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.
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.
And what about "The story of ping"?
Ages 4-8.
Not a lot of sense closing the barn door, after the horse is gone...
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
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."
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.
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...
Parents should be responsible indeed. Even when your kids shoot up their highschool. If parents (and yes, I *am* a parent) had to take responsibility for their kids actions, and that meant consequences for their kids actions, parents would pay a LOT more attention and be a LOT more involved.
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.