As children increasingly get exposed to social networks and online activities, they are also exposed to greater risks on the Internet, especially through the inadvertent disclosure of their personal contact details. More often than not many people tend to think that child abuses are squarely emotional, sexual, and physical and so forth, and tend to pass over the pernicious internet-related abuses due to unrestricted access to social media platforms.

In principle, protecting children against abuse, violence, neglect and exploitation is a responsibility shared by many different actors, involving different elements of government as well as a broad array of civil society organizations and communities. But, primarily, it is an onerous of parents to begin with.

Just recently, as I was reading the new EU-General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), especially in its Article 8, I was somewhat taken back to see that this law introduces specific protections for children by limiting their ability to consent to data processing without parental authorization. While originally the USA and EU could be seen as a model for respect of people’s freedom, including child’s rights, of access to the Internet. Now, they have now come around to curtail this freedom. None could imagine that the former and the latter could have such restrictions.

In the new EU-regulation, it raised the age of consent from 13 to 16 years old. But it allows member states to set a lower age not below 13 years. Thus, unless otherwise provided by Member State law, controllers must obtain the consent of a parent or guardian when processing the personal data of a child under the age of 16. They also must make "reasonable efforts” to verify that a parent or guardian has provided the appropriate consent. Particularly, the new EU regulation requires patent’s consent for their children to access to the social media platforms.

In fact, there’re three possible reasons behind this paradigm shift. First, this restriction intends to secure children against abuse of the child’s personal data. Second, there’re risks likely to spoil children, including greater opportunities for online pedophile. Third, currently, ICT is being misused to commit online offences such as child exploitation, exposure to harmful content, inappropriate contacts, cyber-bullying and so forth.

So, what lesson can our society draw from the EU-regulation with regard to the requirement of parental consent to child’s access to internet services?

Though parental consent to child may seem like turning the clock back to the days when decisions about children were firmly placed in the hands of adults, it is of paramount importance to place higher the value on the interests of parents, family and the State in exercising control over the child’s wishes. Of course, children have the same rights as adults but child rights need to be restricted, especially where there’re inevitable risks likely to affect them emotionally, psychologically and intellectually. However, this does not necessarily mean that we’re going back to the Victorian age, where children were expected to follow the wishes and commands of their parents. During that period, non-compliance was met with severe sanctions such as financial restrictions, banishment and even being cut-off from their inheritance.

Naturally, parents have the desire to assert the power and control over every aspect of a child’s life but should be counterbalanced with child’s rights, especially in their best interest. In today’s rapidly evolving digital era, it is true to say social networks and online communication services are the lifeline to childhood in the digital environment. But should this be a sweeping generalization? The answer, to me, is no!

Equally, it is true to say children are vulnerable simply because their choices, preferences and decisions cannot be trusted with respect to online activities. As such, they need to be guided by their parents or guardians or caretakers. According to the new EU-regulation, policymakers unilaterally decided that children under 16 will be unable to consent to the use of their data by online information service providers such as Facebook, thereby effectively kicking them off many social media platforms. In Rwanda, for example, policy and law generally restrict exposing a child (under 18) to things that are detrimental to their growth and development. Even if online services, notably social media platforms, are provided to all people irrespective of the age, consent is relied on as the basis for the lawful processing of their data, thus consent must be given or authorised by a person with parental responsibility or anyone who exercises authority over a child. However, the parental consent may be unnecessary in the context of preventing of counseling services offered directly to a child.

Though ensuring parental consent to the use of the social media and other internet services might seem difficult, it is crucially important to develop an age-appropriate guidance and tools to ensure a safe and privacy-protective mechanisms by the assistance of the Internet intermediaries as well as law enforcement. As Rwanda, in days ahead, plans to introduce the use of Internet in classrooms for children, safety measures need be taken to avoid unforeseeable consequences that can affect our future generation.

The writer is an international law expert