FTC's Overzealous Attempts To 'Protect The Children' May Do Serious Harm To The Internet
from the we-don't-need-the-ftc-to-act-as-our-parents dept
Earlier this year, we were reasonably worried about the FTC's plan to expand COPPA. COPPA -- the Childrens Online Privacy Protection Act -- is one of those laws that appears to have the best of intentions. Who doesn't want to protect the privacy of children, right? But as with so many things, the unintended consequences of overprotection often outweigh the benefits. In practice, the existing COPPA, which puts significant additional burdens on sites that target children under 13, has meant that lots of websites simply ban children under 13 entirely. The end result isn't that children under 13 are more protected, but that parents teach their kids it's okay to lie and to sign up for sites when they're "underage." At the same time, this drives away lots of services that could be really helpful to children -- especially educational sites.And yet... the FTC wants to expand COPPA, rather than fix its problems. While the new proposals are not as bad as some ideas that had originally been floated, there are still some significant problems with them. As CDT notes, the unintended consequences of the broad definitions could raise significant First Amendment issues:
...we are concerned that the updated definition of when a website is “directed to children” could expand COPPA's reach to general audience sites and confuse website owners as to whether these new rules apply to them. This uncertainty will likely prompt more sites to take advantage of the Commission’s new age-screening safe harbor, which could lead to many more sites demanding age or identifying information from all users before allowing access. Requiring age verification from every user runs counter to the First Amendment right to access information anonymously and increases the collection of potentially sensitive information generally. The new rule's uncertainty is magnified for third party plug-in operators, who may now be liable for the decisions of publishers to embed their plug-in on sites directed to childrenSimilarly, TechFreedom notes some related potential problems with the new rules.
To start, by deeming persistent identifiers as personal information per se, the FTC's new rule runs contrary to established U.S. privacy law: federal courts have unanimously decided that IP addresses do not allow the contacting of a specific individual.Finally, we've got law professor Eric Goldman, who doesn't hold back his thoughts:
Further, as Commissioner Ohlhausen's dissent notes, the COPPA statute does not allow the FTC to impose liability on sites that do not collect children's information merely because the operator may somehow benefit from an ad network or plug-in operator collecting information—provided the third party neither targets children nor shares information with the site operator.
If a third party becomes liable once a single employee "recognizes the child-directed nature" of a website—whatever that means—COPPA will become the worst kind of notice-and-takedown system: Would a single complaint—or tweet—from a parent or activist group create "knowledge?" Faced with the impossible task of predicting how the FTC might characterize each of the millions of sites on which ads or plug-ins might appear, operators will have to try to block advertising or plug-ins on sites that appears to be child-oriented. If they can't do that effectively, this potential liability may effectively kill behavioral advertising on any site that can't prove it isn't child-oriented—in other words, on small sites.
Thus, COPPA will now impact adult sites, denying publishers revenue and adult users the functionality that is increasingly provided by embeds. Thus, the FTC invites not only a statutory challenge but also a constitutional challenge similar to that which led the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) to be struck down.
Yesterday, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (the FTC) promulgated new rules (effectively July 1, 2013) interpreting the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), and the new rules are a real mess. They are riddled with innumerable ambiguities and questionable policy choices, and I could spend a decade or two trying to figure out how the new rules apply to different factual situations.That's not a good thing -- unless you're a lawyer. As he notes, once again, the intentions may have been good, but the implementation is a disaster:
The FTC wanted to crack down on these COPPA workarounds, but in typical FTC fashion, it did so in a ham-fisted and marble-mouthed way.Basically, we're talking about the usual "unintended consequences" of going overboard in trying to "protect the children!" It's a noble goal, obviously. But, speaking as a parent as well as someone who's aware of how these kinds of rules tend to limit innovation, I'd much prefer that the FTC actually stay out of the parenting business and leave that to me.
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: children, coppa, ftc, overprotection
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunately too many parents expect the governments to protect their children for them, regardless of the impact this has on other people. This also opens the door for those who would enforce their morals onto the rest of society by setting up government controlled filters and the means to take down material that they find offensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They probably know by spying on you through your smart TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"unintended consequences" ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "unintended consequences" ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "unintended consequences" ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But this is the US of A, where liability lawyers are the most played commercial on daytime TV. We need our coffee to say "Caution: Hot" on it so we don't get sued when someone spills it. Buckyballs must be banned because some kid ate rare-earth magnets. If a burglar trips on the carpet, we ourselves become liable for his medical bills.
Why should we be responsible for our own actions, when we can just legislate against bad stuff, or sue?
Nanny state FTW!
/sarcastic rant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I said the same thing during a discussion on the porn blocking campaign and received no end of abuse. Too many parents simply take the easy way out. They plop their kids in front of a computer/TV/console instead of actually spending time with them, or better yet, taking them outside to get some fresh air. Then, they have the audacity to complain about any 'inappropriate' content they may come across.
Here's a solution, they are called PARENTAL CONTROLS for a reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As a parent, I see way, way to many people raising kids that really have no business doing so. Parenting is a skill just like driving a car or shooting a gun. Some people have a natural aptitude for it, just like some people can do math in their head, or other can paint with very little effort. But like any skill, most people need a lot of training, and I see very little (in comparison to other skill sets) in the way of proper training for potential parents (and quite simply some people are suited to rear children the same way some shouldn't be allowed to drive or shoot a gun).
As far as the issue with Parental Controls, I find that to be just as much a cop-out for those who just plop their kids in front of a TV or computer. More so for those kinds of parents, in fact. "Hey my kid is *protected*, I have PARENTAL CONTROLS, therefore I don't really need to supervise or be aware of what my lids are doing."
I know this, because I remember being a teenager very very clearly (even if it was decades ago). And I remember quite clearly what I, and most of the kids I knew, were doing. And I was also very aware of what most parents were doing (or in most cases were not doing in actuality). I can assure from personal experience that if you are truly paying attention to what your kids are doing, and providing the proper guidance, parental controls are essentially meaningless. And if your not paying attention and providing guidance, parental controls are just an impediment that simply slows most kids down a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then everyone clearly decided that using free tools like netnanny built into your router was useless, because you could sue everyone for making porn online with 100 18+ warnings and disclaimers.
Just for once, I wish we'd blame the parents. Just this once. I know, it's not politically correct and parents claiming to be good ones will throw a hissy fit, but it's still a fact and the truth: parents to not take responsibility for the (lack of?) actions or their kids' lack of education or protection.
Stop passing stupid anti-internet laws, and instead make parents take an exam to become a parent. Problem solved, and it costs no more than a driver's license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you don't want to put very nasty holes in stuff, don't point knives, guns, rockets, cars, fists, rocks, spears, dogs, kids, etc. at them. ;) Kind of goes along with the NRA crowd's "Always assume it's loaded" concept, come to think of it. I learned very quickly that box cutters s**k if you're not paying attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lieing to get your way !!!! teaching children to lie !
I believe you have kids Masnick, are you saying you teach your kids to lie?
Anyone with a sub-13 year old, who is teaching them to lie so they can get on social media IS A MORON..
Do you have ANY IDEA of what being a responsible parent means ????
lets hope the laws are changed making the loser parents responsible for anything that happens to their children.
you're even willing to lie to get what you want !!!!! what worse, your willing to teach your preteen children to lie and that lying is OK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lieing to get your way !!!! teaching children to lie !
says the one twisting the article in a rather lame attempt to discredit the author.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lieing to get your way !!!! teaching children to lie !
OOTB is a fucking freetard and ADMITS it
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/12500917012/riaa-doesnt-apologize-year-long-blog-cen sorship-just-stands-its-claim-that-site-broke-law.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Masnick advocates lying to get what you want.
masnick does not think he needs to constantly monitor your young, vulnerable children when they are on the internet.
so if you are willing to lie, are you also willing to steal? I guess so, that appears to be the message you put out there.
"If Masnick can benefit from it, he is willing to say or do anything to achieve that, truth or not, legal or not"
He knows if he can get a heap of other people to do it, it does not look so bad for him, he can blend in with the crowd. SAD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick advocates lying to get what you want.
On the positive side, side I could almost feel the spittle bouncing off your screen as you yelled at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick advocates lying to get what you want.
Good! I would hope that Masnick does not feel a need to monitor MY children!
OK, but seriously, we HAVE parental controls. Parents can use whitelists if they want to, or just set things so they can monitor which sites are used. There's no reason why it should be the website's job to block underage users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We should collectively ask the FTC it's ok, they don't need to try to protect the children anymore. Before it's too late and they harm our children permanently.
As I said before, humanity is setting up its own demise in multiple fronts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Protect Children
BAN children and families that have them from using the internet, Problem Solved..
Did you know the 100% of children grow up, grow OLD, then DIE???
How Cruel of parents to have children, when they know that at some point in their lives, they ALL die. THAT'S abuse!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]