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."
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"
And what about "The story of ping"?
Ages 4-8.
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
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.
Easy. You ask users for their date of birth, and then restrict features appropriately.
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...
... 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.
No shit?! Christ, you need a license just to fix a damn clogged toilet here in Massachusetts and a permit to build a fucking birdhouse, yet the 15 yo teeny bopper down the street can get knocked up by the entire football team and be a Parent-In-Waiting faster than you can say "Ooops the condom broke"...
I have no answer other than mass sterilization and special egg/sperm breeders and lots of test-tube babies... A 5 year waiting period for a child-license, requiring a mandatory 2 year training course that requires carrying RFID-tagged potatoes around...