<em>Australia has a number of international legal obligations in relation to asylum seekers and refugees. In the scheme of things, the number of asylum seekers and refugees who attempt to reach Australia by sea without a valid visa is relatively small. Since 2012, Australia has restored its legal framework of processing asylum seekers and refugees who arrive by sea offshore in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. There are a number of concerns with the treatment of asylum seekers and refugees at these offshore processing centres, highlighting concerns Australia is not complying with its international legal obligations. The primary justification of the current policies has been that a strong deterrent is required to deter the people-smuggling trade. However, the deterrent justification lacks evidence to support it, and is unable to justify breaches of some of the most fundamental obligations owed to refugees and asylum seekers.</em>

Children and young people throughout the world have felt the effects of Coronavirus Disease 2019 and the decisions made in response to the public health crisis, acutely. Questions have been raised about adequately protecting children’s privacy, as schooling, play and socialising went almost exclusively online. However, due to the historical lack of children’s rights being embedded throughout decision-making processes (including important participation rights), the effects of the increased surveillance as a result of the pandemic have not been thoroughly considered. This article pursues three objectives. First, it seeks to develop the literature on the enabling aspects of privacy for children in relation to education and play. Second, it seeks to expand the discussion on the exploitative risks endemic in not protecting children’s privacy, including not only violent harms, but commercial exploitation. Third, it suggests some policy responses that will more effectively embed a children’s rights framework beyond the ‘parental control’ provisions that dominate child-specific data protection frameworks.

The advertising technology industry, known as ‘adtech’, is a complicated network of organisations and individuals that collect, aggregate and deal with large amounts of personal data. As children engage with digital networks for many aspects of their lives, they are increasingly exposed to adtech practices. Depending on their age, children may have less knowledge of the commercial digital environment and less maturity in their decision-making processes than adults have. Their limited resilience in the face of adtech’s onslaught offers a particularly stark illustration of why it is problematic to look to ‘consent’ as the exclusive or predominant mechanism to control the use of consumer data in the digital ecosystem. This article examines the problems arising from adtech’s data practices and makes recommendations on how to strengthen the agency and control exercised by children and protect their best interests in the context of adtech.

The coronavirus pandemic has significantly restricted children’s opportunities for play and socialisation with friends in physical outside spaces. As a consequence, children’s participation in educational, play and entertainment activities are now predominantly taking place online. One form of online play which has become immensely popular with a young audience, is esports. However, esports and the platforming of play have been associated with public health concerns and excessive commercialisation. This paper will therefore address these issues through the lens of children’s rights, in particular the right to play and the right to protection from exploitation. It will explore whether esports can contribute to the realisation of the right to play and enable other rights such as the right to development, assembly and freedom of expression during covid-19.