Do you really want to post this?

The UN has described what is meant by privacy very well in the 16th article of the Convention on the Rights of the Child: «No child», it says, «shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.» However, there is a catch: most children's rights should be seen as an ideal, and wishes and reality do not always coincide.

Internet and privacy are fundamentally mutually exclusive.

When it comes to privacy, this deviation is particularly serious. In recent years, the very large IT companies in particular have rolled back the boundaries of privacy and created a profitable and non-transparent business area for the general public. Healthy mistrust seems appropriate to me.

In my opinion, the internet and privacy are fundamentally mutually exclusive. After all, nobody knows who else is lurking in the background alongside tech companies, secret services and hackers to spy on users. The fact that we adults have not yet found a satisfactory solution to protect ourselves and our children from such access feels like a dilemma. Completely refraining from using the internet is not an option.

No democracy without privacy

For a democratic society that wants to live a modern, free and uncontrolled life, respect for privacy is an essential prerequisite. Totalitarian systems show very clearly what happens when it is restricted. If you want to access the Internet in Iran, you need an ID card to prove your identity. There is censorship and the state can monitor every click.

And China introduced «social scoring» a few years ago to evaluate the behaviour of the population. Chinese people who follow the regime's rules well and conform to them enjoy practical benefits. Critical spirits or failed business people, on the other hand, are downgraded and penalised. In this way, citizens lose all individuality and authenticity. Of course, in the western world we are far removed from such blatant control scenarios. But we are still being spied on. Just not necessarily by the state.

It is an open secret that IT companies are constantly screening, analysing and evaluating our network activities. They earn billions from our data and the associated insights. However, this market is no longer satisfied with just the revenue from personalised advertising, but is also heavily involved in election manipulation using dubious means. Brexit is an example of the damage that can be done to democracy in this way. This is all well known.

The price of convenience

So why do we continue to pay for various services with our data? Because we prioritise the benefits over the breach of trust. It is simply much quicker to book a doctor's appointment online than to call the chronically overworked receptionist. Prices can be compared more quickly online and ordered goods are delivered to your door. I am certainly no exception.

The big IT companies have rolled back the boundaries of privacy and created a profitable and non-transparent business area out of it.

What remains, however, is a feeling of unease. The state is trying to get to grips with the unfortunate situation with laws and data protection, but only with moderate success. After all, there is another problem: an entire society is constantly sharing its entire private and professional life on social networks . Illustrative, exhibitionistic, political and opinionated. How can we expect children, who are out and about in these worlds every day, to exercise restraint? It may be difficult, but it is not entirely impossible.

Children have a right to privacy and need it. However, their activities on Tiktok and Instagram often arouse uneasy feelings in parents. Sure, they're having a go on social networks. But what they reveal to the public with frightening candour sometimes makes adults shake their heads or blush. Conversations about this often take a difficult turn, as social networks are an integral part of youth culture in the eyes of children and they don't trust us, their parents, with any skills in this area. This is what makes it so difficult to protect children from themselves.

That's why my suggestion is to approach the topic from the analogue side. This should be easier for us, as we observe all the signs of a natural demarcation process in our children from the start of puberty: Suddenly we are no longer supposed to be there when they get dressed, or more recently the bathroom is locked. When friends come to visit, the nursery door is suddenly shut. Our collecting the dirty laundry lying around and the crockery that has accumulated in it is quickly perceived by them as «snooping around». Diary entries and messages on their smartphone are taboo anyway. They also no longer tell us everything because, after all, they want to have new experiences outside the family.

The children's room has a door, the Internet does not. Parents forgive everything, the internet forgets nothing.

Let's talk to them about respecting their boundaries and supporting them on their path to independence. Let's reassure them that their home is a protected space. And let's write a list with them about which boundaries are particularly important to them. We can then use these points to compare with them why the protected space needs to be treated so restrictively on the one hand, but not the unknown global public sphere of the Internet on the other.

It goes without saying that confidential matters should remain within the family, but online there is no control over what is shared. The children's room has a door, the internet does not. Parents forgive everything, the internet forgets nothing. We may not win a flower pot with this conversation, but smart children will keep these thoughts in mind. Real privacy only exists at home.