school, and to participate in the educational process in a safe environment that is free from bullying and hate-motivated behavior. Every effort shall be made to promote mutual respect among students and staff and between and among students to encourage safe and harmonious relations that support human dignity and equality. The OCSA Board of Trustees recognizes the harmful effects of bullying on student learning and school attendance and desires to provide safe school environments that protect students from physical and emotional harm. School employees shall establish student safety as a high priority and shall not tolerate bullying of any student. No student or group of students shall, through physical, written, verbal, or other means, harass, sexually harass, threaten, intimidate, cyberbully, cause bodily injury to, or commit hate violence against any other student or school personnel. Students who have been bullied or cyberbullied shall promptly report such incidents to any staff member. Behavior or statements that degrade, intimidate, and/or harm an individual on the basis of his/her race, ethnicity, culture, heritage, immigration status, gender, sexual orientation, physical/mental attributes, religious beliefs or practices shall not be tolerated. Bullying in any form or platform, repeatedly picking fights with, or repeatedly taunting another person shall not be tolerated. This policy applies to all OCSA students and employees. This policy applies to all acts related to school activity or school attendance occurring within a school under the jurisdiction of the Executive Director of the Orange County School of the Arts.
  • The Challenges of Cyberbullying

    The Challenges of Cyberbullying

    NEW ENCOUNTERS? THE CHALLENGES OF CYBERBULLYING Professor Shauna Van Praagh & Alyssa Wiseman November 17, 2015 What is Cyberbullying? "A person is bullied when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other persons, and he or she has difficulty defending himself or herself." - Dan Olweus (1993 and before) -An Act to prevent and stop bullying and violence in schools, 2012 Definition is fairly consistent worldwide—entails three criteria: (1) Verbal or physical aggression; (2) That is repeated over time; and (3) That involves a power differential. “Sticks and Stones” “I couldn’t write about online bullying without writing about face-to-face bullying too because Facebook and other social networking sites aren’t a discrete, walled off universe.” (39) - Emily Bazelon, “Sticks and Stones: Defeating the Culture of Bullying and Rediscovering the Power of Character and Empathy Despite wide media attention, cyberbullying is not necessarily more widespread than face-to-face bullying. Still, cyberbullying presents new concerns... “Sticks and Stones” New concerns include: (1) The Internet makes bullying harder to escape; (2) The Internet allows the perpetrator to bully without having to confront his or her victim; (3) The number of potential witnesses can be exponentially higher; and (4) There is the possibility that comments and images/ videos can go viral. Also, with undefined boundaries, whose responsibility is it to prevent or “deal” with cyberbullying? “It’s Complicated” danah boyd brings to light problematic tendencies and reactions: (1) Scapegoating technology: easier to focus on what is tangible rather than broader systemic issues at play; (2) Parental nostalgia: we idealize our childhoods and forget the problem we faced when we were young; (3) “Digital natives”: draws away attention from the problems children face in the digital era In creating these divides, different stakeholders may absolve themselves of responsibility.
  • An O Ve Rv Iew 10 Points on Religious Persecution

    An O Ve Rv Iew 10 Points on Religious Persecution

    PM GLYNN INSTITUTE An overview 10 points on Religious Persecution CRICOS registered provider: 00004G Religious freedom: a question of survival “In the Central African Republic, religious Many instances of religious persecution freedom is not a concept; it is a question have been underreported or neglected of survival. The idea is not whether one completely, especially in Western media. is more or less comfortable with the 10 points on Religious Persecution is ideological foundations underpinning intended to draw attention to the issue religious freedom; rather, the issue is and raise awareness on the plight faced how to avoid a bloodbath!” For Cardinal by many, most often minority religious Dieudonné Nzapalainga, the Archbishop groups. of Bangui in the Central African Republic, At a time when advocacy for minority this is a sad and harsh reality; a reality that groups is increasing, it would be is faced by millions of people on a global encouraging to see similar support for scale today. religious minority groups who face When religious freedom is undervalued, persecution because of their faith and ignored, discouraged or targeted, religious beliefs. persecution sometimes follows. Current views on the importance and relevance of religious freedom as a human right are varied and complex, however what can be agreed upon is that persecution is never the right course of action, regardless of the reason. Cover image: Original iron cross from the grave of St. Mary MacKillop 1909, late-19th century, iron and timber. Australian Catholic University Art Collection Overleaf: John Coburn, The First Day: The Spirit of of God brooded over the waters, 1977.
  • The Impact of Cyber-Bullying on Young People's Mental Health Online Questionnaire

    The Impact of Cyber-Bullying on Young People's Mental Health Online Questionnaire

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Anglia Ruskin Research Online The impact of cyber-bullying on young people’s mental health Final Report November 2010 Niamh O’Brien Researcher Faculty of Health and Social Care Anglia Ruskin University Dr Tina Moules Director of Research Faculty of Health and Social Care Anglia Ruskin University Corresponding author : Niamh O’Brien Department of Community and Family Studies Faculty of Health and Social Care, Anglia Ruskin University, 2nd Floor William Harvey Building Bishop Hall Lane, Chelmsford, CM1 1SQ. Tel: 0845 196 4197 E-mail: [email protected] Table of contents Acknowledgements..........................................................................................4 Glossary table...................................................................................................5 1. Introduction...................................................................................................6 2. Cyber-bullying in the literature....................................................................9 2.1 Introduction...................................................................................................9 2.2 What is ‘traditional’ bullying? ......................................................................10 2.3 What is cyber-bullying?...............................................................................10 2.4 Cyber-bullying and young people ...............................................................11 2.5 What
  • Understanding Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes Addressing the Security Needs of Muslim Communities

    Understanding Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes Addressing the Security Needs of Muslim Communities

    Understanding Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes Addressing the Security Needs of Muslim Communities A Practical Guide Understanding Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes Addressing the Security Needs of Muslim Communities A Practical Guide Published by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) Ul. Miodowa 10 00-251 Warsaw Poland www.osce.org/odihr © OSCE/ODIHR 2020 All rights reserved. The contents of this publication may be freely used and copied for educational and other non-commercial purposes, provided that any such reproduction is accompanied by an acknowledgement of the OSCE/ ODIHR as the source. ISBN 978-83-66089-93-8 Designed by Homework Printed in Poland by Centrum Poligrafii Contents Foreword v Executive Summary vii Introduction 1 PART ONE: Understanding the challenge 7 I. Hate crimes against Muslims in the OSCE region: context 8 II. Hate crimes against Muslims in the OSCE region: key features 12 III. Hate crimes against Muslims in the OSCE region: impact 21 PART TWO: International standards on intolerance against Muslims 29 I. Commitments and other international obligations 30 II. Key principles 37 1. Rights based 37 2. Victim focused 38 3. Non-discriminatory 41 4. Participatory 41 5. Shared 42 6. Collaborative 43 7. Empathetic 43 8. Gender sensitive 43 9. Transparent 44 10. Holistic 45 PART THREE: Responding to anti-Muslim hate crimes and the security challenges of Muslim communities 47 Practical steps 48 1. Acknowledging the problem 48 2. Raising awareness 51 3. Recognizing and recording the anti-Muslim bias motivation of hate crimes 53 4. Providing evidence of the security needs of Muslim communities by working with them to collect hate crime data 58 5.
  • IRFA (International Religious Freedom Act)

    IRFA (International Religious Freedom Act)

    REFUGEE, ASYLUM, AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS DIRECTORATE (RAIO) RAIO DIRECTORATE – OFFICER TRAINING RAIO Combined Training Program INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT (IRFA) AND RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION TRAINING MODULE DATE (see schedule of revisions): 12/20/2019 International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) and Religious Persecution This Page Left Blank Intentionally , USCIS: RAIO Directorate – Officer Training DATE (see schedule of changes): 12/20/2019 RAIO Combined Training Program Page 2 of 49 International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) and Religious Persecution RAIO Directorate – Officer Training / RAIO Combined Training Program INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT (IRFA) AND RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION Training Module MODULE DESCRIPTION: This module introduces you to the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) and the responsibilities that the Act creates for adjudicating protection claims. The training you receive will also be useful in adjudicating immigration benefits, petitions, and other immigration-related requests. Through reading and discussing country conditions information, you will increase your awareness of religious freedom issues around the world. Through discussion and practical exercises, you will learn how to conduct an interview and adjudicate a claim with a religious freedom issue. TERMINAL PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE(S) Given a request for protection (an asylum or refugee application, or a reasonable fear or credible fear screening1) with a religious freedom issue, you will apply IRFA and case law.0) ENABLING LEARNING OBJECTIVES 1. Summarize the IRFA requirements for RAIO officers. 2. Explain the statutory and regulatory requirements for consideration of protection claims and benefits requests involving religious freedom and religious persecution. 3. Summarize legal rulings that must be followed or that provide guidance when making decisions based on religious freedom or religious persecution.
  • Useful Anti-Bullying Websites and Organisations

    Useful Anti-Bullying Websites and Organisations

    Useful Anti-Bullying Websites and Organisations Actionwork Actionwork organises anti-bullying tours and events all over the UK including the Annual National anti www.actionwork.com Bullying Roadshow and anti-bullying creative sessions throughout the UK Anti-Bullying The new Network will have the following objectives: to support anti-bullying work in schools; to operate www.antibullying.net Network a website providing information about bullying and how it can be tackled; to research and develop effective strategies to address the verbal, psychological and physical harassment and violence called bullying; to promote research into bullying and support work seeking to reduce bullying; and to operate an anti-bullying service which will include the provision of training, publications and consultancy services. Anti-Bullying The Anti-Bullying Alliance (ABA) was founded by NSPCC and National Children's Bureau in 2002. The www.anti- Alliance Alliance brings together 65 organisations into one network with the aim of reducing bullying and bullyingalliance.org creating safer environments in which children and young people can live, grow, play and learn. Beatbullying Beatbullying is the UK first children's charity to devise anti-bullying strategies for young people by www.beatbullying.org young people. They strongly believe that young people have the ability to shape society - a society in which bullying is unacceptable. BullyingUK Bullying UK is the new name for the award-winning charity Bullying Online which was founded in 1999 www.bullying.co.uk by journalist Liz Carnell from Harrogate and her son John, as a direct result of their experience of dealing with school bullying, which included taking successful legal action against an education authority.
  • Worldwide Privacy Regulations Restricting Access to Genealogical Records Jan Meisels Allen

    Worldwide Privacy Regulations Restricting Access to Genealogical Records Jan Meisels Allen

    IAJGS 38th International Conference on Jewish Genealogy August 6, 2018 Warsaw, Poland Worldwide Privacy Regulations Restricting Access to Genealogical Records Jan Meisels Allen Genealogists without records can’t do genealogy! We are facing crises worldwide on access to vital records due to misunderstandings by those in power about identity theft and fraud and due to budget cuts Privacy Someone's right to keep their personal matters and relationships secret Why Do We Care About Privacy? There are many people who value their privacy, and wouldn't dream of posting personal information about themselves or their family where everyone can see it. Some of those people are my cousins, and some of them are your cousins - but how could you and I hope to connect with them online given their concerns? Do You Want Your Information Available to Everyone? We want others to provide information to us. Do we want our personal information posted to the Internet? European Union Members 28 Countries Austria Belgium Bulgaria Czech Croatia Cyprus Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Until 3-29- United Kingdom 2019 European Union - 2 • 28 Countries until BREXIT takes place - 29 March 2019 • 500 million residents • Right to be forgotten/erased • Google has ~90% of Search Engine Market in Europe-varies by country • Since May 29, 2014 Google received 698,395 requests to delink from 2,615,742 URLs. They did not remove 44 percent of the URLs requested. • Fall 2016 CJEU ruled hyperlinking by third-party website (search engine) without consent of holder constitutes a "communication to the public“ and doing so is a violation of EU copyright directive.
  • Video Surveillance in Norway and Denmark

    Video Surveillance in Norway and Denmark

    On the Threshold to Urban Panopticon? Analysing the Employment of CCTV in European Cities and Assessing its Social and Political Impacts RTD-Project (September 2001 – February 2004) 5th Framework Programme of the European Commission Contract No.: HPSE-CT2001-00094 [email protected] www.urbaneye.net Working Paper No. 4 Restrictive? Permissive? The Contradictory Framing of Video Surveillance in Norway and Denmark Carsten Wiecek & Ann Rudinow Sætnan [email protected] [email protected] Department of Sociology and Political Science Norwegian University of Science and Technology Dragvoll, 7491 Trondheim, Norway March 2002 Project Co-ordination: Centre for Technology and Society Technical University Berlin www.ztg.tu-berlin.de Urbaneye: Video Surveillance in Norway and Denmark 1 Table of Content TABLE OF CONTENT ......................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION -- WHY TWO COUNTRIES? ..........................................................2 2 INTRODUCING NORWAY AND DENMARK.............................................................3 2.1 CCTV IN NORWAY AND DENMARK............................................................................ 6 2.2 OPEN STREET SYSTEMS AND THE ROLE OF THE POLICE ................................................. 9 3 LEGAL FRAMEWORK ..............................................................................................11 3.1 LEGAL STRUCTURES AND TEXTS.................................................................................12