The Unintended Consequences Of Trying To Overprotect Children From The Internet
from the they-lie-and-new-services-aren't-developed dept
A few months ago, we mentioned the ridiculousness of the the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, which has strict rules for any sites that target services to children under the age of 13. It's one of those "for the children!" laws that are so popular with politicians, but which never seem to have any basis in evidence, and never seem to consider the unintended consequences. Under the law, as we noted, any site that wants to target kids has to meet certain very high standards, requiring permission from parents. In theory (and in a total vacuum) perhaps this sounds good. But the real impact is that very few sites look to create useful internet services for kids... and kids learn pretty early in their youth how to lie about their age online.Jeff Jarvis recently was on a conference call about COPPA where he asked an FTC attorney some questions about COPPA, the actual research behind it, and the unintended consequences -- and seemed to get back the conference call equivalent of a blank stare:
I asked Mamie Kresses, senior attorney for the FTC’s Division of Advertising Practices, whether there had been any study about how truthful children are reporting their ages online. They have no such research, she said. I asked whether the FTC had any data about how often parents use the means of notice and consent COPPA provides. None, she said.From there, he points out that we shouldn't base our entire policy on the assumption that the worst case scenario will happen to all kids. As he notes, kids are still kidnapped, but we still let them play outside. This doesn't mean we should let them run wild online -- just like we don't let kids run wild outside, either. But the rules, as set today, effectively say that children can only run outside in a few very inconvenient parks. We're overprotecting. And, as Jarvis notes, the ability to play online is important:
The most disturbing unintended consequence of the regulation, I think, is the chill it likely puts on serving children online. In the early days of the web, I started the Yuckiest Site on the Internet — about goo, bugs, and science — to serve young readers at the local news sites I ran. After COPPA, my employer decided the risk in serving young people and even inadvertently recording a child’s name or targeting an ad was too great.
We don’t know how many sites have not been started to serve children online. Isn’t this the group we should be serving best? I asked Kresses whether the FTC had done research on the extent of a chill. No, she said.
Finally, I asked whether the FTC had revisited the reasons for COPPA. What harm are we trying to prevent by restricting identity online — and is it effective? She responded with circular logic: They are giving parents the opportunity of notice and consent regarding children’s information.
Children need to play online, too. They should create and get credit for their creativity. They should be able to establish a relationship with an educational site where they can track their own progress. Technology and the net don’t just present danger; they afford opportunity. But by focusing only on the former, we can risk losing sight of the latter.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: coppa, ftc, privacy, protect the children, under 13
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If they are so simple minded as to not understand technology enough to know how to do this, they really get what they deserve. Stop asking for kids names, and you won't have to worry if you stored them or not.
"Children need to play online, too. They should create and get credit for their creativity. "
During the whole .XXX told debate, one of the most common refrains was that we don't need a porn domain, we need a children's domain. A small number of ".KIDS" sites, monitored by an authority that can quickly disable any site violating the rules, would have the effect of creating a kid safe neighborhood.
The internet is a massive open sewer at times, with porn, drugs, scams, and predatory behavior left and right. Dumping your kids on the open internet is on par with dumping them in the red light district of Bangkok. It's barely safe for informed adults, let alone children.
You cannot let your kids run loose in that environment, nor would we be stupid enough to build a swing set next to a stripper pole in a peeler bar. Reasonable expectations, no?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Au contraire! I was just in a "peeler bar" and i can testify for a fact there was swing set right there beside the stripper pole!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Um, No. It is simple minded to think that they would not have more trouble than they wanted to deal with if they provided any interactivity with kids. It is as true as there exists adults out to get kids that there are adults out to get companies and an easy buck.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
93% of steam users are born on January 1st despite all odds saying this is impossible. Make sure to click the 'see this steam article' link for the punchline.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Intended just not admitted to seems more reasonable at this point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Really? So you could design a comment section or visitor log that would allow children to type in anything except their real names? Without knowing their real names beforehand? This technology of which you speak is truly wondrous, and your understanding of it is mighty indeed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kids on line....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
There are several problems with this. For one, it is children suffering from a lack of content tailored for them online more than it is a company sufferin for making the choice no to provide content for young children.
Further, it is not that simple to comply. If you permit any form of commenting at all and knowingly permit someone under 13 to participate (without going through an incredibly burdensome process of getting verified consent from a parent), you have essentially violated this.
And finally, even if there were somehow an easier and effective wa to comply, a chilling effect is created by the *perception* that compliance is difficult.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The first 5 or so games I viewed, I conscientiously gave my real DOB. The next 5 or so, I left the January 1st fields at their default values, and chose my real year of birth. For the remaining 100 or so times I just click the year, flick my mouse scroll wheel up (I have one of the nice free-rolling Logitech mice), and pick whatever year it happens to stop on.
For such a great service as Steam it's really some poor UI design.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: and there-in lies the problem
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RE Kids and New fangle toys
Anyone online in a "pubic" chat room that admits to being a "kid" most likely IS progeny of a goat.
I hate to say this however, some parents out there are just children that maybe should NOT have been protected as much as they were.
if you want to protect YOUR children, their safety should not infringe on MY rights.
"for the children"..." Why? I didn't make them!!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://www.fakenamegenerator.com/
It gives you a complete name, with address, SSN, Credit Card(Don't try to buy anything it won't work stupid).
And of course there is a lot more out there.
http://www.google.com/search?q=fake+identity+generator
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
First, don't log visitors.
Second, don't ask for names for comments, assign techdirt style snowflakes.
End problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
All of these problems and more
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
You need _something_ trackable to create a persistent account/identity, and the bar for storing any such information for children is just Too Damn High (TM).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: All of these problems and more
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Sure, I am going to invest in setting up a site for kids in the .kids domain, only to be at the mercy of some faceless bureaucrat, who can at a whim decide to remove my sites... or I can set up a site in .com, .org or another country. Hmmm, let's see...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is how "inadvertently recording a child's name" works.
Troll harder.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
COPPA and why's its needed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]