Proposed California Bill Would Require Sites To Hand Over Private Info On Kids To Their Parents
from the no,-that-won't-backfire-at-all... dept
It really is stunning how rarely it appears that politicians who introduce bills "for the children" think through the obvious consequences of those bills. For years, we've discussed how COPPA, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, has had massive unintended consequences, mainly cutting off lots of useful sites from any kids under the age of 13. It's also led to parents encouraging their kids to lie about their age, when they realize that all their friends are on sites like Facebook. Also, many people point out that COPPA is really an attack on kid's free speech rights. California has passed its own Online Privacy Protection Act that goes a bit further, but apparently, at least one California politician wants to take things even further, and is doing so with a plan that seems incredibly poorly thought out.California Assemblywoman Nora Campos proposed a bill a few weeks ago, AB 319, that would expand things so much that any sites that collect any information about anyone under the age of 18 would be required under law to reveal that personal information to parents if requested.
Now, think about that for a second. Since this is for any kids up to 18, we're talking about most of the teenage years for most kids. These are the years in which many teens rebel against their parents, which is, in many ways, a natural part of growing up and becoming an independent adult. To think that parents should be able to find out information directly from various sites about their kids' use of those sites seems incredibly problematic. There may be sites where the teens have tried to keep information private from their parents. And maybe that's because, say, the parents are anti-gay, and the child is gay. Do we really want parents to have easy access to that material? Or... what if it's a site for abused kids, and they are signing up to get help and to report that abuse? Under this law, it would appear that parents can check up on their kids on those sites.
What this bill would mean is that, in California, minors can get an abortion without parental notification, but they can't use Facebook. Also, under California law, teenagers may be emancipated as of age 14. But their parents can still spy on their online activities?
Oh yeah, and the parents can order those sites to no longer allow their children to use the sites any more. For troubled kids, seeking to connect with others who can help them at the point when they're struggling the most with their parents, it would seem like a situation that could have disastrous consequences.
An operator shall provide to a parent whose minor dependent has provided personal information to an Internet Web site or online service, upon request of the parent and proper identification, a description of the specific types of personal information collected from the minor by the operator, the opportunity at any time to refuse to permit the operator’s further use or maintenance in retrievable form, or future online collection, of personal information from the minor, and a means that is reasonable under the circumstances for the parent to obtain personal information collected from the minor.I'm sure Campos is thinking that this is one of those "protect the children" bills that makes for nice headlines. But shouldn't someone actually think about the actual impact of these bills before they get introduced?
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: california, children, parents, privacy, protect the children
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "protecting children"
NOTE: The Amber Alert system did not start with ANY lawmaking body.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "protecting children"
http://www.psmag.com/culture/amber-alerts-largely-ineffective-study-shows-4792/
So, it's used more often as a weapon by divorced mothers against their ex-husbands than it is for its original purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
May contain Sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: May contain Sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: May contain Sarcasm
Not likely to see you in a robe shouting, "The end of the world is nigh!", are we? You're likely to be closer with what you suggested than Nostradamus was...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: May contain Sarcasm
It's a reference to this: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/fbi-replaced-legal-process-post-it-notes-obtain-ph
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is the opposite of nanny state. This is giving power to parents, not the government. The government isn't saying parents have to do so, just enabling them to do so.
It would be nice to be able to go to the corner store and be able to ask the proprietor whether or not your child was buying cigarettes, not so you could prosecute the proprietor, but so you can be involved in correcting the bad behavior/choices of your child. Your child isn't smoking themselves, just buying them for other children who can't get them so they can make some money.
"There may be sites where the teens have tried to keep information private from their parents. And maybe that's because, say, the parents are anti-gay, and the child is gay."
How about we educate these few parents instead of keeping the rest of them castrated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Education does not always change a persons beliefs, which is why extreme fundamental religious views are so dangerous. This is why some kids do need to be able to communicate with others without their parents knowing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
who needs free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: who needs free speech @"DannyB": see my take on it, dolt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: who needs free speech @"DannyB": see my take on it, dolt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In Brazil while we were under a dictatorship previous to 1980something there were continuous raids on university grounds and dormitories where resistance used to build up. Imagine with that freaking law.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We just changed from right to left.
And IMO, things are worse now. I bet a lot more people died at the hand of criminals which our failed country and laws seek to protect in these last years than the number of people that died during the whole time you are referring to.
At least people could walk in the street without fear of getting robbed, raped and killed over 5 bucks...
Only thing that would get you killed on the street was to say loud and clear "GOVERNMENT SUCKS!".
I have to say i miss those times, compared to the bullshit i see nowadays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As usual, Mike against it because restricts corporations.
BTW: requirement of emancipation is "the minor is employed and has a legal way to make money." -- HA! How many kids is that today? It's a holdover from long ago. Nowadays kids expect to be emancipated AND still supported by parents in luxury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As usual, Mike against it because restricts corporations.
How many kids is that today?
How many kids we keep treating like kids and can't do that because we do things "for the children"??
Also, you should choose. Either Mike is pro corporations or he is against them because he wants them to sell for free. Your stupidity is showing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As usual, Mike against it because restricts corporations.
Isn't that what this bill is about?
"... reveal that personal information to parents if requested."
I need sleep as I seem to be reading everything backwards.
Good night and enjoy the week-end!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: As usual, Mike against it because restricts corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: As usual, Mike against it because restricts corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As usual, Mike against it because restricts corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As usual, Mike against it because restricts corporations.
It can be both.
[ 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 ]
Correct me if I'm wrong
This section does not refer to a parent's ability to force the site to block access to the child, but instead to the parent's ability to force the site to stop collecting, storing, and/or using the child's personal information. The other concerns raised in the article are certainly troubling (another day, another attack on anonymity "for the children"), but this one appears to have been raised by simple misinterpretation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not sure whence the outrage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not sure whence the outrage
This is the solution, not some bureaucratic nightmare. We had our computer upstairs and I put a key-logger on it. Done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not sure whence the outrage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No half-decent parent needs laws to monitor their kid's web.
In the kids house, you may have Keyloggers, restrictive firewalls, Connection monitors, Activity logs and lots of other monitoring software. Sure, your kid may be smart enough to crack a few of them, but then you just need to adapt...
If you do your job correctly, you will be able to gather information you want.
outside of the house there is nothing you can do because it is easy to remain anonymous in the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dependent Minor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dependent Minor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As someone who grew up before the internet absorbed the full attention of all the country's youth, I'm offended by the notion that cutting them back off from it is a bad thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The internet is communication and socialization with others. Did your parents have the power to completely prevent you from talking with your friends? Did your parents have the ability to monitor nearly everything you did and said to them?
As someone who grew up just as this internet thing was catching on, who was shy and somewhat of an outcast in high school, and found good lifelong friends online when I had few to relate to me in "real life", I am horrified that you cannot see how this can be a very bad thing to some children that may need the ability to socialize with others that understand them the most.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As someone who grew up before home music absorbed the full attention of all the country's youth, I'm offended by the notion that cutting them back off from it is a bad thing.
As someone who grew up before movies absorbed the full attention of all the country's youth, I'm offended by the notion that cutting them back off from it is a bad thing.
As someone who grew up before fictional novels absorbed the full attention of all the country's youth, I'm offended by the notion that cutting them back off from it is a bad thing.
And so on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how many retards does it take to run a country into the ground ? ? ?
1 president
9 el supremos
100 + 435 kongresskritters
plus the state legislatures of every state...
if we got rid of those retards, could we get some real work done in fixing this ball-o-mud ? ? ?
(the answer is 'yes', by the way...)
just read another in a series of unending idiotic stories today, where a kid got pulled out of school and punished 'cause he chewed his poptart into the rough shape of a gun... *AND* they sent a note home with all the other precious snowflakes warning the parents about if the snowflakes were traumatized by the poptart 'gun'...
world gone crazy...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the children were actually protected efficiently, there wouldn't be any more headlines about new laws to protect them, would there? Gotta keep getting your name out there if you want to get reelected. So what if a few hundred kids' lives are ruined in the process? Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
COPPA, while it was a great idea, has had chilling effects on website owners as they've effectively banned anyone under 13 from becoming a member. Those who lie about their age are effectively circumventing the rules, policies and terms of service agreements listed on those sites.
It's because governments create these laws and that they are so broad that website owners have been forced to protect themselves any liability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Children Rapture Incoming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Children Rapture Incoming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No.. because that would require even more effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course not. Emancipation would apply to all parental powers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. A parent/guardian has no ability or right whatsoever to force a minor to answer any question about anything to either themselves or an authority (be they their child/student/ward/etc).
2. A parent/guardian has no ability or right whatsoever to consent to any search of a minor in their responsibility (be they their child/student/ward/etc).
3. If a minor has genuine control over a space, be that a virtual space (cyber locker, passworded account, etc) or physical space (bedroom - as long as no adults are allowed within the bedroom without the minors explicit permission)No parent/guardian can search themselves or allow another authority to search. [Why teens should negotiate with parents and place a signed privacy notice on LOCKED door]
So with the above legal conditions a state is now wanting to destroy these inherent rights of minors within the USA.
Yeah that's going to Not cause any backlash or problems /sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The cries of "nanny state" are laughable silliness, this the the opposite of nanny state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]