A new survey found only 42 per cent of New Zealanders know where to report harmful online content. Photo / Getty Creative
More than half of New Zealanders don’t know where to turn when they see harmful content, according to a survey by InternetNZ (see more key highlights below).
And although reporting dangerous content to the social media platform hosting it was one of the “correct” answers, it remains problematic with unknown and inconsistent response times - and Internet safety agency Netsafe’s acknowledgment this morning that it’s still struggling to communicate with the Elon Musk-era Twitter, where online safety teams have been gutted.
“We reached out to Elon Musk and Twitter’s Asia Pacific Team for the rationale behind recent events, but have not been informed of any future decisions regarding its online harm policies,” Netsafe boss Brent Carey told the Herald today.
InternetNZ’s annual state-of-the-internet survey found only 42 per cent of New Zealanders know where to report something they’ve seen online that might be harmful or dangerous, according to a demographically-weighted survey of 1001 Kiwis, commissioned by InternetNZ and carried out by Kantar during November last year.
Of those, 47 per cent said they would go to the police, 34 per cent said they would report it to Netsafe (the agency that serves as first responder for the Harmful Digital Communications Act), 13 per cent said they would complain to the app or website concerned, 6 per cent said Internal Affairs and 4 per cent said they would go to Crown cybersecurity agency CertNZ. Others had a mish-mash of responses, including “SafeNet” and “WebSafe” - which don’t exist, at least in terms of NZ regulation of online content.
So, what was the correct answer? The Herald asked Vivian Maidaborn, who recently took over as chief executive of InternetNZ (the non-profit that administers the .nz domain, and uses funds it generates from selling .nz addresses to fund grant, lobbying and educational activities).
“Netsafe and DIA [the Department of Internal Affairs] are the two places that have a role. Police as well,” Maidaborn said.
CertNZ - the Government’s Computer Emergency Response Team - is more aimed at cyber security. It offers a “triage” service for an individual or small business who’s been hacked, offering advice and pointing them to the right police or IT contacts - which include IDCare, the Ministry of Justice-backed group that can help you with identity theft issues.
Netsafe can advocate on your behalf if you’re having trouble getting a response from a social media platform. It has direct channels of communication with the social media companies and can often get traction where a member of the general public can’t. Police can also get cut-through if there’s immediate physical danger.
Netsafe had something of annus horribilis 2022, with three women who lodged complaints with the agency being awarded $100,000 in damages related to a privacy breach after the man they were complaining about used a Netsafe file to temporarily turn the tables on his accusers as he took (unsuccessful but draining) legal action against them through the District Court. There were also bullying accusations against now departed Netsafe management, a rash of related staff departures, and user-advocate criticism that a social media safety code drawn up by Netsafe in cooperation with the big social media platforms was vague, conflicted and toothless.
As InternetNZ veteran Brent Carey took the reins at Netsafe last year, he noted the agency had seen a 25 per cent increase in cyberbullying complaints each year since 2020. Over the same period, Netsafe’s budget ($3.94m in 2020, $4.06m in 2022 - with 95 per cent of its funding coming from the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Justice, and the balance from private sources) has been static. The money funds around 25 staff.
“There is no indication of an increase at this stage,” Carey told the Herald.
Netsafe is not in line for a budget boost.
Does Maidaborn think it should get one?
The CEO who is just getting her shoes under the desk at InternetNZ, pleaded she was not familiar with the agency’s current budget.
She did tell the Herald, however, that Netsafe needed a wider brief.
“The areas of concern that they have an agreement with the Government they’ll work on are very narrow,” she said.
Netsafe currently has very limited investigative powers, though it does have some sway in that the social media firms and search sites know that if it can’t resolve an issue, then under the Harmful Digital Communications Act it can then be escalated to a District Court.
Despite criticism that Netsafe lacks bite, retired District Court Judge David Harvey - who consulted with the Law Commission on the Harmful Digital Communications Act, earlier told the Herald that the investigative role should not be transferred to the police or a branch of DIA. The fact that the non-profit (if mostly Crown-funded) Netsafe was outside the system kept it independent, Harvey said.
Carey told the Herald the results of the InternetNZ survey were “encouraging” in that just over 80 per cent of the 4-in-10 people who did name an agency knew to file a report with the police or Netsafe.
“Netsafe operates on a basis of ‘no wrong door’ reporting as a response to Kiwis’ experiences of online harm,” Carey said.
“We actively work with different people and agencies to navigate the online harms system, seek support, and make sure there are always places or people to turn to for help.”
The Netsafe CEO added, “We will be implementing several new initiatives over the next 12 months that help New Zealanders recognise Netsafe as the country’s independent online safety organisation and social media helpline.”
At this stage he could not offer any details of the initiatives.
Maidaborn said the issues involved around online content and social media were complicated and could involve unintended consequences if lawmakers rushed things.
For example, with children accessing inappropriate content being Kiwis’ number one concern, is it time for the big social media platforms should take steps to identify someone’s age and other details?
The lack of any concrete verification means the likes of TikTok’s new screen time limit and other measures can be skirted by simply setting up a new account and lying about your age. Similarly, it means scammers of all ages can set up accounts on all platforms under fake names, or copycat names. (All platforms say they have AI tools and complaint procedures that weed out most scam accounts after the fact.)
But Maidaborn says if social media firms collect more personal data at signup, that could facilitate more invasive tracking and profiling by Big Tech.
Some people - this writer included - are impatient with the slow pace of debate over internet harms, and what can be done about them.
But Maidaborn said changing rules in areas that impact freedom of expression and other fundamental social tenets just takes a lot of time, and a lot of debate.
“We understand that there are populations who experience harm- and that’s not okay. If you think about it from a social change perspective, 25 years is very short.”
Source: Kantar survey for InternetNZ of 1001 New Zealanders aged 18+, Nov 7-14, 2022
'I can imagine people being outraged that TVNZ signed a deal with me.'