New Zealand Internet Rights Survey

1. New Zealand Internet Rights Survey Professor Charles Crothers

2. Development of a NZ Internet Freedom Index Project • The survey is a component of the Index project (Joy Liddicoat et al.) • Funder: Internet NZ

3. Methodology • Only those aspects of potential internet rights which seemed readily understandable by the general public. • Constrained to internet users - presumably few non-internet users will have developed enough knowledge/experience of the internet to formulate views about internet rights. • Sampling source: internet panel. • 755 People 20-64 years of age on a Buzz panel, April 2013. • Similar in characteristics to the overall NZ population. • Particularly skewed towards those of higher education qualifications and there is a moderate over-representation of respondents from major cities and a corresponding under-representation of those from rural areas. • The average length of time spent on the survey was 8 minutes. • Views of under 20 year olds was too difficult given their poor response-availability and that people 65 and over might have insufficient experience with the internet to be able to provide knowledgeable answers.

4. Conceptual framework Key (potential) internet rights were: • Access to the internet • Abilities to use the internet • Rights to express opinions • Rights not to be subject to unfortunate things happening to people on-line. • Rights to free access to information (not covered). • Facilitation of Social/Political Change

5. Socio-demographic characteristics • Information collected on Age-group, gender, settlement size and education and extent of weekly internet usage. • Quotas were set in relation to age-group and gender. • It was found that while age and gender had shaped differences the other characteristics did not seem to shape views.

6. Hierarchy of Rights • General statement re Rights - 89% agreeing. • Extension of rights to the internet context – 73%. • Support for a right of access to the internet – 59%.

7. How support Access & For Whom • Through a government subsidy of Internet equipment and connection costs – 41% • Through free access at libraries -94%. • Supporting internet access of ...the elderly (64%), • ...People in low income households (61%) and • ...especially people in rural areas (69%). • About a quarter came up with other groups: especially disabled, elderly, youth • A solid minority (about a sixth of respondents) who reject any attempt to operationalise such a right (denying that there should be such a right and suggesting that – just as ones phone or other access – you are required to pay for it). • Right to access include some training so that people can use the Internet effectively -55%).

8. Freedom of Expression • Should not be curbed for any reason -33%; • People should not be allowed to defame other people on the Internet, even if this means their right to freedom of expression is curbed -68.2% • On balance people’s right to privacy on the Internet is more important than other people’s right to freedom of expression - 64.5% • A third didn’t answer this write-in question re circumstances justifying curbing. • The nearly two-thirds answering mentioned bullying, breach of privacy etc.

9. Complaints Authority • There should be a which can order changes e.g. content removed if there is a considerable breach of someone’s privacy -86%. • Half thought best type of Complaints authority would be a government agency, whereas a third supported an industry agency.

10. Summary • Views on Access are not same as views on Freedoms • Types of view re Access:- internet-deniers (often quite angry about it) who see the internet as nothing more than an extension of their phone and to be paid for in full- internet-acceptors who see the internet as giving access to a (partial) new world and where everyone (or many) needs to be lifted over any thresholds to take full advantage of this.- and of course intermediate groupings

11. Summary contd. • Views on ‘Freedom’ are less polarised but also divided into some: - Who see no need for any controls at all - Who see existing protections adequately cover internet situations - Who see extra difficulties arising with internet.