Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Calls Children's Privacy Complaint Groundless
theodp writes "Eleven groups, including the Electronic Privacy Information Center and Junkbusters, filed a complaint with the FTC, asking that it investigate Amazon for violations of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. An Amazon spokesman called the complaint groundless because "Amazon.com is not a site directed at children." So what was the deal with those Amazon Press Releases for the Harry Potter Magical Candy Contest For Children Ages 6 to 13, Toy Quest Toy Design Contest For Kids 12 And Under, and the Be a Poet Contest For All Kids 12 and Under?"
Update: 04/23 23:54 GMT by T :theodp writes with an update from Ad Age which says that Amazon has "announced it has removed children's identifying information from its Web sites."
...but it's hard to fault Amazon too harshly. If you let 12 year-olds type in any form, they have the opportunity to reveal personal information. You can either completely deprive them of keyboard input, or you can attempt to screen for mistakes. I would err to the side of empowering them, and keep a sharp lookout for infractions.
A system that might be helpful (though it would detract from the number of participants) would be to require that kids typing on forms be sponsored by an adult (proven with at least a non-charged credit card number) and that adult would then receive copies of all the text the child typed at an e-mail address of choice. This would give parents the opportunity to monitor what data had got out, and shift the responsibility for properly screening it onto their shoulders, without requiring them to regularly comb through Amazon to see what had been posted.
Of course the deeper social issue of using the Internet as a babysitter and requiring that the rest of the world baby-proof the information universe is certainly worth addressing.
The Iraqi Information Minister confirms that there are in fact "NO CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 13 IN THE WORLD" and thus these complaints are groundless. "The last children were born in 1990" he continued, and stated no more would be born for at least a decade.
Perhaps it was the virus....
Amazon Tech: "We just can't get rid of this damn thing"
All those releases were dated for late 1999. The Children's Protection Act wasn't in place until 2001. Whoever submitted this article sure went to a lot of trouble to make Amazon look hypocritical.
Please protect our children from first posts!
And what about "The story of ping"?
Ages 4-8.
Not a lot of sense closing the barn door, after the horse is gone...
Presumably the company would require parental consent of some sort for underaged kids, right?
This smells like a dirty run on Amazon, FWIW.
Amazon.com can get out of this just by using their normal business strategy. Patent protecting children online. Then they can counter-sue all these groups for violating the patent.
I hope Bezos doesn't read slashdot, I don't want to give him any ideas.
Jason
ProfQuotes
eBay is also being targetted by the same complaints and investigation.
Why do I h8 apple?
Why haven't I see us taking over this? It allows page widening if you use a '_' character.
Looks like someone might be trying to short some Amazon stock for a tidy profit if they can get this in the national news for a day.
Riiight...and TRU isn't aimed at kids at all.
"Toysrus.com
Founded in 1998, Toysrus.com really gained momentum when it formed an alliance with Amazon.com in 2000. The site became an online retailing success story by more than tripling its sales and number of orders from the prior year and by giving guests a terrific online toy-buying experience. Since that time, Toysrus.com and Amazon.com have introduced two additional online shopping experiences with the launch of Babiesrus.com and Imaginarium.com."
From the zdnet article: Amazon is letting children 12 years old and younger post reviews of toy products without their parents' consent
Maybe I'm naive, but I have to ask, "How do you enforce this?"
The poster above suggests using a credit card as proof of age, but still,
1) if the cc is not being charged, how is the parent to know that it is being used for ID?
2) How is Amazon to know that the cc is or isn't being used with parent's consent?
SCO to Hell
Amazon is letting children 12 years old and younger post reviews of toy products without their parents' consent.
How dare they allow my little angels to post a toy review without my express consent! I shudder to think of how many children will have their innocence corrupted because they are exposed to speech that has not been censored by a vigilant adult.
Even worse, they may expose themselves to predators online if they are allowed to post without parental approval. You know: "My name is Jimmy and I think this toy is real neat and I live with my parents in the big red house on the corner of Mulberry Street and the back door is unlocked." That kind of thing. Perhaps we should block our children from accessing websites altogether: it's a dangerous world out there.
Well? ANYONE could be under 13.
Eat at Joe's.
So the article suggest that they company should ask for peoples ages. Now this I can see as a deterrant but if a child find that putting in under 13 redirects them to disney.com what is to stop then just signing up again and changing their age?
What I'm basically trying to say that the parents should be monitoring what their kids are doing. Treat the internet as the same the street. Don't talk to strangers or give out personal information
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
Children of ages 4-8 can't buy a book online.
This page is for parents.
A page about an Amazon contest for kids would be something else..
Easy. You ask users for their date of birth, and then restrict features appropriately.
Kids ... who needs 'em? hambug!
Valuable information above...
There is a certain amount of responsibility on the parents of said young children to know what they are doing and where they are going on the Internet. Sadly many parents are so ignorant about all this stuff that they don't have the know how to even monitor what their children do online. My daughter (who's currently in the works) is going to be supervised... and I'll likely set up a proxy of some sort so I can bust her later if she goes to playgirl.com ;)
I'm just sick of people blaming their failure as a parent on someone else.
The CNET article links to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 on the FTC site.
Amazon is CLEARLY not meant for children. What's the goal of Amazon? To sell things over the Internet. How do they charge you? With a credit card. Do children have credit cards? God I hope not. Amazon is clearly not meant for children. If children are able to get there (some place they shouldn't be) then parents aren't monitoring their kids. Once again more parents are trying to pass the blame for their own failings. This is rediculous.
Toy Quest Toy Design Contest
Sounds like the Simpsons episode where the children unknowningly design Funzo
One can ask for dob, but I don't see how you can validate it. How do you prove that the dob is not false.
SCO to Hell
The burdens such would put on Amazon.com would be impossible to meet in a cost-effective manner, without hindering adult customers who just want to use the site unhindreed.
It is not Amazon.com's job -- or anyone else's job -- to babysit your kids while you're away. Every parent knows damn well that there is the full spectrum of stuff on the internet, and leaving one's child alone poses that risk.
The right to privacy doesn't mean other people should have to spend their money and their time making sure you and your kids have privacy. Some fuck doesn't wear a condom or some bitch doesn't wear a diaphram, and now all of the sudden, the rest of us have to change our lives because of their mistake and unwillingness to accept responsibility for their children.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Parents should be responisble for what their children do. If they dont want them posting on the internet, then dont let them on. The gov should stop forcing companies to make up for parents lack of responsibility.
Half the people on this site sure do act as if they are. 50% of the people on this site will agree with me.
Check it out. If you read through some of the reviews, you'll see stuff like "I bought it for my 7 year old, but my 17 year old loves it too!"
See? Amazon stuff is for everyone, so can blame them for selling to kids too?
One can ask for dob, but I don't see how you can validate it. How do you prove that the dob is not false.
:-)
You can ask three questions (that adults can answer), just like at the beginning of Leisure Suite Larry
A dingo ate my sig...
timothy molests little boys...
whenever bad laws get applied to entities with money. This is usually the only way the laws get struck down or narrowed by the courts.
Why is this law bad? Because lawmakers can't seem to understand what can and can't be legislated. This is another law that makes about as much sense as the "evil bit" joke RFC. Just because it's a good idea to prevent something doesn't mean you can. It would be good to keep childern from playing in the streets as well, but you won't see millions spent on "you must be this tall to enter" signs.
-Ryan C.
-Ryan C.
Come on...drive down a street, any street, and open a mailbox. You'll get the last name. Watch the house. You'll see if there are kids. If you listen, you'll hear the parents call out their kid's names.
If someone is a pervert, being armed with a name and a city/state isn't going to make them do something. They're going to do something because they're a pervert, and they'll be able to get a name with no problem regardless. Come on.
This is a tough call. Amazon does have the policy that those under 18 need parental permission to use their services, but it's not exactly prominently displayed. And technically they may seem to be on the wrong side of at least the letter of the law.
On the other hand, I'm not sure how much more they could do and this seems to be a nasty ploy by the group opposing them. I'm not a big fan of Amazon, but I do think they are being unfairly targeted here.
It's amazing how much "mature wisdom" resembles being too tired. - Robert Anson Heinlein
... I find that nothing irritates my parents quite like posting my full name, age, and their credit card number to online retail sites.
/. baby.
It is much more effective than disobeying, and the odds of them finding out about my disruptive behavior are next-to-none... plus I get a major website in trouble!
Sincerely,
Johnson Doe (555-55-5555)
P.S. - Is 555-55-5555 a valid SSN? I hope not. I disavow all knowledge if there is a Johnson Doe with that SSN. You're on
This space for rent.
charge it $5 and then credit back $5.
and remind them that I have prior art.
A good option would be to make the parent filling out the consent form charge $10 toward a gift certificate they can spend however they like, but that would appear on the credit card statement as a charge to "Amazon child permission systems." Or some other such that would raise the red flag. Amazon could give away some cutesy little free games (like Frogapult) to entice the children to get their parents to bother signing them up.
I'd also include (as suggested above) the option of letting the parent pre-screen the childs posts. Essentially, at the address selected they would receive a webform that looked like a meta-moderator box, with approve, and disapprove for all the child's pending entries, and a submit button at the bottom.
This system would be imperfect of course, but the goal of making the parents the screeners is essential.
When children are under 12, views of what is appropriate vary wildly. Where I wouldn't mind my (hypothetical) 12 year old talking about a problem s/he had with a Gameboy and how helpful they were at the Victorville Walmart in getting it replaced. Others might think this is just the clue that a predator would need to know the child is sufficiently local to be worth pursuing. It's all a judgement call, that no "Offical Amazon Screener" will be able to get right with sufficient perfection to adequately shield their company from the kind of liability that would ensue if a captured stalker/abductor tells 60 minutes that he used little children's posts to track them down.
Maybe I'm naive, but I have to ask, "How do you enforce this?"
More importantly - why should I care?
If Amazon had a "pedophile" section - that might bother me. Or if there were a chat room on Amazon where people might actually be able to interact with an unsupervised 12 year old... then I might see how that is bad.
But if a kid is allowed to post up a review... I'm not seeing why the hell that matters - other than the review might suck. Even then, 12 is still pretty mature - 5 year olds... maybe even 7 year olds - but 12? Hell, that is middle school! Those are young adults.
But the truth of the matter - if you really wanted to get Amazon to care about kids on the site - make it clear to them that you would have bought the product, but you didn't because you saw that a 12 year old reviewed the product and was *obviously* unsupervised - therefore you went and bought the product elsewhere.
Then Amazon will have reason to care.
Even then, I don't see why they should have to care why some people are just insanely uptight and apparently have a lot of free time on their hands.
I would also think that a larger problem isn't the kids posting reviews, but actually buying crap.
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
The list keeps growing.....
Microsoft
RIAA
Adobe
Real
Apple / Quicktime
AOL / Time Warner
Google - See The Register
EBay / PayPal
Cisco
Corporate America
American Media - Evil news organization of the moment.
GWB
Cheyney
Ashcroft
Rumsfeld
We're running out of Good Guys aren't we? Is Stallman still one the good guys list? I lost track...
Out of curiosity, what were those three questions?
You can ask three questions (that adults can answer), just like at the beginning of Leisure Suite Larry :-)
I was gonna mention that... it was a very cool feature fairly well implemented. (Probably tongue-in-cheek, but still effective.)
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
Maybe it's just me, but I've been on the Internet since 1994, and I've seen the ever amounting increase of spam, both porn and otherwise, and lovely porn pop-up ads. Now, I use Mozilla as my browser of choice, but my sister doesn't like it for some reason and is adamant on using Internet Explorer and all of its wonderful quirks. Quite a few times I've had to come over and shut down Internet Explorer 'cause my sister was being absolutely flooded with non-stop gay porn ads.
Between the non-stop porn, the non-stop spam, and especially the mix of the two, I would never, I repeat *NEVER*, let any child of mine access the Internet under the age of 16. I don't care how much he/she/they would bitch and moan, they ain't getting on, it's just *that* simple.
My cousins weren't allowed to watch television until they were 10 and I see that had a positive influence on them. I plan on following the set trend by my relatives and not allow my child(ren) (should I ever have any) to access the Internet, supervised or not. Just way too much crap out there. Supervising them can only do so much to protect them from stuff, the only foolproof method is to ban it altogether.
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
And I would say they are right. It is a site directed at adults who may or may not be interested in buying toys for kids.
P0rn has many times been in the forefront of entertainment technology. Just do what they do.
After clicking "I agree", you have to enter a credit card number to get an AdultPass(TM)
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
but then, whats the point of leting the child order anything at all? why not just get the adult to order for the child?
there were actually more than three questions... they started out with stuff that only a baby boomer would know (like "what was richard nixon's dog's name?") and got progressively more current until your age range could be estimated.
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
The difference is that there are likely (or at least potentially) people on any street in America.
People who will see you opening the mailbox that isn't yours, people who will see you "watching the house". These aren't foolproof, but they're at least possible.
Conversely, there isn't anyone watching you troll the Amazon boards looking for kids giving away information.
To clarify: were you saying COPPA is a bad thing?
-Zipwow
I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
when i was a kid, (yes pre-internet era) if i wanted to order something through the mail out of the back of a comic or whatever. i sat down with one of my parents and got everything together (forms, envelope, stamp, and check). put it all together, and i would drop it in the mailbox. i was empowered, excited, and in just 6 to 8 weeks rewarded with the with my own mail. that is, i believe what parenting is (if a very small part).
moral (there's always a moral): if your child posts private information on a web site (or on the side of a bridge with spray paint for that matter) place the blame where it belongs, on yourself.
you want to protect your kids, you had better make sure you know where they are and what they're doing.
i'll never understand why it is there are so many things people need to get educated about and get licensed or certified in before they can do them (by law), but any couple of pinheads with functioning genitalia can make a kid... even if they are kids themselves.
They don't check the age of the user either, and according to COPPA an e-mail address is enough private information to be violation.
How about we don't hold people (or companies) responsible for things they can't control? People lie. Kids lie. It is impossible for Amazon to prevent children from posting reviews (or doing anything else). Each parent should be responsible for their own kids' behavior. Not Amazon, McDonalds, Microsoft, Michael Jordan, or anyone else.
A modern day witchhunt.
Basically, I'm scratching at this as one of these unenforceable laws out there. These laws, while well meaning: you want to protect children, but as other posters here have mentioned, you really can't shore up minor negligent parenting by technology or laws. You can legislate and enforce abuse, certainly, but unenforceable "babysitter" laws are bad for everyone. Recall the v-chip?
SCO to Hell
dont people take resposiblity for their kids anymore? seems like people want everything to made super easy for em at everyone elses expense/fun. if you cant keep an eye on your kid or are too lazy you shouldnt be a parent. why a license isnt required to be a parent is beyond me. so many morons and more keep coming....
Easy. You ask users for their date of birth, and then restrict features appropriately.
Hahahahahahaa.....
My god, man, are you trying to kill me, I laughed so hard at that I nearly had a heart attack.
They tried this back in the day of the BBS, if you wanted to access an adult area, it asked you for your birthday. Guess how many tries it took me to figure that out and get around it. A 13 year old kid may be a bag of raging hormones, but he isn't stupid. As far as most BBS's were concerned I was born in the mid 60's, and had full access to their porn pics (sure, they were usually grainy, and not too many good ones in one place, but that was enough for a horny teenager.)
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
I mean, even their toys aren't targeted toward kids.
Those releases the submitter cited are for the parents. Just because something is about kids doesn't mean it's for kids. I'm quite sure the target audience for the diaper ads in Parents magazine doesn't include my infant son.
But surely the submitter will go to heaven, for not only has he submitted a story about the abuses perpetuated on the common man by a large entity (Microsoft, Amazon, US government), he added his own attack to the submission. Well done, faithful servant. Perhaps you can also dig up some incriminating press releases at Microsoft. Better yet, attack the evil entities where it hurts...the wallet! Did you know that OSDN is "the No. 1 network for delivering visitors who have shopped for or purchased software online in the past 6 months"? Go get 'em tiger! Take down OSDN and then post your deeds here...errr...well...I'm sure we'll hear about them.
Power to the people!
It isnt about letting the child order anything. The child cant order anything.
It's about sites setting up a "fill out this form and win a free pony" to get little kids who dont know any better to supply them with all their personal data so they can do all the evil things people do with your personal data once they get it.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Or did you get your dick caught in the veg-a-matic again?
You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
By saying a business is targeting children as a market, you are saying that:
1)The business is expecting children to go to the location of that business,
or
2)Go where that business's product is located,
and
3)Purchase that product or service in response to their advertising campaign.
Now tell me: How many 10 year olds have credit cards? Amazon targets the people who are legally able to have their own credit card - ADULTS! Ok maybe 15-17 year olds get copies in their parents' names, but still...
And in response to this quote:
"The fact is that parents give their kids the means to pay for things. When a parent does that, they're in effect giving their consent to their child interacting with a Web site."
This is absolute bullshit. Posession of a credit card has nothing to do with the act of using a website. By applying that quote to ALL websites, does it then imply that parents are giving consent to their children to use pr0n sites simply because they gave their kids their credit card info? If that's the case, then those parents should be the ones accused of endangering children, not Amazon. But let's put that aside for a moment, because that is just a hypothetical.
I don't need a credit card to post to most blogs, message boards, or guest books - which is basically what Amazon's customer review feature is. If this is truly about children giving out personal information, any 6 year old that knows his/her name and address can do the same thing anywhere else.
This is simply another case of parents wanting society to raise their children for them.
6. Fill in blanks here
I could. but the lameness filter and the limits on HTML codes are to hard to get around.
Jacques Chirac, like most politicians, is far uglier in person than he is in photographs. For one thing, there's the matter of his bluntly-cut toupee, which tilts noticeably from side to side as he shifts in his chair. For another, there are Chirac's teeth, which are so badly stained they seem to be carved from a pile of dogshit. Never mind his unpleasant habit of hacking up massive gobs of phlegm, which he then expectorates into the Persian carpet at his visitor's feet. Nor his vile insistance on picking a large bloody booger out of his left nostril and placing it in his mouth, chewing contently on the noxious nugget of nose-dirt.
What year did richard Nixon become president?
Cool, thanks.. Hey, what was his dog's name?
Great, thanks ma!
:-)
But as soon as you reply, the website has disolved itself of responsibility - the website can no longer be prosecuted.
Sadly, the legal position is more important than the moral one.
I agree, with one addition. The adult "releases" the information.
No, it is the parents job to protect their children, not the rest of the world's. If a parent is going to sit a child in front of a computer and give them internet access that they can't trust to use responcibly, than anything that happens is the parents own fault and only the parents fault, not the website that the kid wondered onto that doesn't even have a solid way of knowing the age of the user.
Yes! you are eleventeen!
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
Some website what's information before they'll give you something?
Say you are 12. Boom! no more questions.
How do you prove that the dob is not false.
Easy. Do what porn sites do: ask for a credit card info. If it's valid, then you are of appropiate age. Rest assured, the information will only be used for verification purposes and no charges will be made. (* insert pop-up ad to totally unrelated site here *)
This post is listed in Top 100 Adult Sites. Click here to vote for this post.
No sig
And then what happens when the kid types those questions into google?
this shit is funny. we know you all have pedophile fantasies. otherwise you wouldnt watch anime.
Wow. America has really gone crazy. Those terrorists who the rest of the world has been living with quite sanely for centuries really got what what they wanted - a nation in fear of everything.
i am a 30-year old UK resident. just over a year ago i aspired to move to the USA but now you can keep your country 'cos its rotting from the top down.
They don't just sell babies, they sell mothers too:
Happy Mother's Day!
Free Shipping
for Mom
and Baby
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
What?! that $1000 computer I bought can't even babysit?! What's the point!
Seriously, I've thought this ever since people were upset kids were watching too much violence on TV or in computer games or seeing porn on the Internet. It's not technology's job to keep children safe (I guess when there are cyborgs having children it might be a different story...)
HTTP Status 418
Looks like a clear case of homophobia induced by fear of latent homosexuality. Give him a big shot of Xanax, nurse.
Whenever I register online, I check the "under 13" box so I don't have to fill in the rest of the crap.
Before trying to summarize the article, try reading it. It is NOT about Amazon getting the Child's information, it is about the stupid-assed kids who post their personal address in REVIEWS OF PRODUCTS. If a kid is smart enough to post reviews, but dumb enough to put his friggin address there, maybe natural selection will kick in and do it's job (with the help of some psycho-maniacs, of course).
> Easy. Do what porn sites do: ask for a credit card info
And if I don't feel like being assraped by a bank -- and every other fucker that the bank sells my info to -- I can't do anything. What, you don't have a credit card? You must be a criminal. Or a kid.
I don't currently have a credit card, and don't ever want one again, but just because every other stupid ass in the world has one, it makes my life 100X more difficult. I hate all of you! (unless you are without credit)
> How do you prove that the dob is not false.
Honestly, I'm not, but you're really gonna have to just trust me on that one.
> But as soon as you reply, the website has dissolved itself of responsibility
I highly doubt that would stand up if something truly dangerous happened. Never underestimate stupidity.
So what was the deal with those Amazon Press Releases for the Harry Potter Magical Candy Contest For Children Ages 6 to 13...
The site is not targeted at children, simply because children do not have credit cards!! These press releases are targeted at the adults to purchase these neat toys for their kids. Duh!
What is it with /.ers hating Amazon? I shop Amazon on a daily basis, and think of them as the greatest web page ever created. Whatever you've got against them, get over it. It's getting kind of old.
Speaking as a parent, I agree with you, but there's something you need to consider. A parent cannot look over their child's shoulder during every waking hour. That's why parents want technology to help them. For instance, the ability to block certain channels or certain content (by rating) on TV. This prevents parents from having to sit in the room while their child is watching TV to make sure they don't change the channel to something inappropriate. For computer games, many parents just want stores to avoid selling games with certain ratings to children. With the internet, some parents want content filtering systems that help control what their child has access to. Everything I've mentioned is already available because parents have asked for it. So in that respect, technology CAN play a role in keeping children safe.
Having said that, I feel that (based on the article) Amazon is not really in the wrong. They actively attempt to protect children by removing personal information. If they are going to be required to do some sort of credit card lookup before letting people post reviews, etc, then we'd all better look out for the ripple effect. I like Slashdot, but I sure as heck am not going to provide my credit card number just so I can type this post.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
First, the COPA, like many laws for the internet, is even a more reactionary law written by legislators who have to balance an ignorance with issues, a constituency that wants action, and corporations who want profit irregardless of social consequences. These forces result in imperfect legislation. Though it hard to fault Amazon and others for having difficulty following these laws, one wonders if the difficulties were not included by design to make.
Second, skipping to the end of the comments, it is absolutely horrible to use the TV or the Internet as a babysitter. OTOH, kids do and should be able to use both, but can't due to negative ancillary content. For example,, there are shows on TV that kids should be able to watch, but can't due to the advertising. A few years ago, in order to make certain kids shows more palatable to parents, Disney promised not to advertise movie that were not suitable for kids. Although they did keep to the letter of the promise, they did advertise toys for those movies. After all, it is one thing to lose money on a demographic that you are not even legally supposed to target, but it is quite another thing to not teach children that their purpose in life is to consume small unnecessary plastic objects.
This relates to the internet as follows. Web Sites want people to register. They want personal information, they want demographics, they want money. They want children to register not only because children are a key demographic, but also because they want these children to be grow up into adults that are comfortable giving personal information to any fly by night web site. If these children have to ask their parents about registering, then the odd parent might give the child a lecture about the dangers of passing personal information to strangers, and, to the detriment of free enterprise, the child might develop a sense of privacy.
So, due to the fact that most sites want to collect a lot of informaion about the users, there are few sites that are actually safe for children. They could be made safe by just enforcing some common sense rules. For instance, your idea of credit card verification for Amazon use would actually make a lot sense. Amazon is in the business of selling stuff, and therefore should want to maximize the number of actual adults on their site that can actually buy stuff. Such a system would nto affect the browsers, andlikely create better content and reduce the possibility of review stuffing.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I understand your point of view, but many parents - especially those who don't purchase much online - don't trust the internet for secure commerce. I know that this involves amazon.com, but even if "little Petey" is entering a free contest on amazon, his parents might be ok with that, but not with giving their credit card info. Perhaps they don't shop online.
[sig]www.masterslate.org[/sig]
Assuming you're not joking, I see three problems with this:
I don't want to give away my CC# to every site on the internet and risk losing money, just so some irresponsible parents don't have to do their job.
Except that those questions are now dated. Most 20-somethings today have difficulty answering those questions because they were in their early teens when the game (and the questions) came out.
12? Man.... I was BBS'ing at 8, and I already knew that I shouldn't be giving out too much info, especially not to creepy people acting over-friendly.
An option could be to require sites that allow children to submit information to have that information moderated by some sort of government committee approved moderator with some special license/certification.
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
They're for PARENTS. The only people who can use Amazon are people with CREDIT CARDS, and that rules out most anybody even close to being protected by COPPA.
Please help metamoderate.
That's what the little check box on all those web sites is for. Now that I think about it, those under 18 can't even enter into legal agreements (isn't that what the check box represents?), so a 12 year old child can check the box, lying and incur no penalty when he or she lied, since the contract is null and void.
LOL...A vibrating broomstick.
A parent can work to instill their values in the child to the point where they do not NEED to look over their child's shoulder every waking hour. My parents managed quite well, and I didn't stray very far from what they taught me until I was in college and adult enough to make my own choices. I hope that I can do as well with my son.
I have little sympathy for the point of view that as a parent you don't want to spend your time watching TV with your children, you don't want to be around when they're surfing the net, etc. There are plenty of simple straightforward ways to be present enough to reinforce your values with your children (computers and TVs go only in the public areas of the house, for one big example). If you think your child needs a nanny to make sure they're where they belong, then you better be that nanny, or hire someone who can be one, instead of fooling yourself that they aren't going to be smart enough to foil whatever technological blocks you put in their way.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
I never thought I'd see his Law invoked in a discussion of online bookselling...
Freedom: "I won't!"
http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/36f3b2ee954f0075852 568c100630558/ed1c5274f1bc8a9f85256ce2006a1858?Ope nDocument=
That's why parents want technology to help them. For instance, the ability to block certain channels or certain content (by rating) on TV. This prevents parents from having to sit in the room while their child is watching TV to make sure they don't change the channel to something inappropriate.
Speaking as a non-parent, I'll wager that your channel lockout feature does little to protect your kids against violent imagery. The reason is that violence in video games is fairly harmless, because kids are fairly good at seeing things in context. The thing that you have to watch out for is the news. It doesn't put violence in much context that a kid can understand, and it potrays things as real (they are, just not very common). This makes the kid think that the bad things he sees are happening somewhere close to him, instead of Iraq or Syria.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
OK, maybe not like they need food and love but like it or not, the internet is part of modern western society and blockading your kids from it is unwise. For starters there's a good chance they'll HAVE to use it for school, in which case they'll just have to use it _at_ school, whether you like it or not. On a more general note, it's a wonderful source of diverse and fascinating information, and the sooner your kids learn to use it effectively (eg. learn to filter the crap and cross-check the facts), the more they will get out of it. Banning them from it smacks of laziness, to be honest - you wouldn't make them stay indoors all the time because it's easier to keep track of where they are, would you?
Oh, and as a long time internet user, I've NEVER encountered porn unless I was looking for porn. Except one time when I was looking for warez, and trust me, if your kids are _looking for_ warez and porn on the internet, that's a whole other kettle of fish you'll have to talk to them about. But keeping them away from www.nationalgeographic.com won't help.
Freedom: "I won't!"
didn't the entire "taking responsibility for the rest of the family's actions" thing kind of phase out somewhere in the past 200 years or so??? why do you see this as such a good thing?
why should parents have to be responsible for their children? parents main goal is to ensure that thier children are surviving and can either adapt to the world arond them or are strong enough to survive in a world not yet adapted to : the job of parents is not to "adjust their children to fit in with society," lest they be held accountable for such rebellious actions...this would be not only against evolution[and thus doomed to failure of your genepool]...
parents should be responsible to the extent that they are directly involved. if they are in no way involved with something...they shouldn't be responsible[ie, if i start burning & pillaging small towns, my parents should not be held responsible...etc ]. unless you are going to draw a line in the sand somewhere and tell me that there is a definite age when "kids" are "adults" and their parents are no longer responsible for them... but even with this...the kids would be a lot better off if they were responsible. imagine! you, as a kid, go out, and break some corporate...say macdonalds...windows with bricks. you are going to have to pay for those windows, as you are obviously not yet able to flee the country. this act of paying will give you a clear idea [whatever it may be] of how the world works[that it isn't a freeride, someone somewhere has to pay for broken things, its a lot of effort to do anything big, fun will bite you in the end...and of course the golden rule: don't get caught], etc. either way whether you in the future would throw bricks or not --- this would have an effect on this descision[unlss you were too intoxicated to remember...]
parents should defend thier children, and give them the tools to survive, adapt, or overcome. nothing more, nothing less.
nevermind that but it's way to strong. my great grandfather appears to have denounced his family. my grandfather i think had issues with him. my dad was a hippy[ie not exactly got along well with his 'square' parents] and then theres me, some sort of cyberpunk-too-late-freak-beyond-words that for years just didn't get along with my family. do you think it's genetics, perhaps, that no one, in generations on my male side of my family has been able to get along with their parents???? i think it could be. this would mean that it is possible that *nothing* my parents could do[short of a [late]abortion] could prevent me from doing whatever it is that i'm going to do, whether this be murder, selling drugs, mass genocide or ripping mp3z. they should not be held responsible for something they have no control of[and havn't for some time]. it'd be different if i were ripping mp3z with a family computer or something but this isn't exactly what your implying, i think...
and while i do think that parents should be more involved , generally, with their children, i think there is a limit somewhere...and this sort of thinking would push most parents far beyond this limit to the sort of 'grounded for life, chastity belt and all... you aren't leaving this basement until you are 35, and your not having sex until your 40' sort of thinking that i'm afraid will ruin many more young men and women to come...
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
That doesn't always work. When I was a kid, an older person once tried to show me how the age protection thing on LSL worked... when the questions popped up, I knew the answers to all of them when the person I was with didn't know two of them. Certainly not foolproof if a younger person just happens to know the answer to the particular trivia question asked.
davidh
"I was gonna mention that... it was a very cool feature fairly well implemented. (Probably tongue-in-cheek, but still effective.)"
Not really... Whenever I wanted to play it, I'd just get my dad to answer the questions for me :-)
My dad never told me the objective, though. I realized it at about the same time as I started understanding what's so funny about finding virgins in St. Mary's girl school...
I also used to get my dad to type "Press don't push button" in SQ1, because I couldn't type fast enough and Roger would land safely.
Man, that was funny at the time... They don't make my sense of humor like they used to.
My Sig: SEGV
As much as I hate to quote Americas favorite ex-first-lady; "It takes a whole village to raise a child." (which I think she was quoting from someone else)
This is a very true quote. It is society as whole's responcibility to do whatever they can to look out for the children. This means EVERYONE has to look out for EVERYONE ELSE's children, for the good of society. Children are the future, not just the genetic future of the parents, but the future of all of America.
So, as a member of American society, Amazon, and all other entities (private or no) are obligated to do what they can to protect children.
IMNSHO those who feel that the protection of children lie ONLY on the parents, are guilty of some of the greatest egotism possible.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Ad Age: A day after consumer groups accused Amazon.com of violating federal children's privacy laws, the company announced it has removed children's identifying information from its Web sites. Amazon said it never intended to disclose the information, and that the children who were identified online had bypassed steps intended to list their comments anonymously. The children, who are 13 and younger, had revealed their e-mail and home addresses in reviewing toys on the online retailer's toy-shopping channel. "The information was information supplied at the instigation of children," said Bill Curry, a company spokesman...
and I didn't stray very far from what they taught me until I was in college
And then what, you became an alcoholic, crack snorting soddomite?
--I don't want the world, I just want your half.
Part of the problem is making those restrictions apply well beyond reasonable bounds because parents don't want to have to watch their children all the time. As a result a 16 year-old can drive and have sex (in most states) but cannot: buy an "M" rated videogame, watch an "R" or "NC-17" rated film, purchase pornography or most sexual devices. It's all too common to set age restrictions on minors designed to protect them, but go overboard on them.
Likewise as much as parents want to protect and benefit their children it is only right and acceptable for them to go so far. Minors have absolutely no political power, but frequently things are done to them "for their own good". At a certain point parents don't have the right to control their children even if they are below the age of majority.
sorry, couldnt find a page which had all the optional answers... anybody?
Does he/she/it really think that Amazon solicits purchases directly from 6 year olds? I mean, who buys their toys...? Their parents. For Christ's sake...
Loading...
Assuming you're not joking
;-)
...there go my aspirations as a stand up comedian...
Kids will just "borrow" their parent's CC, and it won't do much to stop them
Yup, and those parents will have bigger problems that privacy concerns.
If the person/company operating the site is "unsavory", they will find a way to charge you money. Often without your knowledge
Just like them Nigerian scam emails. Always distrust by default. There are several age verification systems in the Internet. A site that claims to use your cc for that purpose is most likely up to no good.
No sig
Funny this, they are available at Al Lowe's own site.
I stopped going to church, I experimented with drugs and alcohol but didn't kill myself or anyone else, I had more sex than I otherwise would have, though in retrospect not as much as I could have. Why does it matter? The point is, it is possible as a parent, even as two working parents (as mine were), to instill your values into your child sufficiently to help them protect themselves against the things you feel they should be protected against. It takes work to accomplish, no questions and not to lessen the effort, but it's not the impossibility "without government assistance" that many seem to want to act like it is. It's only impossible if you treat your kids like a part-time job.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
I'm always hoping natural selection will do its job on those who can't spell "its". Unfortunately, you dolts breed like rabbits.
A parent cannot look over their child's shoulder during every waking hour.
When I was a lad of 15 I would take out my dates to movie theatres near whoevers home was closest and unoccupied. We would go in. Pay for the tickets and leave about 5-10 minutes later and go to the empty house. We would then do things that our parents would have been absolutely mortified over. Such as sex. Now at age 36 I know that my kids may do this. Even if you think they are doing the right things like movies they may not be and as stated cannot be watched all the time.
A parent has to educate a child and give them the facts and the negative issues involved and then hope for the best when the child is not in their sphere of control. The government should not be required to take away the personal responsibility of a parent to raise their child.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BF
we don't want ya here anyway ya limey lobsterback tea sippin bloody pansie
now off with ya and shove ya finger up ya bum old bean!
Yes and that sucked for us that are not americans. I doubt that most of the adults here (sweden) could answer it correctly, but luckily there was a cheat (ctrl-x?) :)
A parent can work to instill their values in the child to the point where they do not NEED to look over their child's shoulder every waking hour
You are right of course but you are also letting your ideology get ahead of your common sense. There is no reason why parents should be forbidden aids that help them manage the technologies they and their children use. I may leave my 7 year old watching "Liberty Kids" on PBS while making diner - but he also knows how to change the channel and likes to think of himself as a "big boy" that can watch the "scary" (violent) shows - Of course watching some of those "scary" shows not only undermines the values I was trying to teach but also leads to a miserable night of dealing with nightmares. You realize how jaded we are to images of violence when you see an innocent react to those same images. You and I see an actor pretending to get killed, we have a very firm grasp that it is "all pretend"... to my son it is MUCH more real. I wouldn't want my child to see a real murder, I don't see why letting him watch Zoom by necessity involves the risk that with the push of one button he could watch a convincing recreation of one. I don't see why *my* using a technological aid to guard against that risk is somehow a violation of *your* rights.
I have no children. Why is it my responsibility to help raise someone else's snot-nosed little brats. When I have children, it will be my responsibility, and that of their mother, to raise them, and no one else's.
There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
I'm not talking about a child old enough to be good at making decisions. I'm talking about a child who's still young enough that they can't even decide what they want for breakfast. My three year old can use the remote control to change channels, but I don't necessarily want him changing the channel and watching the scary parts of "The Mummy" while I'm in the bathroom. I enjoy spending time with him during the day but not all night while he's screaming from nightmares.
I have little sympathy for the point of view that as a parent you don't want to spend your time watching TV with your children, you don't want to be around when they're surfing the net, etc.
I very much resent the assumption you've made about how much time I spend with my children, as you know very little about me or my family. My wife and I spend tons of time with our kids, and quite frankly there is very little TV involved. However, there are times when we have to leave the room for five minutes to do something. It's also healthy for the child to be left to make his/her own decisions within a controlled environment.
When my children are old enough to defeat whatever technological blocks there are, it's time to stop using them. At that point, we have to hope that the values and good judgement we have taught have been well-learned.
You made a point that you feel your parents did a good job of instilling values in you. Unfortunately, your immediate criticism of my habits without any knowledge of the details doesn't seem to support that. Perhaps you were speaking "in general" about parents who don't want to spend time with their children, and I shouldn't have taken what you said personally. If so, I agree wholeheartedly. If you don't want to spend time with your kids, don't bother having them in the first place.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Perhaps you need to review what I've said and point out where I said that parents should be forbidden such aids, instead of assuming that you can infer my "ideology" through one or two short posts to slashdot.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Yes, I was speaking about parents in general. My apologies for not making that clearer. I do honestly think that if you need to worry about your kid flipping the channel to The Mummy, perhaps you ought not leave the remote there for him to grab while you go to the bathroom.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
A while ago, I remember seeing some news specials about teen and preteen girls who get strangers to buy them gifts from their public Amazon wish-lists. There was also an article about it on Salon Candy From Strangers . I don't think Amazon is targeting underage girls to do this, but those girls have sure figured out how to exploit it. I wonder if giving users the ability to send presents to kids, if the kids' names and addresses are hidden violates a security policy. Its kind of scary.
Perhaps you need to review what I've said and point out where I said that parents should be forbidden such aids
Then what was the point of your post? The original poster was essentially agreeing that the parents not technologies job to protect their children but also thought it would be nice if tools were available that helped the parent out. Your response was that you had "no sympathy" with a parent who doesn't "want to spend your time watching TV with your children" a fine sentiment but one already addressed by the original post. If it is your opinion that such parental controls are OK but no substitute for parental involvement you could have said so and from what I read the original poster would have agreed wholeheartedly. Instead you merely reiterated the point he made in the first sentance as though it was a criticism of his position.
I will grant you that you may think such technological aids are unnecessary and a bad idea without wanting to limit a parents access to them - I was inferring a position you did not state. In my defense the argument you make is usually made in this forum by those opposing the addition of such parental controls to TV or computers because of overinflated fears of "censorship". Although you were making the first point in this common argument it was unfair of me to assume that you would go on to make the second point (that we should oppose the addition of such parental controls whenever and wherever they are proposed). The vehemence of your (IMO unfair) criticism of the post you were replying to led me (unfairly as well) to assume it was motivated by that ideologically inflated fear of "censorship."
I object to federal legislation that mandates that all libraries have to have stupid useless filtering software, that mandates that v chips must be installed in every TV, etc. What set me off was the commonly bandied about "A parent can't spend every waking moment over his child's shoulder" which is used to justify all manner of government nannyism. Whether GreyPoopon intended it that way or not, that is the most invidious means of the "it's for the children" crowd to take my rights away, both as an individual myself and as a parent. I do not have any objection to such capabilities being offered as an option, or, for the library example, if a given community wants to use them, but please spare me the stuff about not being able to be your kids' constant overseer; that doesn't justify federal involvement in any of these issues.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
and I'm hoping natural selection takes out assholes like you who think correcting grammar is a valid rebuttal. I accidentally put an apostrophe once, oh my fucking god the world is going to end! Are you going to sue me because that was a runon sentence? get a fucking life.
i hope your kids prosper. it would make the world a better place :D.
..etc
sorry ifthis is choppy this is my first slashdot post from my newlyl installed first-time-in-use-linux :D
in the meanwhile i'm sorta agreeing - except on one point.
a lot of people, specifically in the psychology feilds tend to view the damage done in the first 10 years of life to the potential-to-grow or whatever more or less complete. i dissagree. while trends tend to be reinforced unless counteracted, it is to me very feasible that one could, from 8-16 completely change a kid around[to something, not necessarily something better] from where the kid came from. and then after that, ditto 16-24. it'd like to further highlight the : this may or may not be a positive change : should there even *Be* a positive out there, but either way i think half a life of X whatever X is can completely undo everything...if met with enough force.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.