 One of the many ways that I did not pay my bills before I came back to academia was by being a digital security trainer, and that made me sort of be in a position where I worked with journalists, targeted journalists, which then put me in the digital rights and freedom of expression side of the table. And I couldn't ignore through these work that that side of the table, my side of the table, didn't really get along with the youth rights side, because youth rights were a very powerful pretext to augment surveillance capabilities and also to censor people. I think that this came through really powerful tropes, like just say no, stranger danger, think before you sext, ten reasons not to sext campaigns that put the burden on young people to act better. I think that these frames are ultimately harmful and that there are four ways that we are not addressing them well. One is by seeing ourselves as protectors of youth and by seeing youth as conditional citizens, not as subjects of rights today. Also by thinking that all youth are harmed equally without recognizing that marginalized youth are facing the worst of privacy violations and by seeing youth as individual actors rather than addressing the collective responsibility of actors around them. These might sound like all things are doomed and that there are no things to be optimistic about, but I interviewed 18 organizations from Canada to Argentina and I found that there are many things that are being done well in the region. I think their work shows that it is possible to do youth privacy work that sees youth as subjects of rights today rather than as conditional citizens, that promotes youth agency, that does intersectional readings on privacy and that promotes collective responsibility. Codesign is one of the ways that organizations promote agency among youth by promoting their decision making. And Farro Digital in Argentina and the Equality Project in Canada rely on codesign for their campaigns on sexting. This is an image that Farro Digital co-created with youth to address sexting issues, sext with your head. Equality Project came up with a similar campaign designed with young people and this comes to show that when you give people a chance, young people a chance to have a say in the campaigns aimed at them, they're going to move away from just saying no old kind of messaging. That is however not the only thing that organizations are doing in terms of addressing the universal threat model that cybersecurity communities have long laughed at, but youth rights communities have not so much laughed at. Teddy Kim Paraguay and Zula Batsuin Costa Rica are doing targeted digital security workshops for example with trans youth to address real name policies in social media and with mothers who sometimes are the sole known users in their households where devices were purchased for young people. In Uruguay, pensamiento colectivo calls out victim blaming by shifting away the responsibility from the people who are sexting and placing the burden on the people who are sharing other people's sexts. They came up with this video that quickly went viral challenging people not to share other people's sexts and I think that this was a trend that all organizations shared, all organizations creating interactive material shared which is that they're coming up with local narratives that youth seem to be thirsty for and they quickly go viral. In terms of recognizing youth as subjects of rights today and not as conditional citizens, we have to do analyses that show the ways that the systems around them violate or reinforce the rights and Internet Lab in Brazil looked at all the judicial outcomes of non-consensual image sharing cases in Sao Paulo and found the ways that the system was failing to protect young women's rights. In Peru, Iperderecho has a youth league where college students come together to do similar analyses and similar projects that highlight the ways young people are not being served today but only in potential. Now, this is a very long way to say that some organizations are already undertaking different ways to address youth privacy issues and not everything is doomed. I think that their work shows us that we can do agency-based work that we can promote collective responsibility, that we can do intersectional readings on privacy, and that we can definitely work for youth as subjects of rights today and that we no longer have any pretext to say, just say no. This is a too long-didn't-read version of my master's thesis. You can read the actual interviews on civic.mit.edu. There is some more comprehensive summary on the Bergman Klein Medium, and if you're interested in youth privacy issues, please look at the Youth and Media Lab work at Bergman Klein.