Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 23, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:“Data-harvesting, micro-targeting and profiling of children for financial gain

30. It shall be an offence under this Act for any company or corporate body to collect, collate, or store data pertaining to a child as defined by section 29, for the uses of profiling or micro-targeting, for the purposes of financial gain. Such an offence shall be punishable by an administrative fine under section 139.”.

There are a number of similar amendments in this group so we will have to decide on the best approach. The intention behind each amendment is similar. We are discussing two elements: the age of digital consent and the area of micro-targeting of children. Children are defined in this legislation as persons under the age of 18. The general data protection regulation, GDPR, allows for some discretion as to whether 13 or 16 is the digital age of consent. There will be consensus on the fact that there are enormous risks and dangers in terms of the cynical professional targeting of children by corporations. They seek to take advantage of children to sell them goods and services. Many of these products and goods are harmful, either in general or when taken to excess. There are huge dangers and there are many young people in particular who are not aware of the extent to which their data is being gathered, the profile that is being built up on them and the way it is being used to exploit them. It is reasonable to say that people under the age of 18 should not be micro-targeted in this way and they should be protected from that form of advertisement, which is often very cynical and exploitative.

I will be supporting amendment No. 27 with some degree of hesitancy. I take a contrary view to the Ombudsman for Children and the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, ISPCC, with some trepidation. It is quite a complex area and is much broader than some of the discussion we have had hitherto which has focused on the area of predatory behaviour, which is not necessarily relevant to this. This area is focused very much on data protection and the protection of children from the exploitation and manipulation of their data. There is also a considerable body of opinion and expertise which has outlined the manner in which children are put at risk simply by the micro-targeting and the fact that at that age they will be in a position to give their consent to the giving away of their data.

I am supporting the amendment, but I believe we should keep it under review on an ongoing basis. If, as looks apparent, amendment No. 27 is carried, we need to keep a very open mind on it. We must be conscious that it is not a silver bullet. Some people will try to present this as an almost foolproof defence for people under the age of 16. It is vitally important that people are under no illusions as to the fact that people under the age of 16 will still be very vulnerable online, as will the population quite generally, and that there is a need for many additional measures, including the digital safety commissioner, which I have proposed and about which I have been in contact with the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment. I have had a Bill passed on the issue of greater education for parents and children in schools and at home. Issues such as default privacy settings also need to be worked on. There is no digital age of consent at the moment. It will move from 13 to 16. We will support the amendment, but will add a health warning on the strength of that. I believe there is consensus on the micro-targeting aspect, and I urge the Minister to work with all the members of the committee and others outside the committee to ensure that this is done and done properly.