UK Gov't: Encryption Endangers Kids. Also UK Gov't: No, Encryption *Protects* Kids

from the take-it-to-the-Thunderdome,-regulators dept

What's the greatest threat to children since the invention of contraceptives? Why, encryption, of course. Just ask (almost) anyone. FBI directors have pointed to device and end-to-end encryption as an aider and abettor in child sexual abuse. Government leaders from around the world have claimed the addition of end-to-end encryption to Facebook's messaging service will result in millions of abused kids. Others who find the chanting of "national security concerns" just isn't getting the job done have often chosen to lean on abused children to make their points (badly) about the "dangers" encryption poses.

The UK government is trying to regulate encryption into nonexistence. It doesn't have the strength of character to flat-out demand encryption backdoors so it's trying to apply indirect pressure to accomplish the same thing. Its efforts are being aided by an extremely manipulative ad campaign -- one detailed here with righteous anger by Rianna Pfefferkorn. The ad flips the script on the sanctity of the home -- one given ultimate protection from government intrusion -- turning it into a black box where evildoers are free to sexually assault children. The shitty metaphor equates a home with curtains drawn to end-to-end encryption, turning privacy into secrecy while suggesting only criminals are interested in private communications.

But encryption is good for kids, argues none other than the… UK government???

The UK data watchdog has intervened in the debate over end-to-end encryption, warning that delaying its introduction puts “everyone at risk” including children.

The Information Commissioner’s Office said strongly encrypting communications strengthens online safety for children by reducing their exposure to threats such as blackmail, while also allowing businesses to share information securely.

Huh. Well, that severely undercuts the rest of the government, which has claimed repeatedly that encrypted communications only aids criminals. The narrative is that the innocent have nothing to fear from pervasive surveillance and unsecured communications. The most innocent of all are the children, who the UK government apparently feels aren't worthy of strong device or communications security. The UK government -- the ICO notwithstanding -- is seemingly willing to feed the kids to the proverbial wolves in exchange for nominal law enforcement gains. The ICO, fortunately, is pointing out how the UK government will endanger children (as well as other at-risk groups) by regulating encryption out of existence.

“E2EE [end-to-end encryption] serves an important role both in safeguarding our privacy and online safety,” said Stephen Bonner, the ICO’s executive director for innovation and technology. “It strengthens children’s online safety by not allowing criminals and abusers to send them harmful content or access their pictures or location.”

That's the salient point that almost always goes ignored by critics of encryption: whatever holes are created for law enforcement can be exploited by bad people as well. It's not as though criminals steer clear of legislatively-mandated security flaws. They'll abuse any opening, no matter its genesis. Pretending this won't happen is an extremely popular form of denial -- one exercised loudly and repeatedly by government officials who believe security tradeoffs should only negatively affect the largest group of stakeholders: the governed. After all, if they knew what was best for the nation (and the nation's children), surely they would have been elected by now and busily foisting security flaws on their constituents.

Presumably, the ICO's input will be ignored in favor of the UK government's insistence that privacy and security are just tools of the criminal trade, rather than something that should be revered, protected, and strengthened by legislation. The fact that some criminals are getting away with something continues to irk those who seem irritated that the government is incapable of controlling everything. The Online Safety bill is just a naked power grab, brought to UK residents by legislators willing to expose their indifference for the public to everyone and their children.

Filed Under: encryption, going dark, protect the children, uk, uk ico

Birds Aren't Real, And Kids Are Not So Susceptible To Conspiracy Theories (Their Parents On The Other Hand...)

from the birds-aren't-real dept

Back in high school, I read Robert Anton Wilson/Robert Shea's Illuminatus! Trilogy back-to-back with Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum, and ended up being amused and fascinated at the intersection of conspiracy theories and pranksters. If you're unaware, both books satirize the nature of conspiracy theories. Soon after I picked up a copy of Re/Search's Pranks! book, which, to this day, is on my book shelf between a copy of the Mondo 2000 book and The Book of the SubGenius (with a copy of the tiny Loompanics yellow version of Principia Discordia sitting next to them). Soon after reading those, I got to college, and thanks to the wonders of the internet (and Usenet in particular) discovered a group of somewhat merry internet pranksters who dubbed themselves "The Flat Earth Society" -- as a purely ironic group who enjoyed the mixture of absurdity, satire, pranking, with an appreciation for the occasional conspiracy theory worth mocking (I'm still in touch with some people from that group decades later, again, thanks to the internet).

That's all preamble to note that I not only recognize, but really appreciate what's going on with a group of Gen Z pranksters, who cooked up a rather brilliant satirical conspiracy theory, better known as "Birds Aren't Real," which has been making the rounds for a while now, and only was officially "exposed" as a prank in a thoroughly delightful NY Times article last week.

The events were all connected by a Gen Z-fueled conspiracy theory, which posits that birds don’t exist and are really drone replicas installed by the U.S. government to spy on Americans. Hundreds of thousands of young people have joined the movement, wearing Birds Aren’t Real T-shirts, swarming rallies and spreading the slogan.

It might smack of QAnon, the conspiracy theory that the world is controlled by an elite cabal of child-trafficking Democrats. Except that the creator of Birds Aren’t Real and the movement’s followers are in on a joke: They know that birds are, in fact, real and that their theory is made up.

What Birds Aren’t Real truly is, they say, is a parody social movement with a purpose. In a post-truth world dominated by online conspiracy theories, young people have coalesced around the effort to thumb their nose at, fight and poke fun at misinformation. It’s Gen Z’s attempt to upend the rabbit hole with absurdism.

It seems that every generation needs this kind of thing -- and it's often driven by young folks (correctly) mocking older folks for various moral panics about different conspiracy theories. We see it again, and again. The Stuff You Should Know podcast just recently had an episode all about SINA, the "Society for Indecency to Naked Animals" which was a very similar style prank in the late 1950s, early 1960s.

In each case, these tend to be efforts by younger folks mocking this or that moral panic by older folks -- who always cloak the moral panic in a desire to "protect the children," even as the moral panics themselves seem frequently to come out of conspiracy theories or nonsense that the older folks fall for, and many of the younger folks see through. It's hard not to identify with this kind of thinking:

Most Birds Aren’t Real members, many of whom are part of an on-the-ground activism network called the Bird Brigade, grew up in a world overrun with misinformation. Some have relatives who have fallen victim to conspiracy theories. So for members of Gen Z, the movement has become a way to collectively grapple with those experiences. By cosplaying conspiracy theorists, they have found community and kinship, Mr. McIndoe said.

“Birds Aren’t Real is not a shallow satire of conspiracies from the outside. It is from the deep inside,” he said. “A lot of people in our generation feel the lunacy in all this, and Birds Aren’t Real has been a way for people to process that.”

Or as someone notes later in the article:

Mr. Gaydos added, “If anyone believes birds aren’t real, we’re the last of their concerns, because then there’s probably no conspiracy they don’t believe.”

To me, though the clear take away from this is that, yet again, the kids are alright, and will continue to be alright. And for all of the "but think of the children" moral panics we will experience over and over again, the kids will figure out ways to process and deal with those moral panics in the best way possible for them, figuring out the best ways to deal with the impossibilities of the world, and making the best of what may seem like a bad situation.

Count me as all in as saying "birds aren't real."

Filed Under: birds aren't real, conspiracy theories, pranks, protect the children, satire, social media

San Diego District Attorney Issues Warning About Dangerous Spyware She Purchased & Distributed; But Still Stands By It

from the not-the-right-response dept

Yesterday, we wrote about the EFF's investigation into Computer Cop, the dangerous spyware/keylogger that is sold to police departments and other law enforcement folks as a "perfect election and fundraising tool" because the software gets branded with local law enforcement/politicians and they get to hand it out as a tool to "protect your children" by spying on how they use their computers. The software appears to be a very crappy search system and keylogger. Any keylogger is already a dangerous tool, but this one is especially dangerous in that it transmits the log of keystrokes entirely unencrypted to a server, meaning that all sorts of information, including passwords, credit cards, etc. are transmitted across the internet in the clear. The Computer Cop website looks like it was designed a decade ago and then left to rot (as does its software): The site is so bad that the company's own address in the footer of the website spells the city wrong. The company is based in Bohemia, NY, yet the site's own website spells it Bhomeia. Yes, that's more than one letter out of place: All of this should give you a sense of what's going on here. Rather than actually "protecting children," this is a cynical money-grab by a guy who is convincing politicians to use government money to make children less safe while pretending to "protect the children."

Given the powerful expose by the EFF, you'd think that some of the folks who bought into the bogus software and distributed this dangerous spyware to unsuspecting parents might be regretting their decision. Instead, they're... still playing politics. The San Diego District Attorney, Bonnie Dumanis, didn't apologize. She did release an alert warning about the very software she purchased and promoted and distributed to parents, but then still says the software is generally good and will continue to distribute it.

In a statement, Dumanis spokesman Steve Walker said the program was still a useful tool for parents.

“Our online security experts at the Computer and Technology Crime High-Tech Response Team continue to believe the benefits of this software in protecting children from predators and bullies online and providing parents with an effective oversight tool outweigh the limited security concerns about the product, which can be fixed,” Walker said.

Walker said that the District Attorney’s Office still has a few copies of the program left and will give them to families who request it.

There don't appear to be any actual redeeming qualities to the software. It doesn't protect anyone, but rather makes them less safe while giving parents a false sense of security. San Diego (and elsewhere) deserve much better, but apparently they're not going to get it.

The "warning" that was sent out just suggests disabling the keylogger part -- and doesn't appear to take any responsibility for purchasing and promoting the software in the past. As for how much money was spent? Apparently San Diego spent $25,000 on the software:

Dumanis spent $25,000 from asset forfeiture funds — money and property seized during drug and other prosecutions — on 5,000 copies of the program for public dissemination.

Ah, so rather than being directly taxpayer money, it's just money stolen via questionable forfeiture procedures. It's hard to see how that's any better.

Filed Under: bonnie dumanis, computercop, for the children, keylogger, protect the children, san diego, spyware
Companies: computercop, eff

FTC Goes After Yelp Because Yelp Has The Audacity To Let Kids Use Its App

from the wait,-what's-the-problem-exactly? dept

For years now, we've discussed the ridiculousness of the COPPA law (the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act). The rallying cry of "protect the children!" quite frequently leads to very poor policy decisions, and COPPA (and the enforcement around it) is a perfect example of that. While there might possibly be good intentions behind the law, the practical reality is that it's a joke. It effectively places a much larger burden on any site that allows anyone under 13 to use the site. While, in practice, it's supposed to only apply to sites that are targeted to kids, in an attempt to avoid that, many sites put a blanket ban on those under 13. In our own terms of service we explicitly tell anyone under 13 not to register with our site. Our lawyers more or less insisted that we had to do this, and plenty of other sites do the same. So the end result is that kids under 13, who often should be using the internet, are told that they can't use large parts of the internet -- including sites that are useful to their education. But of course many of them still use the internet. They just lie about it. In fact, one researcher found that the only practical effect of the law is that it leads parents to teach their kids that it's okay to lie. Even worse, the FTC seems entirely unconcerned about the real impact of the law -- but prefers to insist that it's really protecting children, despite no actual evidence to support this. In fact, the FTC has even pushed to expand the law.

The FTC has now gone after its latest COPPA "violator": Yelp. According to the complaint filed against the company Yelp had the audacity to let kids under 13 register for its service via the company's iOS and Android apps. And then? Well, I assume that the very small number of kids who did so, used the app to *gasp* find reviews on restaurants and such things. The FTC complaint doesn't present any evidence of any actual harm here. Just the fact that it let a small number of kids register, and then didn't meet all the checkbox requirements of "protecting the children."

I'm honestly curious if the "consumer protection division" at the FTC thinks that kids would be better off if they were blocked from using Yelp entirely, or if they just think,"Aha, gotcha!" when they file these kinds of lawsuits?

Filed Under: apps, coppa, ftc, protect the children, under 13
Companies: yelp

Schools Ban Tag, Cartwheels And 'Unstructured Play:' The Inevitable Outcome Of Unrealistic Promises And Expectations [UPDATED]

from the the-system-suffers-from-multiple-compound-fractures dept

From the look of these stories, there's no worse place for your cherished young ones to end up than the hellish warzone of the local school. Sure, we all made it through school with a minimum of injuries or threats from Pop Tart-wielding terrorists in training, but today? Today's school playgrounds are as safe as a minefield subject to hourly bombing runs. [UPDATE: As is pointed out in the comments, Weber Middle School's ban on balls and other activities is "temporary," due to construction occuring at the school.]

A middle school in Long Island, New York has banned the playing of typical schoolyard games and the use of many pieces of athletic equipment during recess.

CBS reported that Weber Middle School this week “instituted a ban on footballs, baseballs, lacrosse balls, or anything that might hurt someone on school grounds.” The ban also includes “hard soccer balls” and “rough games of tag, or cartwheels unless supervised by a coach.”

Assistant Principal Matthew Swinson explained that "sometimes when they participate in tag they use the opportunity to give an extra push.”

The school takes pain to note that organized sports, the sort of activity that brings in extra money, are not dangerous (if you ignore concussions, sprains, broken limbs, etc.)

In a press release, the school district stated that “structured athletics” with footballs and baseballs do not pose the risk of “an errant throw injuring a child.” However, “unstructured play with hardballs" is dangerous and therefore impermissible.

This isn't an isolated event from a single, overreacting school. RyanNerd sends in this announcement from a Michigan school that tag and its derivatives are being banned from its recess periods.

On Wednesday, Oct. 2, New Groningen kindergarten teachers sent home a letter alerting parents to the policy. It described the problem of children "running in packs, pushing, knocking other children over, and making the game dangerous."

On Thursday, Oct. 3, a follow up letter was sent home with students clarifying the policy after the "no tag" rule created a bit of controversy.

"We want our children to treat each other with respect, kindness, and with safety in mind," said Ginger Smith, community relations manager for Zeeland Public Schools, on Friday.

The concern, of course, is for the safety of the children, something even members of administration note is something it can't possibly guarantee.

"We know kids are going to get injured ... but we have a responsibility to lessen injuries," said [NY assistant principal Matthew] Swinson, explaining that the children could only be trusted with spongy balls.

Yes, a school has a certain responsibility to lessen injuries, but that should only apply to objectively dangerous activities, like fighting, kids on the roof of buildings, etc. -- the sorts of activities that should already be violations of school policies. Banning activities that kids have participated in for years with a minimum number of debilitating injuries is just ridiculous. Why not just take recess and PE off the table and keep the kids restrained (possibly with three-point belts) at their desks for the entirety of the school day?

This isn't the only form of panic being indulged by hysteria-prone school administrations. Check out this reaction to a simple bus mix-up by a Canadian school (via Overlawyered).

A four-year-old Scarborough boy wandered into the wrong classroom on his first day in school, wearing the wrong nametag, and wasn’t immediately spotted. Cue panic: The police were notified, an alert went out, dozens of police with a K-9 unit turned up to scour the neighbourhood, terror spread. The little boy watched it all obliviously, until teachers spotted the mistake.

This occurred on the first day of school, a time when children wander in and out of the wrong classrooms all the time. The district's bus company shuttles nearly 50,000 kids on 1,600 routes every day and an occasional mix-up is to be expected. The police response isn't. While it's admirable that staff leapt into action to make sure all children were accounted for, it's severely undermined by its immediate decision to get the police involved.

This slavish devotion to an unachievable aim (no mistakes; perfect safety) has even managed to hamper the school's own windmill-tilts.

The driver of Alexander’s bus had a list identifying how many kids were to get off at each stop, but wasn’t allowed to know their names for “security” reasons. The bus company had considered providing photographs to the drivers, but again feared unspecified “security” concerns. Over-reacting in the approved manner, the company is now considering radio frequency identification tags that could be attached to backpacks so every child on every bus could be monitored at every moment.

No one involved knows what they're doing, blindly thrashing around towards unachievable goals while hamstrung by misguided "security" efforts. I bash school administrations frequently, but everything detailed above is not solely the fault of blundering, overreaching institutions. There are plenty of parents who should share in the blame. If schools have set themselves up as paragons of child safety, it has as much to do with parents' ridiculous expectations as it does with bureaucratic striving for complete control.

Among any grouping of parents, there will be a subset that believes no harm should ever come to their children. Those few moments when they're prevented from hovering over their young ones, they expect the next line of defense to pick up the slack -- without the slightest drop in quality. There are also a number of parents who aren't as attentive, but still believe the school should keep their kids from getting injured or misplaced and are willing to make this point through lots of yelling and legal threats. Then there are those parents who view public schools as ultra-cheap daycare, but who still believe that the schools should do a better job parenting than they do.

Somewhere in between these extremes, there are sets of realistic parents who understand that sometimes undesirable events happen, including injuries, and that no one is truly to blame unless there's evidence of a severe lapse in controls or observation. But realists are no longer the majority -- if they ever were.

The problem is that administrators have let these unrealistic demands guide their policy making. Part of it is the desire to reduce legal exposure and liability. This leads to ridiculous policy changes like eliminating "hard" objects (with no sharp corners or heavy materials) from everyday play. This leads to kids being suspended for bogus weapons policy "violations."

Parents may express disbelief that tag is no longer allowed at their school, but many of those protesting need to take a long look at their own expectations. No educator can be expected to prevent every injury, threat or harsh word from affecting these parents' children. I think most parents realize this, but when something happens to their kid, all rationality flies out the window as the psyche indulges the very common human urge to attribute blame and hold someone -- anyone -- responsible for this "crime" against their flesh and blood.

To roll back school policies to something approaching reality will take a serious effort from both parents and administration. Schools need to stop over-promising (and reacting badly when they inevitably under-deliver). Parents need to realize the only way they can protect their kids from bad things is to keep them locked up at home. Both need to cede control, especially over eventualities they can't possibly hope to have any input in.

But this is a very unlikely outcome for two reasons. No school administrator wants to roll back policies only to deal with the wrath of parents who still expect schools to provide a protective bubble for their children. Very few parents (other than the realists) want to accept the fact that their children cannot be protected from every eventuality. Because of this impasse, ridiculous policies and overreactions will continue to be the rule, rather than the exception.

Filed Under: cartwheels, education, harm, policies, protect the children, schools, tag

Every Time A State Tries To 'Protect The Children' Online, It Makes Things Worse

from the bad-ideas dept

A few weeks ago, California Senate Bill 568 was signed into law, creating a whole host of "protect the children online" provisions -- almost all of which seem short-sighted to ambiguously dangerous. The part that has received the most attention is the "online eraser." While folks like Eric Schmidt have championed the idea of being able to have teenagers erase the past upon becoming an adult, the first attempt to turn that into a law appears to be a massive failure. Law professor Eric Goldman walked through many of the problems with the law -- much of which is focused on the vagueness of the bill:

the removal right doesn’t apply if the kids were paid or received “other consideration” for their content. What does “other consideration” mean in this context? If the marketing and distribution inherently provided by a user-generated content (UGC) website is enough, the law will almost never apply. Perhaps we’ll see websites/apps offering nominal compensation to users to bypass the law.

And then there's the reality that this won't actually do much to stop any harassment, since it only lets you erase the initial posting of content, but not further copies:

The law only allows minors to remove their content from the site where they posted it; and the removal right doesn’t apply where someone else has copied or reposted the content on that site. Removing the original copy typically accomplishes the minor’s apparent goal only when it’s the only copy online; otherwise, the content will live on and remain discoverable. Given how often publicly available content gets copied elsewhere on the Internet–especially when it’s edgy or controversial–minors’ purported control over the content they post will be illusory in most circumstances.

In fact, as the folks at New Media Rights point out, this means that the bill will be particularly useless:

... odds are that the more embarrassing the post is, the more likely it was shared. The law does not require that these shared posts be hidden, which the law should not. It would be unfair to give websites the impossible task of tracking down and hiding each iteration of a post on their site or on the entire internet. However, it’s unclear if hiding the original post will make much of a difference in cases where teen’s photos are shared and used against them. For example, in New York an Ex-NFL player created a website where he shared photos teens publicly posted on social media of themselves trashing and partying in a home he had up for sale. The teens in this case were able to delete their photos, but only from the original source.

Goldman, in his piece, also highlights the First Amendment problems:

Example 1: A newspaper prepares a collection of stories, written by teens, about their first-hand experiences with cyber-bullying. These stories are combined with other content on the topic: articles by experts on cyberbullying, screenshots of cyberbullying activity online, and photos of victims and perpetrators. After the newspaper publishes the collection, one of the teenagers changes his/her mind and demands that the newspaper never reprint the collection, and seeks a court order blocking republication. Does the newspaper have a potential First Amendment defense to the court order? Yes, and I don’t think the question is even close.

Example 2: a UGC website creates a topical area on cyberbullying and asks its registered users, including teens, to submit their stories, photos, screenshots and videos on the topic. The website “glues” the materials together with several articles written by its employees. Does the website have a First Amendment interest in continuing to publish the entire collection? Yes, and like the newspaper example, I don’t think it’s close.

And the law doesn't stop there, either. In another post, Goldman also rips apart a part in the bill that tries to block advertising "bad things" to kids online. It's one of those things that sounds good, and which politicians love because it makes it look like they're "protecting the children." But as per usual, the reality is a lot more messy.

First, the law protects minors’ “personal information” but doesn’t define the term. Without a definition, the term is meaningless. We know that just about any data can be combined with other data to personally identify individuals.

Second, the law doesn’t define who is an “advertising service.” Surely it covers ad networks like Google AdSense, but do the obligations extend to other players in the online ad industry: ad serving technology providers, ad agencies, buyers of remnant ad inventory, etc.?

Third, the law restricts “specifically directing” an ad to a minor, but I have no idea what that means. The law suggests that “run of site” ads should be OK, but I’m not sure when other targeting efforts trigger the restriction.

Finally, like its online eraser counterpart, the law establishes a potentially illusory distinction between teen-oriented websites and adult websites.

Furthermore, he notes that the law itself is almost certainly unconstitutional and violates certain federal laws.

So why is it always this way? It seems that certain politicians just can't avoid trying to "protect the children online," and yet every single time they try to do so, the end result is a mess: poorly drafted laws that don't actually do anything to protect children -- and which often just create opportunities for lawsuits over perfectly reasonable activities, creating a massive waste. This knee-jerk reaction to try to regulate the internet to "protect the children" is something that really needs to stop.

Filed Under: california, eraser law, protect the children

As Russia Expands Its 'Think Of The Children' Laws To Copyright, Agency In Charge Investigated For Infringement

from the the-French-have-a-word-for-it dept

Last week we wrote about how the Russian equivalent of SOPA had been amended in order to ban swearing online. Although that was worth noting for its entertainment value, probably more important is the fact that the same law -- originally brought in to take down sites about drugs, suicide and child pornography -- has also been widened to include copyright infringement, as TechWeekEurope reports:

the law has been extended to include intellectual property, such as films or TV shows (but interestingly, not music). Under the new rules, copyright holders can contact the website and demand for illegal content to be removed, or request a court order and complain to Roskomnadzor. The website is then required to block the access to files within 3 days, and keep them inaccessible until the court decides on the case.

If the website owners refuse to comply with the order, Roskomnadzor will order ISPs to block the whole site.

This is a textbook example of how to bring in broad censorship in easy stages. First, pass new Web blocking laws "for the children", which no politician would dare object to; then, once the machinery for blocking certain sites is in place, simply broaden it to other, more contentious areas -- such as alleged copyright infringement. As the same story explains, over 1700 Russian Web sites went dark last week in protest at the new law, and 88,000 people signed a petition calling for the law to be repealed (original in Russian), just short of the 100,000 needed for the petition to be considered by the Russian parliament, so nothing much will happen on this front now.

Meanwhile, a film distribution company lost no time using the law to file against Vkontakte, Russia's equivalent of Facebook. Although the case was thrown out because it lacked certain corroborating documents, it seems likely that it will be submitted again. Others will doubtless follow suit. Amusingly, though, the body responsible for implementing Russia's extended SOPA law, Roscomnadzor, looks like it might have fallen foul of the new rules itself, as TorrentFreak explains:

The problems date back to July 9, 2013 when a technology audit at Roscomnadzor offices led officers from the Economic Crime unit and the Interior Ministry to seize five computers suspected of containing unlicensed software.

According to preliminary information from local law enforcement agencies, two of the seized computers contained unlicensed copies of Photoshop but apparently the problems don't stop there as unlicensed software from Microsoft, Corel and Autodesk was also found.

This is reminiscent of the French HADOPI body also being found to have infringed copyright multiple times. Both cases emphasize just how widespread such unauthorized use is around the world, and why harsh punishments like Web blocks are completely disproportionate when even copyright enforcement bodies find it hard to comply with the law.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: copyright, infringement, protect the children, russia, sopa

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?

Filed Under: california, children, parents, privacy, protect the children

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.

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.

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:

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.

Filed Under: coppa, ftc, privacy, protect the children, under 13

Class Action Lawsuit Says Facebook Violated The Law By Letting Kids Like Ads

from the because,-they-better-not-like-ads... dept

It appears that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Facebook for the horrible, horrible act of letting kids like ads. As TechCrunch explains:

On Facebook, you can "like" any status update or post in your stream, but you can also "like" ads. When you do so, it can appear as a status update to all your friends if that ad is linked to a Facebook page, thus turning the "like" button into a social endorsement...

The class action lawyers claim that in the case of teenagers, Facebook is "misappropriating the names and pictures of minors for profit." Facebook might say that it is in its terms of service, that's how the site works. But the lawsuit hinges on a loophole in California law which requires parental consent in order to obtain a minor's consent for using their name or likeness for an advertisement, And Facebook doesn't do that.

This seems like a clear "unintended consequences" situation. Politicians pass a law to "protect the children" from being exploited in advertisements, but it also has the potential to get in the way of really harmless activity, such as a kid clicking a "like" button on his Facebook profile.

Filed Under: california, kids, like, protect the children
Companies: facebook